Adjusting Parental Notification

Hmm. So Jill Stanek can take a perfectly good representation of Catholic virtue and mock it via photoshop. I am completely outraged:






I guess that means I can fairly show you what Jill would look like if her odd ball band of quasi-feminists have their own self-loathing ways:


That picture was chosen simply because I know that the following are true:

-When you compare Christian fundamentalists to Muslim fundamentalist, they immediately wax like it's 1201 and rush to Innocent's Vatican for a Crusade against you.
-If you don't have a thing for snark art and you don't get this piece, I would probably explain it to you using the example of Jill Stanek. (If you're still not getting it, the joke might be on you - fair warning)
-Irony, Irony, Irony.

I just want to point out that Jill's latest has the intellectual honesty of a used car salesman. And yet, I think I would rather sit through a guy selling me a 'great condition' Ford Focus with 100k miles on it, rather than listen to what Jill has to say about good policy and bad policy.

Feminism For Dummies :
The reason why Jill and Co are upset about adding clergy to parents in terms of notification, is for the very same reason her ilk expects Debbie Halvorson to stand and expose her slutitude to the general public. It's the same thing, when she expects a teenage woman who has an 'oops' to face her parents, who may very well beat her to death, but a risk the Stanek crowd is willing to take to make sure that all women are swimming in Schlafly Pond Of Un-Fulfillment. By mandating that a young woman to face her parents, by which, safely assume Stanek means "Father". For more information, see patriarchy.

Get it yet? Thought so. Now for Actual Crazy Quotes From the Comments(TM) (crazy parts have been bolded, to make it easier on you):

No one is saying it's "a bad thing" to speak to someone else; I believe the point is that it is not proper for that someone else to then have authority to okay the girl's abortion. Big difference.

Just another attempt of pro-abortionists to take away parents right of consent over their children.

Jill also makes a valid point about how there are "clergy" to support just about any idiotic idea that you can imagine.

The first two provide a theme. The third is just funny.

One of the interesting things you'll note that almost always be it on the issue of choice, gay rights, or the HPV vaccination is that the targets of the discussion (women, queer folk, or young girls) all have a valid human condition causation working for them. We all know it. We all get it.

But, in order to service their argument correctly they'll always attempt to dehumanize the target. There's a few methods. When it comes to abortion in general they like "abortionist". If it's a discussion of teens having abortions, they just over ride the issue and pretend like the woman doesn't exist in the discussion. Gay rights - look for a key marker of 'homosexual agenda' or 'homosexual lifestyle'. HPV vaccination the discussion almost always rides to the completely head up your arse idea of abstinence.

They will never consider that for every woman thinking of having an abortion there's a woman who's in a very bad situation whom is making a very difficult decision. They will never consider that for every person living the homosexual lifestyle, there's man or a woman who wants to love and be loved. They will never talk about for every woman who gets HPV and later cervical cancer, that there's actually a woman deep down in there who was seeking gratification through sexual means.

And when they take out all of that human condition they fill the void with:

Jesus gave his life so that others could live. Not so that they could live, and then kill their children.

Raise your hand if you're starting to get it.