Irony: Commie Bette Midler Tells Women To Practice Abstinence In “Protest” Of TX Bill

In what is a seeming attempt at “owning” pro-lifers, commie actress Bette Midler suggested on Twitter that “all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.”
 
In other words, she is telling women, namely pro-abortion women, to NOT spread their legs as they often do and have sex, because this apparently would be detrimental to pro-life men.
 
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but you won’t hear me complaining about this instance of Leftist illogic.
 
Naturally, this comes following the Texas Heartbeat Act which protects the unborn beginning at six weeks gestation, when the heart usually begins to beat. Because women usually don’t find out that they are pregnant around this time as well, this bill pretty much effectively bans abortion.
 
And unlike similar pro-life, heartbeat laws which can easily be ignored by activist judges and pro-abortion law enforcement (including Leftist DA’s), the Texas heartbeat law allows individuals to report violations of that law and sue the abortionists as a result. This means that the power to enforce this law doesn’t have to rest on a state government which might be full of activists who will ignore the law for their ideologies, but rather, on We the People, particularly pro-life people to actually do something about abortion.
 
Basically, this bill is an important first step in overturning the criminal and disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 which has led to a holocaust of the unborn. Which is precisely why so many Leftists are so uppity about this law, including Bette Midler.
 
Still, that she would encourage women to abstain from sex as a “punishment” is utterly hilarious to me and quite the self-own.
 
For the most part, pro-life men aren’t going around sleeping with every woman they can find. If anything, men who sleep around so much would much rather abortion be widely available, since they wouldn’t want to be “burdened” with the responsibilities of fatherhood. Pro-life men tend to be Christians, and Christians tend to view sex in the way God does, which is that it’s something only a man and a woman ought to do when they are married, not before or outside of it.
 
The funny thing is that Bette Midler isn’t the only moron to suggest women don’t have sex with men in “protest” to a heartbeat bill. Back in 2019, when Georgia passed a similar heartbeat bill, equally-as-stupid actress Alyssa Milano called on women to go on a “sex strike” because “we just cannot risk pregnancy” “until women have legal control over our own bodies.”
 
Naturally, I’m inclined to argue that women have legal control over their OWN bodies, not the bodies of others including their own children, but I don’t care to argue with someone who said this back in 2019.
 
The reason for pointing this out is that this seems to be one of at least two arguments Leftists sometimes make regarding pro-life bills (yes, they make a slew of other ones, but I want to talk about these two specifically because both arguments are actually beneficial to society).
 
They make the self-defeating argument that women should abstain from sex, as we just talked about. But they also make another argument that, frankly, I can’t help but agreeing with 100% and believe would be a benefit to society: that men shouldn’t legally be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then abandon her. That “if she has to stick with the pregnancy and the consequences of it, then so should he,” as I hear liberals put it.
 
Every time I see this on social media (not that I frequent them all too much anymore) from a liberal who makes this argument, I tend to reply with something akin to “deal”. In essence, completely agreeing with the premise.
 
Though they obviously make these arguments for the wrong reasons (as they would still prefer both to have sex and not have to “stick” with the pregnancy), I definitely won’t stop liberals from inadvertently making arguments which help improve society.
 
Indeed, women should be practicing abstinence until they get married (same for men). This is the Christian view of sex and I won’t complain if liberals end up making this same argument or begin advocating for this, even if for the wrong reasons. And men definitely shouldn’t get to enjoy the pleasures of sexual intercourse and then bail the minute the consequences of such intercourse come up.
 
Both as a Christian and as a man, it disgusts me that a man would get a woman pregnant and then abandon her and the child. It’s utterly wrong and despicable to do such a thing to a woman. And while the Left might say that they also have a problem against that, it’s the natural consequence of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960’s, sponsored by the American Left both of then and now.
 
But if liberals inadvertently make arguments that would make society better (a man having to legally stay with the pregnant woman would do wonders for strengthening the nuclear family, not to mention it would accomplish much the same as the abstinence insofar as it keeps these men from humping anything that moves), who am I to complain?
 
I’ll certainly point out that they would make things better, hence this very article, but you won’t hear me making arguments against such things. At most, I would only highlight that they are only doing this for the entirely wrong reasons, which is something that definitely ought to be addressed, but otherwise, I’ll be as silent as a mouse.
 
After all, as Napoleon is attributed with saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
 
Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”