29 votes

Topless Pro-Abortion Women Sexually Harass Men Protecting Church

Buenos Aires, December 2nd, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Extremely disturbing video footage from Argentina shows a mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.

The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” (Note: Some of the most graphic content has been removed from the video. Uncensored footage is available here. Viewer discretion strongly advised.)

According to InfoCatolica, some of the women chanted a song, with the lyrics: “To the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, who wants to get between our sheets, we say that we want to be whores, travesties and lesbians. Legal abortion in every hospital.”

During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-a...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The NAP Doesn't allow initiation of force

Against symbols or ideas. The fight is where the robbery takes place, you can defend yourself against this robbery. You can ignore the rules and policies that rob you. You can use your free speech to advocate for change, but trying to institute your policies by force is not in line with the NAP. Its just one band of thugs fighting another.

Of course some believe that abortion itself is an initiation of force, and I tend to agree. Certainly we own our bodies, and the initial DNA is the blueprint for this body. If you come and destroy a blueprint to something I am going to build, that's destroying my property. Doesn't matter if I needed help to build it.

So to apply this here

It's ok to "use your free speech to advocate for change" against a policy that stops one from destroying their own property or "blueprints for a body" but when the state (government guns) gets corrupted and sides with bad policy you cannot spray paint swastikas on those who did it?

Just checking.

Not exactly

First, you own your DNA blueprint. You can't own anyone else's DNA blueprint. Mother's do not own their child's DNA blueprint, even in the womb, the Child owns it.

You have a right to use force to defend yourself, but at the point of enforcement of the actual policy, not the advocating of bad policy.

You have no right to attack someone who believes that everyone should grow a long beard. But you could defend yourself with force if they actively try to stop you from shaving.

So, we're in agreement up to the point

where we must draw the line of where the mother's blueprint ends and the child's begins.

I adamantly disagree with the blanket statement that the child owns it "even in the womb". The reason is that it's just a few egg cells at some point - that is not a child because it hasn't even been fertilized to allow life. Later, it's a fertilized egg with the potential to become a child but it's still just two cells that split because they were fertilized. I'm sure there's no cognitive thought or human style life at this point either. Then, at each point along the way, it's just a few more cells.

Then, at some point, a microscope would recognize it as the beginnings of a fetus. This is where some would draw the line.

Later, a naked eye would recognize it. Draw another line here.

And later yet, there are multiple milestones which would qualify it as relevant stages of being a child to various groups. Each of them gets a different line.

I think no one could rationally argue for acceptance of a line that's 4 months old. Ironically, that's the traditional picture of abortion hyperbole that is usually portrayed by the childish rhetoric in these discussions.

You may have your line at fertilization but the majority have their line out 3-5 weeks. When we get deep into this, this is the only real debate left that makes any sense.

So, back on topic... If "the" line is at 5 weeks, then it's still the woman's blueprint and not a child's. If so, then like cutting a beard, she should not be stopped from any such action. I leave it up to others to decide if government coercion falls into the "advocating" or "enforcement" category. That should determine these womens' fate since we all know you can't successfully plead tyranny away.

I can't wait for the day when this much is agreed upon by all parties and we can get to the "where should the national line policy be"? We're stuck in so much divisiveness because of this one simple topic.

The question of when life begins is irrelevant.

or should be when discussing abortion. It is a property rights issue. property can belong to a fetus at any point, or can be willed to descendents that do not exist yet.

The DNA is a mashup of two people, in a random way, and so is unique (think sir mixalot, his music sample mixes have unique copyrights). In this case, the ownership of the DNA blueprint in my opinion has to be with the person that blueprint represents (the Child/fetus/zygote) and not the parents. If one of the parents would destroy the blueprint, then that is the initiation of force against someone else's property, and the state (or a security organization, for you anarchists) has a reason to intervene on the behalf of the fetus.

I would argue that when a woman willingly has sex, and there is the possibility of an egg being fertilized, that there is also an implied contract between the woman and the issue of the union to carry the fetus to term. (sort of like a bartender serving drinks to a drunk, there is an implied responsibility to not let someone get too drunk, or to drive after drinking). Again the fetus, or its agents can use force to defend itself against the woman. In cases of rape, or other non consensual acts, of course there is no implied contract, and the woman can do what shes chooses. Its like someone breaking into your liqueur cabinet drinking it all, and then driving and being in an accident - its not your fault then.

I probably would also think that there should be a buyers remorse clause, and so the morning after pill would be legitimate.

I don't think

I don't think these people care about the non aggression principle. Blood might be shed to do what's right. But how is right determined? I say this is pure evil. The very face of it.

How is right determined?

For me, and many others here, I think right is determined by ones ability to live their lives the way they want to as long as they're not harming anyone else.

How is the government or the church affecting these women? It's joining forces to empower their monopolies so it can mandate how they live their lives without their voice. These women didn't go chasing the church goers for no reason. They want the church out of their lives. Isn't that what our very Constitution gives us as a right?

And as far as them being ok (via NAP) to want abortions, they join billions of others that simply have a different line to cross. For some, that line is at ending the future life of a sperm and others move it to the point where the fetus is self sustaining. For all thinkers that aren't told by their religious masters how to think, they will have different lines. Does this make one group evil vs. another? (Think for a second how absolutely asinine it is to worship a sperm as life - it's not the egg. It's the fertilizer! Yet this is/was done for centuries.)

And evil? Really? This is "the face of evil"? Not Hitler, Mao, Bernanke, Manson, some mass murderer or Vlad The Impaler but these women? Please stick to logic in a debate. Evil doesn't exist. It's a figment of some men's imagination to be used as a tool for control. Most of what was evil in one age is almost always accepted in another. Over time, some evils migrate us towards more puritan (see roman evils that are outlawed today) and some migrate the other way (see usury and corporate corruption). In the end, it's not a hard fact driven by some divine magical being that watches over every act, thought and desire of every cell on every planet in every galaxy.

If the church goers in this situation had kept out of these women's business, I would almost guarantee this event wouldn't have happened. But since they did, the women should not be arbitrarily labeled evil just for fighting back for what they believe in. If the Church of Scientology very publicly got a law passed that men can be jailed for masturbation, and indeed men were being jailed, how would you protest that church when pleading failed?

Those guys showed a lot of

Those guys showed a lot of restraint..

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

Whaaaaaaaaaa?

"The National Women’s Encounter takes place every year in different Argentinean cities, sponsored by the Department of Culture as a “social interest” event."

So...they paid for this?

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Positive

Many demonstrations, in the US and abroad, are not this peaceful. The men practiced restraint and the women pushed them pretty hard. I didn't see anyone seriously harmed or arrested. Now take that same scene and project it to other venues in the US and abroad...

Nothing "peaceful" but the restraint shown by the Christians...

The "protestors" were anything but peaceful...

Spitting on these men, screaming directly in their faces, spray painting on them... Assaults!!!

And for what? Because they believe in Christ? These "protestors", who were really just a mob of crazed criminals wanted to vandalize and destroy these men's Church... appalling behavior...

If this happened in US the Christians wouldn't have been so Christian and some of these hellish women and their ball-less male accomplices would have gotten exactly what they deserved to have happen... Get their a$$es beat down...

I remember the Texas courthouse girls maddeningly chanting "Hail Satan! Hail Satan" over the abortion decision there earlier this year...

Has there risen a generation of Demon Spawn, or WHAT?!

Things are gonna get worse before they get better folks...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Well...

...in most countries, there would have been police about swinging billy clubs and people dragged off to jail; in yet other countries, the protesters would have been shot.

Yes, this was relatively peaceful.

I don't condone their actions nor do I assume anything about their grievances with the church. I do know that it states in the Argentine constitution that: “The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion” (yes, that is financially). With that in mind, I would entertain the notion that it may go further than "Because they believe in Christ".

Apparently Argentine politics are quite strange...

You are telling me that the Argentine constitution says the gov't there officially supports that Church, while at the same time the country's Dept. of Culture sponsors(?) the event.

So crazy. (not you, their gov't)

I'd have to say that most protests/demonstrations in the US are much more peaceful than that. Now, when the police get involved that is another story, but usually it doesn't get to that.

One thing though is that this kind of atheist-attacking-believer, gay-attacking-straight, pro-abortion-attacking-pro-life, black-attacking-white... meaning basically... left-attacking-right... has been accepted in even the US, by municipalities as well as especially by the MSM.

Is the same trend happening in Argentina? Are the Christians being thrown to the wolves?

Or is the Church-owned-government staging this event to show the resolve and the strength of the faith in the Christian men? Is the Church &/or Argentine gov't using these men as pawns to garner sympathy for the Church? If so, it worked on me.

I am always as objective and open minded on every topic as I possibly can. I don't pretend to know wtf is going on in Argentina, I just don't know.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

those are crazy people

all of them

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

D a m n . . . .

Why can't I have a bunch of topless naked women running around me???!!!

LOL

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

That's a hell of a story!

I'm glad the police didn't do anything to the protesters, but I do think the Church should sue for the damages (and then forgive them).

Protest if so inclined, but

Protest if so inclined, but when one assaults person or property the line is so obviously crossed.

WGRR DB - rEVOLutionary talk for revolutionary times. Listen LIVE!

Pure Evil

Not a great way to get your message across