Using crucifixion imagery for abortion access is unnecessary and disgusting

Christoph Schmid/Unsplash

On August 9, abortion was kept illegal in Argentina. Their Congress's lower house had previously voted to relax restrictions on abortion, to allow access for up to fourteen weeks gestation––currently, abortion is only legal in specific cases, like rape or danger to the mother's life. Despite pro-choice advocates' best efforts, the Argentine Senate narrowly rejected allowing full access up to fourteen weeks for the general public.

Following such an emotionally-charged vote, protests are normal––in fact, protests are healthy in democracy to show discontent. However, protests in Buenos Aires following the vote were less productive in nature. Protesters affixed naked Barbie dolls to crosses and added tape to cover their genitals, breasts, mouth, and eyes. The obvious intention of this imagery is to claim that women who are refused access to abortion are somehow silenced and go through pain like a crucifixion because they are unable to control their bodies.

This is clear hyperbole, though. Argentine women still got 450,000 abortions last year without technical legal access. Pro-choice activists also won the House vote, meaning they are taken seriously by broad swaths of the country's legislative body (and presumably general public as well). One of Argentina's highest profile politicians, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, even supported the bill, despite being Catholic. The feminist movement in support of abortion access is growing.

Supporters of the bill were even allowed to demonstrate freely in the street, which is where this lovely Barbie-crucifixion imagery was shown. In fact, it wasn't until abortion activists got violent by throwing rocks and fire, following the failed Senate vote, that a few of them were carted off by police.

Beyond being overdramatic, it's simply bad strategy to use this image to attempt to convert Catholics (or really anyone else) to a cause. The implicit comparison to Jesus' suffering is obviously invalid: Jesus never laid a hand on another person, while pro-choicers are completely fine with women killing their innocent, unborn children. Women are not restrained from using their bodies in a wide variety of ways (hence their need for abortion in the first place). Besides, disrespecting the image of Jesus is the most surefire way to make Catholics not want to support a cause.

In reality, it's not the women who want abortions that don't have control––it's the children in their wombs. Women have control in creating the child, and if they didn't (like in cases of rape), they already have access to abortion. Argentine women that have sex and know the consequences of that act should have to accept the potential consequences. The child, which is the result of the couple's choice to have sex, does not get a say in any part of the process, from conception to termination. It is not right or just for anyone to put an innocent life to death to make his or her life easier. The unborn are the silenced in this scenario, not the mothers who are freely, crudely protesting.

What feminists in Argentina are missing is that abortion access should not be granted when having sex is a free choice, and when the consequences of sex are widely known and preventable. The pro-life movement is not about restricting anyone, or about a fear of women's power as some activists argue, but about enabling everyone to live free of bodily harm, able to pursue a future for themselves––including those that cannot defend themselves. To be feminist should mean being in favor of protecting innocent girls from needless death and bloodshed, and to give them an equal opportunity to participate in society. This message of feminism, as an ideology where people are free from being aggressed against and where options are expanded for women in all stages of life, is often overlooked by feminists who support abortion.

Women who protest the lack of abortion access are wrong to begin with, but their crucifixion imagery is unnecessarily vile. There is no reason for pro-choice activists to pretend that they can't speak up about abortion when they did so freely. Women are not being crucified for getting abortions or speaking out. Activists shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Sophia Larson is a freelance writer and Young Voices contributor. Follow her on Twitter @sophia_larson33.

We've finally heard some news on the migrant caravan. Some of the migrants have given up and gone back home, but some are still there waiting at the border. A leader representing the group has decided to step forward, and he's made out a list of... demands. Remember when I said back in October that this caravan was originally formed as a Leftist act against the Honduran government by people with ties to Venezuela and Cuba? Well what do you know… wait until you hear who this guy is.

RELATED: BOMBSHELL: Filmmaker Ami Horowitz blows the lid off media's deceit about the migrant caravan

Alfonso Guerrero personally walked into the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico with a list of demands from the caravan. Get a load of this. The caravan is demanding that if they're not granted immediate asylum they want the following:

  1. Fifty thousand dollars in cash for every caravan member (which would be a total of tens of millions).
  2. The immediate removal of all U.S. economic and military assets in Honduras.

Failure to comply to these demands will result in the caravan continuing to try and penetrate the U.S. border.

I mean, if you're trying to appear like some grassroots movement for migrants that are just escaping the dangers of their own country, you might want to - oh I don't know - tone down the crazy Leftist freedom fighter schtick. I'm just saying. Demanding millions of dollars AND the removal of the U.S. military from Honduras kinda just screams, "Hey check me out. I'm a Marxist terrorist." It would have been basically the same thing if he just charged up to the embassy wearing a beret and shouted "Viva la Revolution!!" while firing off an RPG.

Well, it turns out this isn't the first time Mr Guerrero has tried to claim asylum. Back in 1987 he claimed asylum in Mexico after being suspected by the Honduran and U.S. government for - wait for it - left wing terrorism… Jeez, you know you really can't make this stuff up. This is INSANE. Here's the story…

This is ridiculous. Can we all now agree that this entire charade is a fraudulent scam?

In 1987 Honduras was ground zero for U.S. and Soviet proxy forces fighting the Cold War. The Contra rebels were actually based there, and leftists terrorists would sometimes carry out operations in the country in response. On August 8th a bomb was thrown into the China Palace restaurant, just a few miles from the U.S. military base in Honduras. Six American soldiers were injured in the blast. Alfonso Guerrero was the primary suspect. He escaped to Mexico and claimed asylum. The Reagan Administration charged the Mexican government for quote "harboring a terrorist" for granting Guerrero protection.

But all the caravan wants is a better life in the United States… oh and millions of dollars AND a list of political demands for their home country. This is ridiculous. Can we all now agree that this entire charade is a fraudulent scam? This is a Leftist political stunt. It has been since the very beginning.

TRANS-INSANITY: Not everyone is bowing down to the PC culture

DOMINIQUE FAGET/AFP/Getty Images

Here's an incident that you won't hear about anywhere else. It doesn't fit the mainstream media's transgender narrative, their fairy tale of infinite genders, where any criticism is viewed as transphobic and taboo and certainly not something that the majority of Americans think or feel.

Last week, in West Point, Virginia, a high school French teacher named Peter Vlaming was fired after a five-and-a-half hour hearing that centered on his refusal to use a transgender student's specific gender pronouns. Vlaming said that doing so violated his religious beliefs.

RELATED: There is no truth anymore

Vlaming's lawyer Shawn Voyles told reporters:

Tolerance is a two-way street. Unfortunately, tolerance on the part of the school division has been noticeably absent. It chose to impose its own orthodoxy on Mr. Vlaming and fired him because he didn't relinquish his rights protected by the First Amendment.

School administrators fired Vlaming "due to this insubordination and repeated refusal to comply with directives made to him by multiple WPPS administrators."

The school justified the firing by pointing to a set of policies aimed at curbing misgendering of transgender students.

Vlaming's lawyer disputed this, saying that the policies include no such mention of transgenderism, adding that:

My client respects the rights of all students, including this student's rights; he simply asked that his rights be respected as well. Unfortunately, the school division refused to consider any solutions that would respect the freedoms of everyone involved.

There is a ray of hope in all of this, though. The students. A group of students from the school immediately staged a walkout in protest of Vlaming's firing.

One student told reporters:

I feel like everyone should have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as well.

Students lined up outside the school with signs that said, "Free Vlam." Another included a quote from Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings." Another read "You can't impose delusion onto us."

You can sigh a sigh of relief. There's hope for the future yet.

Whether it's a 'War on Christmas' or just progressivism run amok, the song 'Baby It's Cold Outside' has been firmly in the crosshairs this holiday season. Here are just a few of the headlines making the rounds:

Should radio stations stop playing 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'?

They range from the previous as questioning and then roll right into the following and assume facts not in evidence.

'Baby, It's Cold Outside,' Seen As Sexist, Frozen Out by Radio Stations

It may be seen as sexist but according to one radio stations polling, only about 5% do. Then they go from saying it's sexist to straight up claiming it as a rape song.

Radio Bans 'Baby It's Cold Outside' Over Claims It's A Rape Song, English Teacher Explains Its Real Meaning

And then they just flat out call for its retirement.

Is it time to retire 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'?

The left might think they are woke and on the right side of history in the wake of the #MeToo movement — but how shocked do you think they'd be if they knew Glenn beat them to the punch over a decade ago? Don't believe me? Take a listen to this clip from our audio vault from 2008.

Christmas has arrived early for mainstream media. They have their first sentencing of a major player in President Trump's inner circle. Yesterday, Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced by a federal judge in Manhattan. How did it come to this and how did Cohen explain himself to the judge? We start there next…

President Trump's former attorney, 52-year-old Michael Cohen, is going to jail. Well, it will probably be one of those federal prison camps with a dorm that's more like a college campus. But he's going to be locked up. A federal judge sentenced him to three years in prison for financial crimes, and two months for lying to Congress. He also ordered Cohen to pay $2 million in financial penalties. The judge called Cohen's misdeeds a "veritable smorgasbord of criminal conduct."

RELATED: Michael Cohen's plea deal won't lessen Trump's support. Here's why.

The judge said:

As a lawyer, Mr. Cohen should have known better. While Mr. Cohen is taking steps to mitigate his criminal conduct by pleading guilty and volunteering useful information to prosecutors, that does not wipe the slate clean.

Cohen pled guilty in August to eight criminal charges in two different cases. One brought by special counsel Robert Muller for Cohen's lying to Congress about a potential Trump Tower project in Moscow. The second was for bank-fraud, tax, and campaign finance violations brought by federal prosecutors in New York.

President Trump said recently that Cohen has simply been lying to get a reduced sentence for crimes that have nothing to do with him. Cohen was very emotional as he apologized to the judge, saying:

It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light. Time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than to listen to my own inner voice and my moral compass.

The left thinks that Cohen's sentencing marks the beginning of the end for Trump's presidency. They may be ultimately disappointed in that regard. But this does intensify the long national nightmare of the Muller investigation that seems to have no end in sight.