COMMENTS: 71
Why the Anti-Choice Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"
Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.
It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.
Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. His bill is supported by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.
Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jewish want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 31, 2009 3:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The parents say they will keep on having babies until they get to keep one.
As the article shows, it's easier to react to a problem than it is to address it sensibly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: Jaipurr
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: mythmorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lisafrequency on Jul 31, 2009 4:28 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think politicians should make it a campaign issue. Look how Bush used this issue and barely did anything about it after getting everyone worked up about it. Just like he said limited government and a humble foreign policy geeeze people. I think it really takes from the more important issues. I don't vote for people who make it an issue. It is not up to the government to decide what someone does with their own body. I think the government ought not fund an abortion and it legality ought to be left up to the individual states.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: mythmorph
» RE:...Bush used this issue ...
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jcutler9 on Jul 31, 2009 4:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 31, 2009 4:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there's the N-weapons business. These pro-life rank-and-file just love their little rubble-bouncers, thousands upon thousands of them.
Then there's war. These guys really stand up for dirty little wars.
The next split has to do with "Thou shall not steal". Do you think that even one of their Republican leaders believes in a God who would issue such a laughable commandment?
So now they're splitting on the prevention of conception too. This time the rank and file are mostly using condoms, foam and the pill, as in, what, you think I'm crazy like Octomom? The Republican leaders see nothing wrong with contraception. It's the church hierarchy who demands that every woman crank out 20 kids, every single generation until Kingdom come, which had better come really quick at this population-exploding pace. Get back in that house, gurrl!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: ladyoracle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on Jul 31, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not Pro-Life, just Anti-Woman
Posted by: littlepitcher
» RE: hostage housekeepers and bed mates (aka slaves)
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 31, 2009 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» making popcorn as we speak :D
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know what to make of the attention lavished on fringe groups like "the Quiverfull" or the Duggers in the media. But yesterday I read an article at ChristianityToday.com from an ardent opponent of gay marriage that finally made it click for me - opponents of contraception are getting time in the conservative media because conservatives want to define marriage as an institution that is only legitimate if it produces children. That's the last argument they have left against gay marriage.
Christianity Today is usually a fairly moderate magazine, by evangelical standards, and doesn't walk lock-step with the Religious Right. But here was an article written by a man who said the only way to stop gay marriage is to legally define marriage as a union designed to produce children - and in a weird rhetorical turn, the author went on to say that Protestants are too individualistic, that sex within marriage for pleasure was selfish and illegitimate, and praised the Catholic and Orthodox churches for their authoritarian cultures.
Most ardent pro-lifers and die-hard gay marriage opponents are on a pilgrimage towards Rome or Constantinople. The authoritarianism of a divinely-inspired book is no longer enough for them, because a book allows people to discuss its meaning and find their own ways to apply its teachings to their unique situations. They need a personalized authority in the form of an infallible Pope or bishops with "apostolic succession" who have the divine right to tell the mass of humanity what to do. If they don't eventually convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they form their own purist sects with their own divinely-anointed leadership that must be obeyed.
The authoritarian streak of pro-life, anti-gay leaders is too much for the typical evangelical in the pew, who's been raised on the idea of a "personal relationship with God" and the right of each person to read the Bible. According to statistics, it's too much for the average Catholic, too, who long ago reduced their Church to a mere cultural institution for people with Ellis Island roots.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is the reason for the falling numbers of Christians in this country. They need to
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: the average Catholic, Church is cultural institution for people with Ellis Island roots
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: maglindracia
» RE: Opposition to contraception has a lot of do with gay marriage, too
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 31, 2009 5:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little is to be gained by deploring these in-house disputes. Americans should be discussing ways to guarantee freedom FROM religion and minimize its impact on our society. Our government tax breaks and blue laws that have transformed primitive religious ideas into law are especially damaging and should be remedied as soon as possible. It's time to stop marveling at how backward some religious folks are and get serious about reclaiming our nation from them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Amen! You are so correct. Some get so wrapped up that they lose their ability to think for
Posted by: avidAmerican
» I have a suggestion for you
Posted by: diof09
» RE: I have a suggestion for you
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: The real problem is: Religion is a mental illness
Posted by: JefffromCA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: diof09 on Jul 31, 2009 6:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Those who don't want to use contraception should not get taxpayer money to take care of their
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: Those who don't want to use contraception should not get taxpayer money to take care of their
Posted by: diof09
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 31, 2009 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Going to the doctors office is a private matter, and what is done in the doctors office is maintained by doctor/patient confidentiality - what gives these people the right to dictate what any woman does. No one that has an abortion is throwing a party let's make that clear, but it is a legal right that women have that allows women to safely have this procedure done. If these people are so "pro-life" then I've got a few ideas for them: (1)how about babysitting for someone that really is trying hard and just making it, (2)how about being foster parents or adoptive parents, (3)how about working with domestic abuse victims, (4)how about working in drug rehabilitation facilities - all of these are pro-life issues. It is about the quality of your life, and until they can be about more than just the womb - they should call themselves "Pro-utero"!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But you see ..
Posted by: mythmorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: permanentilt on Jul 31, 2009 6:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(I wonder if they actually think these things)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Seed on the ground baby!!!
Posted by: Hiroak
» RE: Seed on the ground baby!!!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philosimphy on Jul 31, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The B4, as in B4 the enlightenment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Jul 31, 2009 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Works for priests eeerr sort of
Posted by: Hiroak
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 31, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, believe that abortion should be available free of charge for any woman who wants it for any reason whatsoever. But, in the end, it is not my choice (being that I am male.)
I understand how some people would view me as inhuman for having such beliefs--but I also know others who would see them in turn as practically protazoan.
What's gonna happen if we keep up this separatist mentality? War! Is that what you really want? More than a solution? Then perhaps you, my friend, have lost sight of what we are struggling for.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, war is what they are wanting, they like killing. Kind of a joke, isn't it?
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: Morell
» RE: The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 31, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THEY'RE SELF DESTRUCTING
Posted by: JefffromCA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 31, 2009 8:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, notes:
"Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to 'a woman's right to choose' with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved."
For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn't dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?
There ARE non-traditional pro-life groups that make up "The Left Side of the March" on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I'm not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, psychology professor and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.
(This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals against Christians who claim animals don't have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals and they are not to be compensated in an afterlife for the sufferings we inflict upon them now, then there is no justification for causing them pain.)
My friend James Dawson, a practicing Theravadin Buddhist, used to publish Live and Let Live, a pro-life, animal rights, Libertarian 'zine. Someone once wrote in, and referred to Libertarians as "Republicans who do drugs." (Rachel MacNair broke up laughing when I told her this!) Shay Van Vliemen, President of Vegans for Life, wrote on an e-mail list for pro-life vegetarians and vegans in the late 1990s, that she doesn't expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime--she would just be glad to have a pro-life president who would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insisted she is NOT a Republican, but a Libertarian.
Respected pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff, of The Village Voice, is a self-described "liberal Jewish atheist". Not your stereotypical pro-lifer! When Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue, wrote Aborting America in 1979, he was an atheist. He has since become a Christian. One thing the pro-life movement desperately needs is religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being Christian (born again, Catholic, fundamentalist, etc.).
I mentioned this to James Dawson when he was about to write to Dr. Nathanson about information on contraception. It caused James to write to Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life (who, like Hentoff, is also a Jewish atheist) for the information.
Had Dennis Kucinich remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. There are many pro-life liberals and non-traditional pro-lifers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Peace, love, illlegal abortion!
Posted by: morticia
» Rachel MacNair
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Rachel MacNair
Posted by: morticia
» RE: pro-life Democrats and non-traditional pro-lifers
Posted by: sunnywater
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are anti-abortion; nothing more, nothing less.
Their goal is to ban abortion and hang the consequences.
Duh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 10:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mr
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 11:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weslen1 on Jul 31, 2009 11:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mandating that women's health can't be addressed in the doctor's office because THEY don't believe it should be "legal" is disgusting. Let's mandate that prostrate cancer screening and treatment cannot be treated in a doctor's office because it's a "sexual" problem and something that only happens to MEN and see what they have to say then.
Especially in light of the fact that Senator Chris Dodd was just diagnosed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» More to the Point
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Making policy on Religious Beliefs is Unconstitutional!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Comments are closed-
Posted by: texshelters on Jul 31, 2009 12:15 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for using the term "anti-cho
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Jul 31, 2009 3:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mramell50 on Jul 31, 2009 8:41 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not make pro lifers pay for all the unwanted babies?
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frannie on Aug 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 3, 2009 9:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should encourage this civil war within this socio-pathetic group of malecontents and somehow arm them so they can do the job equally amongst themselves!
I'd be so happy to have the world ridden of these brain dead, neo-sycophant s that I would gladly nominate any of them for the 2009 or 2010 Darwin awards.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ksbabe on Aug 4, 2009 4:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 31, 2009 3:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The parents say they will keep on having babies until they get to keep one.
