Baby Facepalm

Words will never hurt me: My response to a delusional “Democratic diva”

Last week, pro-abortion “Democratic Diva Donna” complained that standing “under the blazing Phoenix sun” was an exasperating “sacrifice” she had to make in order to attend the June 6 Inhuman rally, led by Live Action’s “very attractive and charismatic” founder, Lila Rose. Apparently Miss Diva doesn’t know what the definition of “sacrifice” is, but at least now we know where she got her handle from.

More than 3,500 children are being barbarically aborted every single day, and this woman is whining about the sunshine. What a rough life! But really, if Miss Diva wanted to make a point even ten people would consider taking seriously, she should have tried forgetting about the weather and focusing on the real issues she has with us “anti-choicers.”

Donna “can’t estimate crowds to save [her] life,” but that didn’t stop her from claiming that the Phoenix Inhuman rally hosted “around 150 people,” “some of whom had been bused in.” And about a dozen people had been bused into the rally. But they were legislators – meaning people who were elected by the citizenry of Arizona. Not exactly anti-choice fringe!Phoenix Rally

In fact, the rally had more than 400 pro-lifers in attendance – including Vanessa Tedesco, a grieving woman who bravely shared her “dubious sob story” of how her abortion decision had injured her. But “screw them,” right? That’s not me talking; it’s a direct quotation from Donna herself, expressing what she thinks of women who regret their abortions.

Donna referred to Lila Rose as “supposedly an aspiring actress,” “self-possessed” and “a slick con artist.” She went on to describe the crowd as “an assemblage of delusional nitwits.”

This diva reminds me of a mean girl still stuck in high school. She should pick on someone in her own social circle instead of trying to bully one of the most successful and youngest pro-life advocates in the world. And let me point out that if anyone at Live Action ever called an abortion advocate a “delusional nitwit” or a “self-possessed,” or a “slick con artist” speaking “errant nonsense,” that member would be severely criticized for using such offensive language.

Miss Diva, let me just pose this question: if we “anti-choicers” are such “nitwits,” then why have we been “so successful at peeling back abortion access”? It is because of the many courageous people who have dedicated their entire lives to ending abortion – not only by striving to protect the rights of the unborn, but also by striving to protect women.

The great thing about being on the pro-life side is that we have the truth to stand on. We have legitimate statistics on how many women suffer from the aftereffects of abortion; we don’t have to look too hard to find a fraudulent abortionists violently murdering children and brutally hurting women. And we don’t have to fake the gruesome pictures of aborted babies.

Using the ad hominem fallacy to impugn the truth only makes you look like a weak debater. Just because you don’t believe that millions of babies are being slaughtered inside and outside the womb, that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And this “errant nonsense” has actually been proven in not just one, but a multitude of investigative videos.

The hard evidence of the horror of abortion is out there, Miss Diva. Perhaps you should try opening up your eyes instead of your mouth.

  • Marauder

    Sometimes I think that for some pro-choicers, abortion is the one thing women are never allowed to regret. You can regret getting married, not getting married, getting divorced, not getting divorced, moving to another state, not moving to another state, getting plastic surgery, not getting plastic surgery – but abortion is somehow incapable of ever being a bad decision that hurts people. Why is this so hard for them? Why is abortion such a special thing that anyone who suffers pain from it should be doubted and dismissed? You can be in favor of, say, people being able to get married, and still realize that your friend was in a horrible marriage, but apparently you can’t be in favor of women being able to get abortions and still realize that abortion might not have been the right thing for a particular woman.

    • Basset_Hound

      According to Carolyn Hax, who is now an “advice to the lovelorn” columnist, “the regrets and wishful what-ifs” are “slightly more than ‘what if I would have chunked economics and majored in art”.

      • Marauder

        What was she before she was an advice columnist? I feel like I missed something…

        • Basset_Hound

          She was a columnist for the Washington Post. This snippet is from a piece called “No Birth No Pangs” that ran March 21, 1993 where she defended the “convenience” of legal abortion. You can google it up, but it’s behind a pay wall. I have a reprint of the article in a book. Believe me, the cavalier attitude she takes is enough to make you want to vomit. But here’s a hint…it sort of gives rest to the idea put forth that “no one is pro-abortion”.

          • dear marauder

            Dear Marauder and everyone else, no one is pro-abortion indeed. The assumption that pro-choice women and men are overjoyed by abortions (or do not regret or are not troubled by them in some capacity) is an incorrect generalization and is often used to heighten the emotions of crowds over by pro-life lobbyists and activists, sometimes to disguise the agendas behind banning abortion. The very same assumption is incredibly insincere. I hate to say that some of the pro-life lobby in some countries (including the US) stems not from social and faith-based ideologies (which as pro-choice I respect; if you are pregnant and find that you must carry the baby to term due to its rights and its sacred life, you yourself should be able to make that decision no matter your marital and socioeconomic status) but capitalist agendas that are advanced by population increase. More people mean more human power and more consumers. This is good for developed economies.
            However, the crux of the point is other people should be able to make a choice with both lives: their baby’s and their own. The fact that some people use abortions as a birth control method is simply not true; even if it is, it cannot reflect WHY we need safe and legal abortions. With a terrible adoption system, racism, increased cost of living and social stigma, it is difficult for a woman who is not ready to have a child to carry that child to term. Even without difficulties in her life, she should not be forced to have a child if she does not want to. I am not even addressing medical issues that may necessitate or constitute a preference for abortions, I believe in those cases the parents of an unborn child should be able to make their own decision and not lead or give a taxed life. If that decision makes you want to vomit, than you can go vomit, or move to another place where you are not subjected to a freedom of choice.
            Abortions will always be performed, even if they are not legalized. The state has a responsibility to address this possibility and protect the lives of women, no matter what choice they make with their pregnancy.
            I would ask you to perhaps consider having some compassion for those who make different choices than you. Many medical professionals in the US who started performing abortions when it was illegal state that the reason for their choice to do so was the observation that an unwanted child could really change a woman’s life. I believe it is a bit hypocritical that the very same individuals who take an active part in upholding a culture that is mysoginistic, ruthless and stigmatizing towards women over the choices they make no matter what department of life also ask women to please carry their babies to term.

  • Deege

    You know, I agree with the sentiments behind this piece but still find it a total turn-off and kind of embarrassing to read. I expect I’ll get some flack for this.
    Despite the heading, this is really not an analysis. It’s a character assassination that has as little class as the piece it criticizes. Yes, Democratic Diva’s views and attitude seem awful, but it’s pretty hard to claim the high ground with writing like this. Plus, you really can’t decry ad hominem attacks while you dish them out (“a mean girl stuck in high school” “what a rough life you have”). Stick to attacking her ideas instead of her personality and that could be an analysis.

    • JDC

      I agree, I was just going to post more or less the same comment.

  • Guest
  • Guest
  • Faithkuz

    This article does well to point out the ad hom./ name calling and smear tactics that routinely stand in place of reasoned argument in radically pro-abortion rhetoric. The Divas need to read the stories of women–first-hand accounts and the majority not reporting relief or in fact any positive effects. See the CNN collection of abortion stories, hardly a pro-life site: