REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 71

Why the Anti-Choice Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War

When it comes to contraception, anti-chociers are alienating their own kind.
July 31, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

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%.


Cristina Page is the author of 'How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America' (Perseus Books, 2006).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: abortion, pro-life, contraception


Comments are closed-

I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 31, 2009 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to her 14th child even though social services have gone to court to take away the previous 13.

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]


Comments are closed-

This is not really a government issue
Posted by: lisafrequency on Jul 31, 2009 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that abortion is not a good choice in most instances. Women who want to have an abortion will have one even if it were illegal.

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]


Comments are closed-

Logical extension of prolife
Posted by: jcutler9 on Jul 31, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A logical extension of the pro-life program would, like Quiverful movement, enjoin everyone to have endless babies, because surely that is the divine injunction, is it not? With hundreds of ovum available to every woman, she should begin reproducing at, say, 14 years, have a baby a year (or less), for, say, 25 years? why not? And as well, she could donate eggs to those women less fortunate so that they, too, could have 25 babies each. I do wonder about these pro-lifers, though--how many babies do they average among themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 31, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rank and file, if not the activists, would stand consistently for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, robbers, crackheads, jaywalkers, people who consistently didn't come to church on time,...

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]


Comments are closed-

Not Pro-Life, just Anti-Woman
Posted by: terradea42 on Jul 31, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-Abortion Anti-Contraception people are mainly just Anti-Women. Their goal is not preventing abortion, their goal is preventing non-marital sex (among women). These people (i.e., Randall Terry) should be seen for what they are: religious zealots no different than the Taliban. Control the sexual behavior of a group of people, and you control those people.

[« 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

Comments are closed-

"Why the Pro-Life Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War"
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 31, 2009 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's hope they don't disappoint us and massively slaughter each other. Good riddance.

[« 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-

Opposition to contraception has a lot of do with gay marriage, too
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to an evangelical college. Not one single person I knew there was against contraception (sure, sex was for marriage...but once you were married, anything you wanted to do between the sheets was God-blessed). In fact, we even used to tease the few token Catholic students on campus with choruses of "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great" from the Monty Python movie.

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]


Comments are closed-

The real problem is: Religion is a mental illness
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 31, 2009 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a terrific article, but it describes just one aspect of a much broader, global social problem: the mental illness called religion. We shouldn't be surprised if pro-lifers seems to be inconsistent and illogical because all religion can be accurately described in those terms. Indeed, the most ardent pro-lifers in many ways are more consistent than their "moderate" foes because the former are consistently rabid in insisting that people adopt Bronze Age attitudes toward reproduction and theology.

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]

» I have a suggestion for you Posted by: diof09
» RE: I have a suggestion for you Posted by: Ian MacLeod

Comments are closed-

Congressman Ryan Is Running Headlong into the Dominionists
Posted by: diof09 on Jul 31, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't surprise me that there is a small but very powerful group resisting contraception. The "external" reason they give for abortion abolition is wanting to save innocent babies but the "internal" or hidden agenda is to abolish what they see as wanton promiscuity of unmarried females. Mr. Ryan is calling their bluff and they know it. I think he does too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The liars of "pro-life"
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 31, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people that call themselves "Pro-Life" really are "Pro My Womb"! They are perfectly contented with trying to enforce woman to have children yet once the child is here - they do not advocate for anything else! The current debate about health care is a perfect example of where you would think people that are "Pro-life" would want to have a voice, after all 48 million people in this nation have no insurance - yet their only contribution to the argument is to ensure public money doesn't support any abortion - even if the mother's life is on the line!

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-

LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION
Posted by: permanentilt on Jul 31, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MASTURBATION IS MURDER!

(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-

It's The B4
Posted by: philosimphy on Jul 31, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bible-Based-Breeding-Brigade.
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-

note to fully pro-life herd...
Posted by: ellie on Jul 31, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you don't want contraception or abortion don't have sex with anyone... ever... end of problem... celibacy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 31, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Divisiveness. That whole "US vs. Them" mentality. For God's sake! We are all citizens, brothers & sisters! Let's please stop with the "them over there are insane and barely human."

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]

» RE: The Real Problem is ... Posted by: Morell
» RE: The Real Problem is ... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

THEY'RE SELF DESTRUCTING
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 31, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was bound to happen. The Republicans did it. Now their party needs rebuilding. It was always clear to me that the anti-abortion thing was never more than the right to control another person's life it as many ways as possible. It has nothing to do with murdering babies. It's another way of giving marching orders to women. Ususally women of very limited means. No wonder they're crumbling. ANNA

[« 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-

Some pro-life Democrats can be consistent and reasonable and Ryan is one to commend.
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 31, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats need to make their consistency and reasonable policies clear so that the Republicans cannot use this as one of their wedge issues. In the mean time, the "pro-life" movement is all fizzled out. Now, if only Congress and the White House will just repeal that partial birth abortion ban passed in 2003.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

pro-life Democrats and non-traditional pro-lifers
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2009 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a pro-life Democrat. I'm pro-life but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I've contributed heavily to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue, rather than take a pro-choice stance.

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]

» Rachel MacNair Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Rachel MacNair Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

They're surprised? I'm not!
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pro-Life" is a false statement.

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-

Mr
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rep. Tim Ryan is to be commended. Only contraception and comprehensive sexuality education in the public schools can reduce the need for abortion. A minority of Religious Right whackos should not be allowed to sidetrack this sensible solution to the problem of unwanted or problem pregnancies. Further, universal (i.e., worldwide) access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, not to mention equal rights and educational opportunity for girls and women (and even access to nonsurgical sterilization), are essential to curbing overpopulation and dealing with global warming, climate change, and resource depletion. Fundamentalist Quiverfullers of whatever faith should not be allowed to stand in the way. --- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr Posted by: maglindracia

Comments are closed-

Mr
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vasomurti's comment (above) is internally inconsistent. One cannot support church-state separation and also approve of government imposing a nonconsensus faith-based ideology on all women. Such imposition violates the First Amendment as well of the Fourth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Vasomurti makes the mistake of many, including Hentoff, of assigning "personhood" to fetuses, a view not supported by either science or the Judeo-Christian scriptures. It's rather like equating an acorn with an oak tree. Vasomurti also mentions one Doris Gordon, who, I must note, attended a lecture of mine at a church in Rockville, MD, a few months ago and made a complete fool of herself by incessantly interrupting me with obnoxious wild comments that completely turned off the audience. People who disapprove of abortions are not required to have them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Making policy on Religious Beliefs is Unconstitutional!
Posted by: weslen1 on Jul 31, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a person believes as to when life begins, whether at conception or at birth, is a religious belief. The constitution demands separation of Church and State and I think it's about time people start forcing politicians to FOLLOW the constitution they SWORE to uphold and protect. If they believe their religious beliefs trump the constitution as most Republicans do, they have no business being in government.
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

Comments are closed-

Well done
Posted by: texshelters on Jul 31, 2009 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article--

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-

Boomerangs return to their senders
Posted by: talkville on Jul 31, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who sets upon a deliberate and organized program to divide and conquer will ultimately find that they divide and conquer themselves, dividing into an infinity of absurdities and absolutisms and if conquering anything, conquering reason and taking it to the land of madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why not make pro lifers pay for all the unwanted babies?
Posted by: mramell50 on Jul 31, 2009 8:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see it this way.. make everyone sign up. You're either pro life or pro choice.. no going back either.. Once you sign it your stuck for life.. Then tax the piss out of all the pro lifers to support all the babies and we can just have a regular sex fest on their nickel.. OH NO! We CAN'T have the W word! Welfare! No, this wouldn't be welfare..just a way of saying, "You want all these babies? PAY for them dammit! and STOP tossing them all out on the streets and stop the phony crap of "well just give the baby to a couple who can't have kids.".. Yeah...I remember seeing the HUGE line that went 9 blocks around at the last adoption agency I went near.. and they were willing to take ANY kid, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, ..you name it! They want ALL these babies dontcha know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

what is conception?
Posted by: frannie on Aug 1, 2009 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right to Life folk define conception as the union of sperm and egg. Science and medicine define it as implantation. If the conceptus is a person, then both the pill and iud's are abortifacients. Stuck with their definition right to life folk must oppose contraception no matter how sensible an alternative to abortion it is. What is important to an informed electorate is that both sides make it very clear that pro-life legislation using their definition would outlaw both chemical and iud contraception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

maybe if they have a civil war amongst themselves...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 3, 2009 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they would kill themselves off!

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-

overpopulation
Posted by: ksbabe on Aug 4, 2009 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In animal communities, when resources are scarce, nature causes them to produce fewer offspring. The human animal has the capability to produce numerous offspring. We have tampered with the resource issue, with detrimental environmental consequences, and we have also intervened with modern medicine to ensure that most offspring survive. Most religious, conservative people, of all faiths disregard the laws of nature, and also do not use their "god-given" brains to see the folly of endlessly producing children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I wonder what the anti-abortion campaigners would think of the English woman about to give birth
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 31, 2009 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to her 14th child even though social services have gone to court to take away the previous 13.

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]


Comments are closed-

This is not really a government issue
Posted by: lisafrequency on Jul 31, 2009 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that abortion is not a good choice in most instances. Women who want to have an abortion will have one even if it were illegal.

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]


Comments are closed-

Logical extension of prolife
Posted by: jcutler9 on Jul 31, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A logical extension of the pro-life program would, like Quiverful movement, enjoin everyone to have endless babies, because surely that is the divine injunction, is it not? With hundreds of ovum available to every woman, she should begin reproducing at, say, 14 years, have a baby a year (or less), for, say, 25 years? why not? And as well, she could donate eggs to those women less fortunate so that they, too, could have 25 babies each. I do wonder about these pro-lifers, though--how many babies do they average among themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The pro-life movement always was pro-death.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 31, 2009 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rank and file, if not the activists, would stand consistently for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, robbers, crackheads, jaywalkers, people who consistently didn't come to church on time,...

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]


Comments are closed-

Not Pro-Life, just Anti-Woman
Posted by: terradea42 on Jul 31, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-Abortion Anti-Contraception people are mainly just Anti-Women. Their goal is not preventing abortion, their goal is preventing non-marital sex (among women). These people (i.e., Randall Terry) should be seen for what they are: religious zealots no different than the Taliban. Control the sexual behavior of a group of people, and you control those people.

[« 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

Comments are closed-

"Why the Pro-Life Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War"
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 31, 2009 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's hope they don't disappoint us and massively slaughter each other. Good riddance.

[« 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-

Opposition to contraception has a lot of do with gay marriage, too
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to an evangelical college. Not one single person I knew there was against contraception (sure, sex was for marriage...but once you were married, anything you wanted to do between the sheets was God-blessed). In fact, we even used to tease the few token Catholic students on campus with choruses of "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great" from the Monty Python movie.

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]


Comments are closed-

The real problem is: Religion is a mental illness
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 31, 2009 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a terrific article, but it describes just one aspect of a much broader, global social problem: the mental illness called religion. We shouldn't be surprised if pro-lifers seems to be inconsistent and illogical because all religion can be accurately described in those terms. Indeed, the most ardent pro-lifers in many ways are more consistent than their "moderate" foes because the former are consistently rabid in insisting that people adopt Bronze Age attitudes toward reproduction and theology.

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]

» I have a suggestion for you Posted by: diof09
» RE: I have a suggestion for you Posted by: Ian MacLeod

Comments are closed-

Congressman Ryan Is Running Headlong into the Dominionists
Posted by: diof09 on Jul 31, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't surprise me that there is a small but very powerful group resisting contraception. The "external" reason they give for abortion abolition is wanting to save innocent babies but the "internal" or hidden agenda is to abolish what they see as wanton promiscuity of unmarried females. Mr. Ryan is calling their bluff and they know it. I think he does too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The liars of "pro-life"
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 31, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people that call themselves "Pro-Life" really are "Pro My Womb"! They are perfectly contented with trying to enforce woman to have children yet once the child is here - they do not advocate for anything else! The current debate about health care is a perfect example of where you would think people that are "Pro-life" would want to have a voice, after all 48 million people in this nation have no insurance - yet their only contribution to the argument is to ensure public money doesn't support any abortion - even if the mother's life is on the line!

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-

LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION
Posted by: permanentilt on Jul 31, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MASTURBATION IS MURDER!

(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-

It's The B4
Posted by: philosimphy on Jul 31, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bible-Based-Breeding-Brigade.
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-

note to fully pro-life herd...
Posted by: ellie on Jul 31, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you don't want contraception or abortion don't have sex with anyone... ever... end of problem... celibacy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Real Problem is ...
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 31, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Divisiveness. That whole "US vs. Them" mentality. For God's sake! We are all citizens, brothers & sisters! Let's please stop with the "them over there are insane and barely human."

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]

» RE: The Real Problem is ... Posted by: Morell
» RE: The Real Problem is ... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

THEY'RE SELF DESTRUCTING
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 31, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was bound to happen. The Republicans did it. Now their party needs rebuilding. It was always clear to me that the anti-abortion thing was never more than the right to control another person's life it as many ways as possible. It has nothing to do with murdering babies. It's another way of giving marching orders to women. Ususally women of very limited means. No wonder they're crumbling. ANNA

[« 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-

Some pro-life Democrats can be consistent and reasonable and Ryan is one to commend.
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 31, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats need to make their consistency and reasonable policies clear so that the Republicans cannot use this as one of their wedge issues. In the mean time, the "pro-life" movement is all fizzled out. Now, if only Congress and the White House will just repeal that partial birth abortion ban passed in 2003.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

pro-life Democrats and non-traditional pro-lifers
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2009 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a pro-life Democrat. I'm pro-life but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I've contributed heavily to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue, rather than take a pro-choice stance.

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]

» Rachel MacNair Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Rachel MacNair Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

They're surprised? I'm not!
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jul 31, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pro-Life" is a false statement.

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-

Mr
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rep. Tim Ryan is to be commended. Only contraception and comprehensive sexuality education in the public schools can reduce the need for abortion. A minority of Religious Right whackos should not be allowed to sidetrack this sensible solution to the problem of unwanted or problem pregnancies. Further, universal (i.e., worldwide) access to contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, not to mention equal rights and educational opportunity for girls and women (and even access to nonsurgical sterilization), are essential to curbing overpopulation and dealing with global warming, climate change, and resource depletion. Fundamentalist Quiverfullers of whatever faith should not be allowed to stand in the way. --- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr Posted by: maglindracia

Comments are closed-

Mr
Posted by: EddDoerr on Jul 31, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vasomurti's comment (above) is internally inconsistent. One cannot support church-state separation and also approve of government imposing a nonconsensus faith-based ideology on all women. Such imposition violates the First Amendment as well of the Fourth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Vasomurti makes the mistake of many, including Hentoff, of assigning "personhood" to fetuses, a view not supported by either science or the Judeo-Christian scriptures. It's rather like equating an acorn with an oak tree. Vasomurti also mentions one Doris Gordon, who, I must note, attended a lecture of mine at a church in Rockville, MD, a few months ago and made a complete fool of herself by incessantly interrupting me with obnoxious wild comments that completely turned off the audience. People who disapprove of abortions are not required to have them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Making policy on Religious Beliefs is Unconstitutional!
Posted by: weslen1 on Jul 31, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a person believes as to when life begins, whether at conception or at birth, is a religious belief. The constitution demands separation of Church and State and I think it's about time people start forcing politicians to FOLLOW the constitution they SWORE to uphold and protect. If they believe their religious beliefs trump the constitution as most Republicans do, they have no business being in government.
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

Comments are closed-

Well done
Posted by: texshelters on Jul 31, 2009 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article--

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-

Boomerangs return to their senders
Posted by: talkville on Jul 31, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who sets upon a deliberate and organized program to divide and conquer will ultimately find that they divide and conquer themselves, dividing into an infinity of absurdities and absolutisms and if conquering anything, conquering reason and taking it to the land of madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why not make pro lifers pay for all the unwanted babies?
Posted by: mramell50 on Jul 31, 2009 8:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see it this way.. make everyone sign up. You're either pro life or pro choice.. no going back either.. Once you sign it your stuck for life.. Then tax the piss out of all the pro lifers to support all the babies and we can just have a regular sex fest on their nickel.. OH NO! We CAN'T have the W word! Welfare! No, this wouldn't be welfare..just a way of saying, "You want all these babies? PAY for them dammit! and STOP tossing them all out on the streets and stop the phony crap of "well just give the baby to a couple who can't have kids.".. Yeah...I remember seeing the HUGE line that went 9 blocks around at the last adoption agency I went near.. and they were willing to take ANY kid, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, ..you name it! They want ALL these babies dontcha know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

what is conception?
Posted by: frannie on Aug 1, 2009 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right to Life folk define conception as the union of sperm and egg. Science and medicine define it as implantation. If the conceptus is a person, then both the pill and iud's are abortifacients. Stuck with their definition right to life folk must oppose contraception no matter how sensible an alternative to abortion it is. What is important to an informed electorate is that both sides make it very clear that pro-life legislation using their definition would outlaw both chemical and iud contraception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

maybe if they have a civil war amongst themselves...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 3, 2009 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they would kill themselves off!

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-

overpopulation
Posted by: ksbabe on Aug 4, 2009 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In animal communities, when resources are scarce, nature causes them to produce fewer offspring. The human animal has the capability to produce numerous offspring. We have tampered with the resource issue, with detrimental environmental consequences, and we have also intervened with modern medicine to ensure that most offspring survive. Most religious, conservative people, of all faiths disregard the laws of nature, and also do not use their "god-given" brains to see the folly of endlessly producing children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS