|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it appears that this kind of news story is one of the few types that does get anyone's attention (concerning the feminist ongoing attack on men).
Why? Because it is initially "picked up" for its obvious "violence against women" component.
The media has been trained to pick up stories that show women being wronged - in any way, and to ignore men being wronged - in any way.
However, in this story we have an example of a woman and unborn child being subjected to violence because a man has been wronged.
This is tricky for the media.
They want to use it as a sound-bite to emotionally manipulate the women, but also avoid any analysis which will show that the man was pushed into this position by covert matriarchal politics. Unfortunately, I believe they will accomplish this task, but there will be cracks in the sound-bites that some will see through.
It will worry some people who would have otherwise ignored it.
I am not trying to justify what the man did - it was obviously very wrong and extremely sad. But if we are to prevent things like this happening in the future, we need to dismantle the feminist created web of man-hatred that caused it.
This translates into "giving" men reproductive rights, ending female fraud (concerning who is the father of her child), ending the persecution of men by "family" courts (feminist kangaroo courts) and many other things.
No-one in the mainstream media has the courage to even begin to discuss these things. They stick to the PC format for the usual reasons which are: fear of retaliation by the feminists; and money.
Unfortunately, many more things like this are likely to happen because feminist infiltrators have been operating in the areas of politics, law, the media, and education for many years now - and they are getting more and more powerful.
One other thing that should be mentioned is that the feminists themselves will use this as an example of men's "violence against women" and will actually try to use it to increase their power and intensify the very things that caused it to happen in the first place. They will do this with no regard whatsoever for the violence, deaths and just plain misery that they will cause.
Politics - as usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case "politics - as usual" includes sidestepping the question of why it's murder if one person does it and health care if a doctor does.
The man is certainly guilty of assault on the woman. But how can he be charged with murder? Can you murder a body part? Or as Scott says, a "choice"? Or are we saying that denying the woman a choice is the equivalent of murder?
Really bizarre!
Just one of the more brazen inconsistencies we embrace in the name of political correctness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just for the record, the reader who goes by the alias "Not PC" was the one who wrote the article blurb in italics, not me. My comments followed the italicized text.
Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.J. echoed my thoughts with his comments above. I was set to wondering, what are Arkansas' laws regarding abortion? Certainly what this man did was heinous and he should be in jail for hiring someone to beat up his girlfriend. I also can't condone this because although I think that abortion is here to stay, I don't think it's right.
Nonetheless, I'm very analytical and a stickler for consistency, especially in law. So I want to know just exactly how do they get their legal minds around the idea that a fetus can be "murdered" when it dies in a violent criminal act, but cannot be murdered when it is aborted by a physician? I mean, one either feels pain and revulsion when an unborn child—or a clump of cells, depending upon your viewpoint—is killed or one doesn't feel anything. One either considers this thing a child or one doesn't. How the hell can one consider it sufficiently a "person" to be murdered in one instance but insufficiently a "person" so that its death doesn't matter in another instance?
Why is it that when people go nuts and start shooting at everyone, they never kill lawyers? Sheesh. <--- (joke) ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever your views on abortion, this is a clear case of a fetus having protection under the law, a complete contradiction to current abortion rights.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
