What??????

 https://winteryknight.com/2026/09/28/new-study-belief-in-gender-ideology-linked-to-justifying-political-violence/

 

Show of hands, who is surprised by this finding? 

Day 9

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E9kKmijsN/

" 

Abortion Arguments Series: Day 9 of 10

"You don’t have a uterus, so you don’t get an opinion."

Almost every argument we’ve examined so far has been about the child or the mother: biology, rights, personhood, and the law.

Then comes today’s category. It drops all pretense of discussing the child or the science. It is entirely about disqualifying the speaker.

“No uterus, no opinion.” “Mind your own business. How does her pregnancy affect you?” “This is really about controlling women.”

Different phrases, same move: don’t engage the argument, disqualify the person making it.

Let’s take them apart.

Start with the obvious history: Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 by a Supreme Court of nine men. Seven of them were in the majority. I have never once heard “no uterus, no opinion” applied to the men who legalized abortion nationwide.

Notice that pro-choice men are never told to sit down. Nobody tells a male senator sponsoring an abortion-rights bill to stay in his lane. Nobody tells a male celebrity tweeting his support that his body isn’t involved. The rule only appears when a man disagrees, which means it was always about silencing opinions you don’t like.

Second, millions of pro-life women exist. Go to any pro-life march or pregnancy center and you’ll find women leading, organizing, and speaking. Polling has never split cleanly by sex; the gender gap on abortion is tiny compared to gaps across religion or party. Are those women disqualified too? Are they “misogynists”?

Third, we reject this standard everywhere else in human rights. If you must personally experience an injustice to oppose it, then men can’t oppose female genital mutilation. Women couldn’t have views on the military draft. And white abolitionists should have stayed silent about chattel slavery.

Furthermore, "How does it affect you?" isn't a principle anyone actually holds.

Nobody tells a straight person advocating for marriage equality that it doesn’t affect them. Nobody tells a man at a domestic violence rally to go home. These same people shouting “no uterus, no opinion” turn around and praise people who speak up for others; they have an entire vocabulary of “allyship” around the duty to care about harms that don’t touch you.

The question only works if you assume there is no one else affected. If an unborn child is an innocent human being, asking "how does it affect you?" makes as much sense as asking why a neighbor cares about child abuse across town. It doesn’t touch you directly. That’s why we have laws.

The accusation underneath all of this is that pro-lifers just want to "control women."

But if that were true, the movement wouldn't be led overwhelmingly by women. It wouldn't spend its resources on diapers, formula, and housing assistance.

Furthermore, the law already reaches men when the child's life is at stake.

Federal regulations for teratogenic medications like thalidomide legally mandate barrier contraception for male patients (even those with vasectomies) and ban sperm donation to protect the unborn.

When a Texas man secretly poisoned his pregnant wife's drinks with abortion pills, the state charged him with injury to a child.

The law knows there is a second party affected. It isn't trying to police a woman's body; it intervenes because an innocent human life is on the line.

Notice what none of these slogans say. None of them prove the unborn child isn't a human being. They just attack who is asking.

The question was never who has permission to speak. It’s whether that child is one of us."

Day 8

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EtMwfhsUZ/

" 

Abortion Arguments Series: Day 8 of 10

"You’re not pro-life, you’re just pro-birth. You don’t support X, Y, Z social program so you only care about them before they’re born"

I imagine most of you have heard this one:

"You fight for the baby until it's born and then you’re done. You don't support paid leave, childcare, or healthcare. You won't foster. If you actually cared about children, you’d fund the programs that help them. Until then, spare me the speeches."

It’s one of the few arguments in this debate aimed at the speaker instead of the unborn child. It’s an attempt to disqualify the messenger rather than answer the message.

Yet underneath the anger, the critic is admitting something vital: children are vulnerable human beings who deserve real care and protection. That’s common ground worth taking seriously.

So let’s face the charge honestly.

First, the claim that pro-lifers abandon mothers after delivery is simply false.

More than 2,700 pregnancy resource centers operate nationwide. They have long been estimated to outnumber abortion clinics by roughly three to one. In 2022 alone, these centers provided an estimated $367 million in free services and material support such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, diapers, formula, clothing, parenting classes, and other help for mothers and families.

On personal generosity, the data is just as clear. Barna found that practicing Christians (who form the base of the pro-life movement) are more than twice as likely to have adopted as the general population: 5% compared with 2%. They are also more likely to foster or adopt.

And I don't need a survey to know this movement opens its homes. I was adopted. My sister was adopted. My wife and I adopted our son. Growing up, my parents opened our home to foster children for years.

I’ll own my imperfections as an advocate, but I will not accept the slander that this movement abandons children once they draw their first breath.

Second, look at the structure of the logic.

Suppose the caricature were 100% true. Suppose I had never given a dollar, never adopted, and voted against every social program. The conclusion does not follow that:

"You don't support enough social programs, therefore it's acceptable to end the child's life."

We would reject that logic anywhere else. You don’t have to personally foster three teenagers to believe child abuse should be illegal. You don’t have to volunteer at a soup kitchen to believe assaulting a homeless person is a crime. We never demand that someone solve every hardship in a person’s life before they are allowed to say: "You cannot kill them."

The wrongness of an act doesn't depend on the personal virtue of the person pointing at it. If a thief says stealing is wrong, that's still a correct statement.

Third, run the test that cuts through the noise…

Whenever someone argues that abortion is justified because of severe hardship, ask one question:

Would that same hardship justify ending the life of a two-year-old?

A mother of four facing eviction, lost wages, and sheer exhaustion has a devastatingly real crisis. But would anyone suggest ending the life of one of her existing toddlers to solve it?

Of course not. You’d say: that family needs urgent help. We’d never say: that child’s life should be ended to spare the family the burden. Which means the hardship was never the real reason.

Finally, ask the question that really exposes the distraction:

If you got every single program you wanted–universal childcare, paid leave, expanded healthcare, housing support–would you then support protecting unborn children?

I’ve asked it many times. Most critics say no.

And that tells you everything. The absence of government programs isn’t why they support abortion. If having all of them wouldn't change their mind, then lacking them isn't the reason they hold it.

Having said that, here’s the part of the objection I’ll gladly agree with: women in crisis pregnancies need vastly more support than they are receiving.

As Frederica Mathewes-Green famously observed, a woman seeking an abortion is often like an animal caught in a trap, willing to gnaw off its own leg just to survive. Nobody chooses that out of casual convenience; they walk in because they feel cornered and believe nobody is standing with them.

But that doesn’t mean the woman is sentenced to a lifetime of suffering or the child to a lifetime of being unloved.

In fact, the landmark Turnaway Study followed women who sought abortions but were denied because they were past a clinic’s gestational limit. Five years later, 96 percent of the women who gave birth no longer said they wished they had obtained the abortion.

So let’s do both: support the mother and protect the child.

Just don't pretend that an imperfect safety net gives anyone the right to end a life."

Well…

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ddwop6Cs_pk/?stkn=MTVuYWIzZDE1ZWFyNg==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcUBgRtO4ec/?stkn=MWE0NzZiNXB4bXd3dQ==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ddk9B_QyGsf/?stkn=MWsxZDljYWx1N204dg==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc927Q-NO48/?stkn=MTUwMXFpZ3N3ZXBoaA==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DduFM3eguLJ/?stkn=MXBkZjd6cWgwNmk4MQ==

Brakes Can Be Good

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdoRTnLz9yM/?stkn=MWgycnVlMDh3M3Y4ZQ==

Truth

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdmuuA7z2ys/?stkn=ejZueDZpOGM3dnNu

This rings True for others as well.  

Freedom

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdwUCT1D9wK/?stkn=eWUzYjZkZnliM21r

In deep blue MN, this is what we get.   

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdH1JDFjZ-P/?img_index=1&stkn=NW9sOXlsZzhsc2cw

Also what we get for giving “free” stuff to rich folks.  

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdsGK9guUzs/?stkn=MXJ3eTAybjQxdzBpMA==

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdEmQeUlrHf/?stkn=ZDZpYmw2Z3MxeWxv

https://x.com/mnhd3bgop/status/2103677058572243028?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdwyThDNjCr/?stkn=bjZsczE1eDBqeWtr