Salon Just Proved to All Just How Hypocritical Pro-Lifers Are. Now, We’re Supposed to Feel Stupid.

Salon Just Proved to All Just How Hypocritical Pro-Lifers Are. Now, We’re Supposed to Feel Stupid.

Salon Just Proved to All Just How Hypocritical Pro-Lifers Are. Now, We’re Supposed to Feel Stupid.

It all started last week when science fiction author, Patrick Tomlinson, and a question that blew up Twitter:

The question was finally posed:

“Would you save one 5-year-old child from a burning building, or save 1,000 embryos. The point: No one actually thinks that embryos are the same as living children. But an entire movement is based on lying about it, and using that lie to manipulate people, in order to control women like slaves.”-Patrick Tomlinson

Enter Ben Shapiro who destroyed Tomlinson’s argument. You can read the full write-up here. Tomlinson called Shapiro a “d!ck” and did the thing all typical pro-abortion advocates do when the fire gets too hot in the kitchen: ye olde Twitter block!

A week later, Salon comes along with an interview with Tomlinson discussing this “thought experiment” he posed to Twitter followers. Salon wants the readers to know that those who believe in science are always soooooo smart and pro-lifers are not the most “scientific” or “educated” people in the gene pool. Tomlinson’s reasoning for spawning the debate? Read it and weep…or laugh…your choice:

“I came up with it because I was sick to death of the irresponsible and frankly dishonest framing of the whole debate. I am not, as Ben Shapiro called me, a “pro-abortion fanatic,” which is complete nonsense. Nobody is pro-abortion. People are just pro-‘Hey maybe since I don’t have a vagina, I shouldn’t really have a whole lot of say in what people do with theirs.’ The framing of the debate from people who want to call themselves pro-life — I prefer anti-abortion, or anti-choice — they frame it as ‘you’re killing babies’ or ‘you’re killing children.’ ​T​hat kind of language absolutely suffuses the whole argument that comes from their side. And it’s completely false. It’s completely dishonest, and it’s intended only to emotionally manipulate the conversation.

It’s not just that I don’t believe they’re children, it’s that you don’t even believe what you’re saying. You’re just using this as a club to beat people who are standing up for the rights of women. That’s all. That’s all you’re doing.-Patrick Tomlinson”

You can read the diarrhea of pretentious drivel here, which went on to talk about “deceptive and manipulative” framing from the right and, of course, Donald Trump because even though they tried, Salon cannot go ONE FREAKEN DAY without mentioning Trump. I do find it ironic that a print media outlet calls out “deceptive and manipulative” framing from the right when considering the large make-up of very liberal individuals in the fields of broadcast and print journalism, but I digress, and I have done my share of dancing around here to get to my point.

I would argue that the questions that Tomlinson needed to ask but did not pose were, would you willingly let a five-year-old child burn-up and die if:

1) It was inconvenient to take care of said five-year old because you have career aspirations?
2) said five-year-old was a product of a violent rape?
3) This five-year-old child had Down Syndrome?

All of these above are strong arguments from the left for a woman in her decision to abort.

So, Tomlinson, you’re “sick to death” about dishonest framing of the whole debate? Well, who in the world is responsible for most of that? Emotional manipulation, you say? Well, this guy may not have a VAGINA (and for the sake of this argument he couldn’t even get his anatomy correct like most women who support this line of thinking) but if a woman does not have some sort emotion because of something growing in her UTERUS, because of a heartbeat heard on an ultrasound from said “thing” growing in the uterus, then we have a bigger problem. It’s not a question of who does/does not support women’s rights. It’s a question of morality and humanity. As WOMEN who are pro-life, we are not diluted and we tend to believe what we are saying, and quite honestly, I hate it when a pretentious male gets on his high horse and tells me, among others who do not believe the same way he does, that we do not believe what we’re saying. Patronizing jackass much? This guy says that he doesn’t have a vagina so therefore he doesn’t have a voice for women? Perhaps he should shut his pie hole when advocating for abortion then! Just saying. His opinion is a non-factor.

He says our arguments are “irresponsible”. You know what’s irresponsible? Not wearing a raincoat. Having indiscriminate sex with men you have no intentions of making babies—errr—uhhh—embryos with and not using birth control or having him use protection like a big boy. What’s irresponsible—I’m talking to you women now—is knowing that you have free will and options available to you before a crisis situation and you choose not to take advantage of them. Want to hail the “V” and give power to your parts, ladies? Know what your parts do for one and be responsible. It’s really not rocket science and shouldn’t even be a debate!

Yep, I’m a woman yielding a club and beating down all of the other “champions” who are fighting for the rights of women because I do not agree with abortion. Please, tell me how intellectually inferior and oppressed I am, oh, Salon! The MAN has been keeping me down! ‘Scuse me while I try and get my eyes to roll to normal stance from the back of my head.

Written by

  • GWB says:

    they frame it as ‘you’re killing babies’ or ‘you’re killing children.’ ​… And it’s completely false.

    Wow. So, a prog denying science, huh? Yes, dingleberry, they’re babies. And, even as far back as Roe v. Wade scientists knew they were babies. (The writers of that opinion had to basically ignore LOTS of scientists to write their thoroughly dishonest “no one knows when life begins” malarkey.)

    And, thank you, Lisa, for pointing out the difference between “uterus” and “vagina”. And for the bit about taking responsibility. What so many progs seem to ignore (more of that science-denying, donchano) is that the sex act has a singular purpose: procreation. They can pretend it’s all just for fun and games, but it’s a biological function with one, single, over-riding purpose: making more humans. Even with protection (of whatever sort), there is a chance of conception – because whether it’s by evolution or by design, sex is about two bodies trying really hard to make babies (whether the brains attached want that, or not). You’re working against the grain, as it were, to NOT make babies when you have sex.

  • Lisa says:

    There’s a good reason sex should reserved for marriage….

  • David Lentz says:

    There is the story about a person having to choose between having to save either a total stranger from drowning or saving his dog. Reportedly, most would choose to save their dog. Therefore, by pro-abortion logic, is it a scientific fact that dogs are more valuable than humans.

  • Stacy0311 says:

    “Dishonest framing” you mean like calling abortion “access to women’s healthcare” and implying that if we don’t want to subsidize abortions we want women to die?

    You’re not pro-choice, you’re pro-we want other people to pay for the consequences of our poor decisions.

  • Devon says:

    In one corner of the burning room there’s a 5 year old child, and in the other corner is a box with a label that says “6 year old child inside.” You can only save one. Which do you choose? Whichever choice you make, you are a horrible person and you don’t respect human life. It’s the same argument.
    In 1 corner is a child and in the other corner is a senior citizen. Who do you save? Whichever one you choose, you negate the sentience of the other.
    If the 5 year old was an a**hole and the container had MY embryos inside, I’d save the embryos. Feelings are not facts, and Tomlinson is a brain-dead d—khead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner