All that matters to radical feminists is that you are pro-unrestricted abortion

Despite the facts that Anthony Weiner is a major liar, texted R- and X-rated comments and pictures of himself to many women even though he is married and his wife is expecting, exercises spectacularly bad judgment (did it occur to him that any political enemy could fake an identity to bribe or embarrass him?), “feminists” still support him completely because he has a 100% rating from NARAL (the pro-abortion group).

Here’s one of many examples from Liberal feminists blow off Weiner sex scandal – Jill Stanek.

In situations like these, I think feminists are in a bit of a hard place. As women, we’re sort of grossed out and annoyed by the fact that he would send anyone a (hopefully solicited) picture of his junk, but ultimately, I think we realize that it’s just another part of the role that patriarchy has created for men….

There is the bigger issue at hand, here…. Anthony Weiner is a progressive beacon in a House of Representatives full of a bunch of Tea Party wackos – we need him there.

Weiner has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, a history of voting for women’s issues, LGBT issues, and just progressive politics in general. Again, progressives and women need Rep. Weiner in the House.

Just like with Bill Clinton, Weiner can violate every standard that real feminists would consider foundational and still have the support of the radical feminists — as long as you are pro-legalized abortion with zero restrictions (including partial-birth abortion and parental notification).

I hope that most women will rise up and tell these “feminists” (who support legal gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason of being female) that the pro-aborts don’t speak for them.

10 thoughts on “All that matters to radical feminists is that you are pro-unrestricted abortion”

  1. seeing how he apologized for his indiscretions, i consider it my christian duty to pray for him, forgive him and give him another chance.


    1. Another chance to what — abuse his power? Using your logic you would never put a murderer in prison. I’m not sure you understand the model of biblical forgiveness. God forgives us if we trust in Jesus, but we may still have earthly consequences for bad behavior.


  2. I don’t think that forgiveness means “no consequences”. If forgiveness meant “no consequences”, then drug addicts who come to Christ (definitely forgiven) would cease to suffer the consequences of their choices. If forgiveness meant “no consequences”, then when someone like Daumer proclaimed Christ from prison, he should have been released without penalty. “I forgive you” does not require “no consequences”.


    1. Consequences aren’t inherently vindictive. Not forgiving people when you can, is.

      As pro-lifers, we understand that the ‘consequences’ of sex are not a punishment; it is a simple cause-effect relationship. That certainly doesn’t mean that we want people to suffer, or women to spend nine months throwing up and in aching pain, but, again, cause and effect principles apply. Likewise, if you murder someone, we aren’t going to throw on you on the torture rack or burn your feet off to be mean,but consequences mean that you’ll have to go to jail – even if you are forgiven your crime.

      I agree with you, Stan. Just adding that the “liberal” world view seems to be about avoiding the logical consequences (i.e. a result, not the punishment) of one’s actions. If your teacher forgives you for not studying hard enough for a test, she’s still not going to give you an A on it; you’ll get the grade you studied for. Same thing applies in other areas of life.


  3. I wonder if the culture would be more open to Peter Singer’s ethic of being able to kill babies after they are born up to a certain age, if we started calling infanticide “post-natal abortion”?

    With the undying support for convenience abortion, I’d be willing to bet it’s coming.


  4. Does it not occur to these Women’s Studies educated ladies that Weiner probably supports abortion for his own good, not the good of women?

    No philanderer, especially a powerful one, wants a mistress to show up pregnant and demanding child support. It’s doubly worse if the aforementioned mistress is more than twenty years his junior. A man who is that callous towards women’s sexuality isn’t going to care much about their bodily autonomy, but very much will care about how the birth of a child will hit his pocketbook and affect his career.

    Can’t these people use common sense?


    1. Does it not occur to these Women’s Studies educated ladies that Weiner probably supports abortion for his own good, not the good of women?

      Exactly! Have you noticed Feinstein et al choking on their words? They want to say that the Democrats are the “party of women” but that really just means “pro-abortion.” They’d love to whale on Weiner but can’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s