As the article shows, it's easier to react to a problem than it is to address it sensibly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: Jaipurr
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: bobdown
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: "WOW!, they have really terrible teeth"
Posted by: mythmorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lisafrequency on Jul 31, 2009 4:28 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think politicians should make it a campaign issue. Look how Bush used this issue and barely did anything about it after getting everyone worked up about it. Just like he said limited government and a humble foreign policy geeeze people. I think it really takes from the more important issues. I don't vote for people who make it an issue. It is not up to the government to decide what someone does with their own body. I think the government ought not fund an abortion and it legality ought to be left up to the individual states.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I'm still wondering what gives the government the right to make decisions about
Posted by: mythmorph
» RE:...Bush used this issue ...
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jcutler9 on Jul 31, 2009 4:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 31, 2009 4:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there's the N-weapons business. These pro-life rank-and-file just love their little rubble-bouncers, thousands upon thousands of them.
Then there's war. These guys really stand up for dirty little wars.
The next split has to do with "Thou shall not steal". Do you think that even one of their Republican leaders believes in a God who would issue such a laughable commandment?
So now they're splitting on the prevention of conception too. This time the rank and file are mostly using condoms, foam and the pill, as in, what, you think I'm crazy like Octomom? The Republican leaders see nothing wrong with contraception. It's the church hierarchy who demands that every woman crank out 20 kids, every single generation until Kingdom come, which had better come really quick at this population-exploding pace. Get back in that house, gurrl!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: ladyoracle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on Jul 31, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not Pro-Life, just Anti-Woman
Posted by: littlepitcher
» RE: hostage housekeepers and bed mates (aka slaves)
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 31, 2009 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» making popcorn as we speak :D
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know what to make of the attention lavished on fringe groups like "the Quiverfull" or the Duggers in the media. But yesterday I read an article at ChristianityToday.com from an ardent opponent of gay marriage that finally made it click for me - opponents of contraception are getting time in the conservative media because conservatives want to define marriage as an institution that is only legitimate if it produces children. That's the last argument they have left against gay marriage.
Christianity Today is usually a fairly moderate magazine, by evangelical standards, and doesn't walk lock-step with the Religious Right. But here was an article written by a man who said the only way to stop gay marriage is to legally define marriage as a union designed to produce children - and in a weird rhetorical turn, the author went on to say that Protestants are too individualistic, that sex within marriage for pleasure was selfish and illegitimate, and praised the Catholic and Orthodox churches for their authoritarian cultures.
Most ardent pro-lifers and die-hard gay marriage opponents are on a pilgrimage towards Rome or Constantinople. The authoritarianism of a divinely-inspired book is no longer enough for them, because a book allows people to discuss its meaning and find their own ways to apply its teachings to their unique situations. They need a personalized authority in the form of an infallible Pope or bishops with "apostolic succession" who have the divine right to tell the mass of humanity what to do. If they don't eventually convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they form their own purist sects with their own divinely-anointed leadership that must be obeyed.
The authoritarian streak of pro-life, anti-gay leaders is too much for the typical evangelical in the pew, who's been raised on the idea of a "personal relationship with God" and the right of each person to read the Bible. According to statistics, it's too much for the average Catholic, too, who long ago reduced their Church to a mere cultural institution for people with Ellis Island roots.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is the reason for the falling numbers of Christians in this country. They need to
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: the average Catholic, Church is cultural institution for people with Ellis Island roots
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Marriage only for producing children
Posted by: maglindracia
» RE: Opposition to contraception has a lot of do with gay marriage, too
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 31, 2009 5:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little is to be gained by deploring these in-house disputes. Americans should be discussing ways to guarantee freedom FROM religion and minimize its impact on our society. Our government tax breaks and blue laws that have transformed primitive religious ideas into law are especially damaging and should be remedied as soon as possible. It's time to stop marveling at how backward some religious folks are and get serious about reclaiming our nation from them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Amen! You are so correct. Some get so wrapped up that they lose their ability to think for
Posted by: avidAmerican
» I have a suggestion for you
Posted by: diof09
» RE: I have a suggestion for you
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: The real problem is: Religion is a mental illness
Posted by: JefffromCA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: diof09 on Jul 31, 2009 6:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Those who don't want to use contraception should not get taxpayer money to take care of their
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: Those who don't want to use contraception should not get taxpayer money to take care of their
Posted by: diof09
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 31, 2009 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Going to the doctors office is a private matter, and what is done in the doctors office is maintained by doctor/patient confidentiality - what gives these people the right to dictate what any woman does. No one that has an abortion is throwing a party let's make that clear, but it is a legal right that women have that allows women to safely have this procedure done. If these people are so "pro-life" then I've got a few ideas for them: (1)how about babysitting for someone that really is trying hard and just making it, (2)how about being foster parents or adoptive parents, (3)how about working with domestic abuse victims, (4)how about working in drug rehabilitation facilities - all of these are pro-life issues. It is about the quality of your life, and until they can be about more than just the womb - they should call themselves "Pro-utero"!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But you see ..
Posted by: mythmorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: permanentilt on Jul 31, 2009 6:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(I wonder if they actually think these things)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Seed on the ground baby!!!
Posted by: Hiroak
» RE: Seed on the ground baby!!!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philosimphy on Jul 31, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The B4, as in B4 the enlightenment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Jul 31, 2009 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Works for priests eeerr sort of
Posted by: Hiroak
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 31, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, believe that abortion should be available free of charge for any woman who wants it for any reason whatsoever. But, in the end, it is not my choice (being that I am male.)
I understand how some people would view me as inhuman for having such beliefs--but I also know others who would see them in turn as practically protazoan.
What's gonna happen if we keep up this separatist mentality? War! Is that what you really want? More than a solution? Then perhaps you, my friend, have lost sight of what we are struggling for.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, war is what they are wanting, they like killing. Kind of a joke, isn't it?
Posted by: avidAmerican
» RE: The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: Morell
» RE: The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 31, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THEY'RE SELF DESTRUCTING
Posted by: JefffromCA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 31, 2009 8:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, notes:
"Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to 'a woman's right to choose' with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved."
For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn't dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?
There ARE non-traditional pro-life groups that make up "The Left Side of the March" on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I'm not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, psychology professor and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.
(This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals against Christians who claim animals don't have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals and they are not to be compensated in an afterlife for the sufferings we inflict upon them now, then there is no justification for causing them pain.)
My friend James Dawson, a practicing Theravadin Buddhist, used to publish Live and Let Live, a pro-life, animal rights, Libertarian 'zine. Someone once wrote in, and referred to Libertarians as "Republicans who do drugs." (Rachel MacNair broke up laughing when I told her this!) Shay Van Vliemen, President of Vegans for Life, wrote on an e-mail list for pro-life vegetarians and vegans in the late 1990s, that she doesn't expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime--she would just be glad to have a pro-life president who would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insisted she is NOT a Republican, but a Libertarian.
Respected pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff, of The Village Voice, is a self-described "liberal Jewish atheist". Not your stereotypical pro-lifer! When Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue, wrote Aborting America in 1979, he was an atheist. He has since become a Christian. One thing the pro-life movement desperately needs is religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being Christian (born again, Catholic, fundamentalist, etc.).
I mentioned this to James Dawson when he was about to write to Dr. Nathanson about information on contraception. It caused James to write to Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life (who, like Hentoff, is also a Jewish atheist) for the information.
Had Dennis Kucinich remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. There are many pro-life liberals and non-traditional pro-lifers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Peace, love, illlegal abortion!
Posted by: morticia
» Rachel MacNair
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Rachel MacNair
Posted by: morticia
» RE: pro-life Democrats and non-traditional pro-lifers
Posted by: sunnywater
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are anti-abortion; nothing more, nothing less.
Their goal is to ban abortion and hang the consequences.
Duh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 10:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mr
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 11:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weslen1 on Jul 31, 2009 11:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mandating that women's health can't be addressed in the doctor's office because THEY don't believe it should be "legal" is disgusting. Let's mandate that prostrate cancer screening and treatment cannot be treated in a doctor's office because it's a "sexual" problem and something that only happens to MEN and see what they have to say then.
Especially in light of the fact that Senator Chris Dodd was just diagnosed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» More to the Point
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Making policy on Religious Beliefs is Unconstitutional!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Comments are closed-
Posted by: texshelters on Jul 31, 2009 12:15 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for using the term "anti-cho
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Jul 31, 2009 3:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mramell50 on Jul 31, 2009 8:41 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not make pro lifers pay for all the unwanted babies?
Posted by: maglindracia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frannie on Aug 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 3, 2009 9:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should encourage this civil war within this socio-pathetic group of malecontents and somehow arm them so they can do the job equally amongst themselves!
I'd be so happy to have the world ridden of these brain dead, neo-sycophant s that I would gladly nominate any of them for the 2009 or 2010 Darwin awards.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ksbabe on Aug 4, 2009 4:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




