Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The War On Sex

By Cristina Page, TomPaine.com. Posted May 18, 2006.


The groups trying to ban abortion have another plan up their sleeve: restricting your access to contraception.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The architects of the South Dakota ban on abortion have a bold plan for our country. Certainly, they have already given a jolt to the majority of Americans, or at least the 66 percent who want Roe v. Wade to remain law of the land. But there's a great deal more the American public should know about these legislative campaigners. Especially since there's a lot more of their agenda they hope to realize.

They have a plan for you, and if you are anything like the 85 percent of American couples who have sex once a week, you're not going to like it. The pro-life groups who are the most committed to ending legal abortion -- and gotten the furthest in their goals -- are also leading campaigns against the only proven ways to prevent abortion: contraception. Shocking as it may be, there is not one pro-life organization in the United States that supports the use of contraception. Instead the pro-life movement is the constant opponent of every single effort to provide Americans with the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

If the South Dakota ban is upheld and Roe v. Wade is toppled, it's safe to say the pro-life movement is not going to send out a brigade to furnish Americans with the most effective contraceptives. In fact, pro-life groups' most recent activities suggest the exact opposite.

Take Leslee Unruh, the South Dakota native considered the primary force behind the near-total ban on abortion in her state. Unruh is, in many ways, the perfect representative of the modern pro-life movement. She is lauded in pro-life circles as the president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, a group that promotes abstinence-until-marriage. Under Unruh's leadership, the Abstinence Clearinghouse has spearheaded campaigns to stop people from using the condom. On the organization's website, supporters of family planning are derided as the "safe sex cartel" and "condom-pushers." Her medical advisory board consists of physicians who pledge not to prescribe contraception to sexually active teens. The group's new project, "Abstinence Africa," discourages condom use in African countries like Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho where, on average, one in three adults is infected with HIV.

Unruh and her pro-life colleagues have moved beyond attacking the condom, too. For example, when pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, the pro-life movement has responded with a favorite tactic: it has moved aggressively to welcome their deeds as acts of "conscience."

The movement has helped pass laws allowing pharmacists to refuse on moral or religious grounds to fill birth control prescriptions in South Dakota -- no surprise there -- as well as Arkansas and Mississippi. Additionally another 19 states have moved to protect anyone who decides to stand in the way of a woman getting birth control; this conceivably includes cashiers who could choose to refuse to ring up your prescription.

Over the past decade, pro-choice groups have tried to get contraception covered by health insurers as a sensible way to stop unintended pregnancies. Nearly every time, these initiatives have provoked intense battles in state legislatures. Right to Life chapters in Ohio, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, Wisconsin, Nevada and Missouri all fought against state legislation to get birth control covered. Year after year the Pro-Life Caucus of Congress defeats federal legislation to require health insurers to pay for birth control.

President Bush has complied with almost all the requests of his pro-life, anti-contraception base. He's attempted to revoke contraception benefits to federal employees, slashed U.S. foreign aid programs that distribute birth control and appointed anti-contraception ideologues to the expert panels charged with approving new contraception methods. He's also appointed an abstinence-only-until-marriage crusader to direct the Title X program which delivers contraception to the nation's poor -- the majority of Title X clients are not married. It should come as no surprise that Title X's funding has remained flat, while its clientele has swelled. What's also not surprising is that the abortion rate among the most indigent in our country has been increasing.

Today, pro-life groups in the United States are reclassifying the most common contraception methods, including the birth control pill, the patch, the IUD, and the Depo-Provera shot, as "abortifacients" by claiming, with no scientific backing, that they cause abortions.

The American Life League explained, "We have been working to prove that prescription contraceptives have nothing to do with woman's health and well-being but are recreational drugs that prevent fertilization and abort children." 

Some groups will use legal means to put pressure on candidates to adopt their anti-contraception view. For example, Northern Kentucky Right to Life will only endorse candidates who believe the use of the standard birth control pill constitutes abortion.

While the more extreme side of the pro-life movement hasn't yet advocated violence against those that distribute birth control, they do agree with the concept of "contraception=abortion." Most chillingly, Army of God, a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as "heroes," also classifies birth control as an abortion method. On the "Birth Control is Evil" section of their website, they explain, quite threateningly, "Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth control is anti-baby and anti-child…Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?"

Cloaked in the heated rhetoric of the abortion debate, an entirely new pro-life agenda is taking shape. Most Americans don't know about this yet. But the Right to Life movement, which is now rewriting the country's laws on abortion -- of which South Dakota is clearly just a first target -- has a broader and, for most of us, a disturbing plan. If this powerful movement succeeds, Americans will require safe abortion services more than ever.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Cristina Page is vice president of the Institute for Reproductive Health Access at NARAL Pro-Choice New York, and the author of 'How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America' (Perseus Books, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Religion -- ALL religion -- empowers these fascists
Posted by: Moonray on May 18, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article describes yet another threat to our rights posed by religious zealots. These people are serious about taking over the government, and they have made tremendous progress in doing just that. Many federal policies -- especially on birth control and family planning in the U.S. and abroad -- are based on conservative religious views. And they are just getting started.

That's why it's imperative that Americans stop viewing organized religion as a sweet, benign spiritual activity and see it for what it is: A dangerous, illogical world view that opens the door to all sorts of abuse and tyranny. The frequent news reports about abuse of children and women in church cults are just a small part of that picture.

And please, please don't fall into the trap of saying, "Oh, those are just the extremists. The church I belong to would never do things like that." Maybe not, but the church or sect you belong to empowers the extremists by encouraging belief in supernatural beings and magical explanations to natural problems. That's extremely destructive and results in serious long-term social consequences.

We Americans must begin to see religion realistically, and we must begin to remove its influence from our government. If we don't, the rights and liberties we take for granted will be taken away from us one by one.

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

» Our problem isn't Anarchy ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Sorry, I won't Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Sorry, I won't Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Sorry, I won't Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Sorry, I won't Posted by: KellyJoe
» RE: Sorry, I won't Posted by: Annarisse
» Question for you... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» You are just trying Posted by: Moonray
» I made it Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Question for you... Posted by: Darksider
» First, I Posted by: Moonray
» First, I Posted by: Moonray
» You can say that again! Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Question for you... Posted by: aussidawg
» Religion vs. Government Posted by: smsingram
» RE: eligion vs. Government Posted by: aussidawg
If you can't fight these arseholes with logic...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 18, 2006 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...then fight them with the only thing most people understand - money.

If these groups want to force everyone to breed endlessly, then make sure it is pointed out to everyone that taxes will have to rise as more and more poor (and getting poorer) people have more and more children and cannot support them. Point out that as the population goes up, your crime rate will also go up (assuming your education standards go as low as the religious groups want them to go, in order that no one is educated enough to fight back) and that you will have to import more food and supplies to keep your population fed, etc.

Good luck, you guys - I predict you will breed yourselves out of existence.

Or become Communist. Whatta great joke THAT would be!

Then we could impose sanctions on the US and ignore you as your country deserves! yay!

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

What is war?
Posted by: nbrown on May 18, 2006 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first thought when reading this article was, sigh, another person using "war" to mean something it isn't.

Does a fight over abortion and sexual activity really, truly ascend to the level of, say, the Iraq war?

Seriously, by using the word "war" over and over to describe political fights, we imbibe it with an unthreatening connotation.

The author discredits her own argument from the get-go: They have a plan for you, and if you are anything like the 85 percent of American couples who have sex once a week, you're not going to like it.

85% of the country, or likely more, would be opposed. Case closed.

Do I think birth control is threatened in the US? No. The vast majority of people, married or not, have sex or want to be having sex. But don't take my word for it, know the following Truth:

God built a compelling sex drive into every creature, no matter what style of fucking it practiced. He made sex irresistibly pleasurable, wildly joyous, free from fears. He made it innocent merriment.

Needless to say, fucking was an immediate smash hit. Everyone agreed, from aardvarks to zebras. All the jolly animals -- lions and lambs, rhinoceroses and gazelles, skylarks and lobsters, even insects, though most of them fuck only once in a lifetime -- fucked along innocently and merrily for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe they were dumb animals, but they knew a good thing when they had one.

-- Alan Sherman, "The Rape of the A*P*E*"

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

» RE: Why this is good news Posted by: Unsui
Cut to the chase
Posted by: Lily H. on May 18, 2006 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between the supposed pro-life antics and the new article in Washington Post, "Forever Pregnant", it's pretty obvious what
this country's eventual goals are: 1) Keep any and all child-bearing women and their loved ones, associates and partners on "pregnancy watch" so that most citizens are in
some kind of low-level panic - disaster can strike at any time
and that no one can blithely sail through life without a backdrop
of terror constantly lurking in the distance. That means a good chunk of our population, everyone from teens to women in their mid-forties will always be in some state of siege, wondering
every month if they "are" or "not". Soon, everyone will be
under some sense of dread, and so will their families and loved ones. That is the kind of control the power brokers and
corporatists want - a steady, consistent kind of mass control that will be virtually guaranteed, thanks to Mother Nature and
the biological imperative. I also wondered about the pro-life
stance from the very beginning of their movement. If they
hate abortion so damned much, then why ARE'NT they
pushing contraception research and distribution? Because
they don't bloody CARE about keeping women from GETTING pregnant, they just want to allow women who do, to NOT
abort their potential child and THAT IS ALL THEY WANT!
2) The second item the corporatists want is a way to ensure
more and more slaves for their factories and sweatshops,
no birth control means instant consumers, hear that, Wal-Martians? If women and families are constantly struggling
with the ensuing unplanned pregnancies that will certainly occur once the pro-lifers get their way, that lessens
the ability for our citizenry and nation to have the energy,
resolve, or resources to fight back against the machine, as it were. I have already told my young adult daughter, "You
will most likely grow into a world where most every woman
or friend you know will experience an accidental pregnancy, but will be FORCED to carry the baby
whether she wants to or not". I know she understands the
concept, but there are no answers readily available to a
young mind who is still trying to make sense of the crazy
world she may be inheriting. If the pro-lifers get their way,
you can be assured our first-class superpower United States
will become a Third World nation in short order.

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

» RE: Cut to the chase Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Cut to the chase Posted by: Pseudo Morals
What did you expect???
Posted by: jontan88 on May 18, 2006 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fight against "aborton" has NOTHING to do with life but everything to do with control and what better tool to wield than that of judging "sin" and what better vehicle than sex, that all powerful, all consuming activity. Control sex and you control lives. It's all about control.

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

All life is sacred....
Posted by: waves999 on May 18, 2006 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All life is sacred until it grows up and disagrees with you... then you try to kill it.


Socrates put it nicely: "...neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom: for herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself."

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

They Will Self Destruct
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 18, 2006 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is these pro-lifers are the most afraid of life itself, especially their own sexual desires, impulses and fantasies. I have lived intimately with these people for years and they, behind closed doors, are the most sexually perverse and obsessed group I have ever known and that includes the Bay Area during the '60's. Add ignorance and weakenss to fear (and self righteousness fueled by an omnipotent God) and you get those who want to control others, dictate human behavior and oppress any and all who stand in their way. But they will self destruct as the struggle is within them and not in society or culture. Just as Bush and the Republican party has self destructed in just over a year those who yearn for power to dominate and subordinate others, without a sense of humanity and understanding of human nature, will simply implode. The real problem is the damage they do before this happens.

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

» RE: They Will Self Destruct Posted by: munchkinpup
OVER POPULATED, OVER MILITARIZED
Posted by: greentime on May 18, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the world has too many people. If we didn't have contraception, it would be even worse. The planet can not support the population as it is now.

Second, who died and put these freakish religious zealots in charge? The end of their story is that the planet dies... is this what you want? It doesn't have to happen.

Third, read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood or rent the movie. This is their sick fantasy for the rest of us.

We do not have to help them realize this bad dream of theirs. There are SO many other better, wiser choices we can make. Fear is paralyzing. Don't be afraid.

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

A simple solution then...
Posted by: TechSwede on May 18, 2006 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- start of irony -
why don't the also promote mandatory time limited chemical castration of anyone who reaches puberty and on the day you marry you get a shot to activate your hormones again! :o) Problems would probably occur in football and other hormone-ridden sports, but isn't that a small price to pay to get rid of teen pregnancies and VD and such?

The streets would be filled with healty kids who only met over milkshakes and said things like "gooly" and dress like their parents, whom they always agree with all the time
-end of irony-

Seems that memory is non-existent in people who ask for these things. The main reason you got the pill was because married women, especially the poor, was having 10-14 babies through their lifes which really wasted their bodies and minds. To be able to control your own reproductivity was one of the great milestones for women to be able to control their own destiny.

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

"The Handmaid's Tale" is on the way
Posted by: BeeGee on May 18, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you haven't yet, read Margaret Atwood's grim dystopian novel of a near future where sex and people are totally controlled using our current right-wing theocratic model. It's a horrible picture, and this article describes how the stage is set for its materialization into reality.

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

» Missing the Point Posted by: BlueTigress
mollywally
Posted by: Doris Wallace on May 18, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND the next step of the anti-abortion/contraception nazies will be to imprison doctors and patients who get surgical vasectemies or tubligations. Hispitals will oppose these procedures because of CONSCIENCE issues.
The REAL reason for all of this is that our governement needs to grow future soldiers for the Long War.
There is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses abortion. It certainly didn't make the Top Ten!
READ - OR CHECK OUT THE MOVIE - THE HANDMAID'S TALE.

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

Watch for Criminalization
Posted by: riley on May 18, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of women who are pre-pregnant and indulge in behaviors not approved by the powers-that-be. It is ultimately about freedom for females...or Orwellian control. Could "they" take away children from parents who smoke, for instance? Or how about parents who drink or do drugs?..Oh, that's right. That's already done. But the kids are better off, right? Right?

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

And the legislature here in North Dakota's getting ready to follow suit
Posted by: NDnative on May 18, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the end, all this gender dividing will do is make both men and women losers.

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

Take time to read--it's terrifying.
Posted by: windian on May 18, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movie of The Handmaid's Tale is awful and distorts the message of the book. Read the book. Twenty or so years ago when it came out it was fantasy, but since the theocrats came to power it gets more real every day. I encourage my children to recognize that at some point in their lives--perhaps sooner than later--it may be necessary to expatriate in order be the people they've been reared to be.

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

common sense? somewhere?
Posted by: se4 on May 18, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last month at my school, during day of silence (you're silent for a day to protest harrassment of alternative genders etc and promot tolerance) we were initiall slammed with the slavic christian club's pamphlets and "Homosexuality is a sin" shirts. they were asked to remove them, those that didn't were suspended. Now they're sueing for discrimination. I had friends with religious shirts on during the three days of protest and it was heartily endorsed because they weren't targeting and harrassing a specific group. Also, We had protestors by lunch. Parent's with their children, mispelled bible quote signs. These parents spit and harrassed my friends walking into school while holding a sign that for the most part said homosexual agenda was invading schools and corrupting children. On April 20th the Sac. city board had met to recognize day of silence and transgender. Not teach it in schools, just promote tolerance. Seriously the people advocating day of silence are bloody silent! if you don't want to read the card saying why they're silent you don't have to.

So, I'm going to consistantly be plastered as immorral and a heathen for being bisexual, I won't be able to pay for college and i'm likely going to be a poor housewife because i couldn't afford birth control, health insurance or get through some picket lines. Bright future for a fifteen year old! Canada's looking really nice at the moment.

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

» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: common sense? somewhere? Posted by: aussidawg
» Keep it in your pants Posted by: Kelly
» Whoa! Posted by: Kelly
It's all about POWER!
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on May 18, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kind of "Pro-Life" (if you can ever CALL it that b/c women are going to be at even MORE of a risk when they go get an illegal and unsafe abortion) mindset and political platform is soley based on power - white sexually suppressed men and their brainwashed followers trying to push their adgenda on everyone else. As we all know, these people are in power and give all their support to Bush.

These religous zealots think that they are the only "right" people and have a mandate from God and the Bible to do anything they possibly can to push their idealogy on others, such as myself. Alas, I am only an inferior secular incubator, and I'll be the first one to be hung on the wall since I refused to carry a baby I did not PLAN or couln't PAY for. ( I also think this is a ploy to make more of the population fall under poverty w/ kids they can't support).

Hell, I even have INSURANCE and my birthcontrol is NOT covered and costs $50 a month!!! It is only going to get worse - I can't wait to smack a clerk upside the head at a CVS in Texas when they try to refuse selling me my Pill. Sheesh. Can't anyone be happy just controlling their OWN body and not MINE?????

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

» RE: It's all about POWER! Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» RE: It's all about POWER! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: It's all about POWER! Posted by: Doug1956
Please tell me again . . .
Posted by: russianblue1 on May 18, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why, as a woman and an ashamed American, I should not get out of the USA?!?!?

Anyone? Anyone?

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

» RE: Please tell me again . . . Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Please tell me again . . . Posted by: Roverton
This is better news than you might think
Posted by: Vyking on May 18, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contemplating a world without any form of reproductive choice is truly frightening. However, I think it's good that pro-lifers now feel confident enough to reveal their true agenda because it's so repulsive and reactionary that very, very few people outside their own ranks will agree with them. The more they push the limits of rational thinking and behavior, the sooner they will find themselves well outside the mainstream without an audience. Trying to ban birth control will be the right-to-life movement's undoing. Count on it.

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

Not all pro-lifers in America
Posted by: sailorgurl135 on May 18, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to set the record straight, not all pro-lifers in America are religious zealots who want to stop everyone from having sex. My mother was the director of a crisis pregnancy resource center for 10 years. This center is Christian based in ideals. The mission and overall philosophy is love. The Love they seek to embody is Agape...selfless love that goes beyond individuals and beyond principles. This is not an exception to religious organizations. Their specific services they gave are very similar to Annarisse's descriptions of what the Canadian experience for Annarisse has been.

One of the things that really is important is to not lump everything under one umbrella and make enemies of everyone. There is no way to help a problem is there is fighting amongst the allies. We must stand together and fight unified...whether we be Christians, Jews, Post-Moderns, Atheists, Feminists, Republicans, Democrats, Asians, Mexicans, Immigrants, Citizens. This is a problem of control, and the only way to fight to have our lives back is to stand united because of our differences.

America, at least the America in which I grew up believing, is a place of Freedom. Freedom is not a right, Freedom is a way of life. Categorizing people based on Religion, Sex, Gender, Nationality, Heritage, Party or Class are all forms of control and manipulation. Only by standing together and not pushing one another aside because of minute details such as religious affiliation can we truly be Free.

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

» RE: Not all pro-lifers in America Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» RE: Not all pro-lifers in America Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: Not all pro-lifers in America Posted by: sailorgurl135
» Touchy-feely pablum Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Touchy-feely pablum Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Not all pro-lifers in America Posted by: munchkinpup
Recent Bumper Sticker...
Posted by: progressiveview on May 18, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A recent bumper stick I saw said, "Republican Love (actually was a heart) you, until your born". To that I would add the Christian Taliban, religious right.

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

» RE: ecent Bumper Sticker... Posted by: Crazy H
Deb
Posted by: debmcd on May 18, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just have a few questions for all those lunatic pro life wackos. How many of them had sex outside of marriage? I can't believe how absolutely, incredibly stupid they are. First abortion, then birth control. Are they going to support all the unwanted children that come after their asinine proposals are made into law? Are they going to help support the families who cannot afford to have more children but are forced to because the law says they must? Are they going to help raise the minimum wage so the bread winners can afford unlimited kids? Are they going to see to it that all families have shelter? Are they going to adopt all the AIDs children after their parents die? And why in the hell are they pushing their views on other counrties? It's bad enough they want to screw up this country. Why don't they just mind their own God Damn business and have as many kids as they want but don't force the rest of the world to believe the way they do. After they do away with birth control, what's next? Chastity belts? CAN YOU SAY WACKO?

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

» RE: Deb Posted by: wearesilhouettes
KKKristians aren't pro-life they're anti-sex
Posted by: Crazy H on May 18, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no biblical support for the anti-abortion camp.

Just read the old testament a little if you want to know how god feels about babies - dash their little heads against rocks, beat them with a stick, stone them to death if they get mouthy, and eat them if you're hungry.

No, the real agenda is "If it feels good, it's a sin" - and it's one more way of forcing people to follow their antiquated definition of morality. They WANT sex to have consequences so that they can justify their hatred of it.

Note use of a term I think I invented "KKKristian" - to differentiate them from the true followers of Christ. I've got lots of friends who are Christians - I just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one. ;-)

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

Why stop at contraception?
Posted by: McGroovy on May 18, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that the groups so intent on keeping Americans pure and abstinent haven't gone after the drug companies that produce Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction. After all, if you're sole purpose is to keep Americans from fucking each other for fun, wouldn't it be wise to also prevent men who have lost the ability to naturally get it up from obtaining a means to do so?

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

» RE: Why stop at contraception? Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Why stop at contraception? Posted by: crabbygoat
War on Sex
Posted by: MtnWolfGrl on May 18, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of what the author stated is new information. This first started not long after Roe v. Wade although I don't remember the exact year. It started to intensify during the Reagan administration, gained momentum under BushI, and now, it is approaching its apex under BushII.

Birth control/abortion/contraception is a matter of personal responsibility so it amazes me as to why something that is so clearly a private matter and a personal responsibility be legislated by any government entity. My only answer to this question is that the religious zealots fear for their own demise and can only try to circumvent this by trying to once again control women as sexual beings.

It seems as if the anti-contraceptive movement is just another part of the death throes of the patriarchial society. While the world is a long way from the end of the patriarchy, this is definitely one of those things that is being used to try and substantiate it. Every institution, good or bad, like every being, has a life expectancy, and it seems that the patriarchial society is slowly moving towards its end.

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

HERE WE GO AGAIN
Posted by: hefalumpe on May 18, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE PEOPLE CLAMMORING TO CONTROL OTHER'S SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE PRACTICES HAVE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THEIR OWN SEXUALITY, PROBABLY HANDED DOWN TO THEM BY THEIR NARROWMINDED RELIGIONS. THE MALE COMPONENT DOUBTLESS ALSO IS OUTRAGED THAT WOMEN NOW HAVE SOME AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY ( IN SCATTERED PLACES), AND DO NOT ALWAYS NOW HAVE TO ASK MALE PERMISSION TO BREATHE

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

Crazy B*stards...
Posted by: gazevans on May 18, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how the Anti-Choice Lobby - fascists to the extreme - are trying to control other people's behaviour.

Maybe if they weren't such extremists, they would see STDs as just a big a problem as unwanted pregnancy. They want to stop us being normal human beings!

They should just leave us alone and enjoy what, presumably, people who don't have sex do in it's place...

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

Forced contraception
Posted by: ciccio on May 18, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twentyfive years ago, China introduced the most draconian
birth control measures in the world. One child and only one
child. The world protested, China quite rightly said 'fuck the
world'. The question of what happens when the school classes
get smaller year after year, when parents have only one child
to look after has been answered. Very loud, very clear, to the
tune of some $800 billion a year in their favour.

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

Junior Anti-Sex League
Posted by: Burton on May 18, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-birth control movement can not be seen in isolation. For the last several decades one wing of feminism has promoted the idea that heterosexual sex is tantamount to rape.

The expansion of "sexual assault" to cover any kind of unwanted touching (such as spontaneous hugs) promotes the concept of sex-as-aggression. See the term "date-rape", which conflates the words for dating and raping. Very Orwellian: (see "blackwhite", "minitrue", "duckspeak", "crimespeak", "thoughtcrime").

The increasing hysteria over "sexual harassment" and "date rape" takes the form of bizarre public spectacles (such as "V-Day", as if talking about one's genitals can solve problems in the real world). In this atmosphere, anti-sex puritans flourish. If one can criminalize a co-worker for, saying, posting porn in the workplace, why not criminalize someone for birth control?

Really, the religious fundamentalists and the anti-sex feminists are all part of a single puritan front.

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

» RE: Junior Anti-Sex League Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Junior Anti-Sex League Posted by: Vyking
Leaving the US
Posted by: favorites on May 18, 2006 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler and the Nazis had a plan for women, i.e. to keep them in the bedroom, the kitchen, and the nursery. Families that had lots of children were rewarded. It was another part of the slave labor program established by the Nazis.

Given what is happening now in this country with the religious nuts trying to turn this into a theocracy and seemingly beginning to succeed, what is going to be our (i.e. women's) future here except as slaves?

I used to think THE HANDMAID'S TALE was an incredible piece of fiction but no longer. It is becoming reality and I am scared to death of what is happening.

In these last 5+ years, since Bush/Cheney stole the election, I have thought MANY MANY times about leaving this country. I have looked into this and one of the websites that has helped enormously is escapeartist.com

Here is the link: http://www.escapeartist.com/

This is an AMAZING website. It is run by expatriates and covers jobs, housing, everything you could possibly want to know about almost every country in the world by expatriates who live in those countries. It is PACKED with information. In addition to subscribing to the site, they have a few online magazines (I think 3) that you can subscribe to for free. I love it and look forward to every issue. If you decide to leave, I hope this site will help you.

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

» RE: Leaving the US Posted by: Glennk1949
Reframe the Issue
Posted by: CurtisBryant on May 18, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed that throughout the article, the author speaks of her opponents as "pro-life." I suggest that her organization use a different term to describe them for two reasons.

First, that label is misleading—especially when applied to Catholics who favor criminalizing abortion but who oppose social policies that enhance the health and development of infants, children, and adults. This is because, in Catholic social teaching, the teachings about abortion and premarital sex are only one part of a comprehensive worldview that includes a duty to create a world based on peace and justice that would allow the full development of each person, whether born or unborn. Properly speaking, that is what the term “pro-life” should mean—at least to Catholics. Many Protestants of the Religious Right do not have such teachings, so this doctrinal observation is less relevant to them.

Still, continuing to use the term “pro-life” as if it meant only criminalizing abortion and avoiding contraception perpetuates the fallacy that “pro-life=anti-abortion.” Many Catholics are not aware of the full scope of their church's pro-life teachings, and educating them about these would be a valuable service. Furthermore, many Catholics who are aware of their other social teachings pooh-pooh the parts about social justice on the grounds that human rights cannot be exercised without the right to be born. To this, the author can reply that Catholic social teachings are like an indivisible, seamless garmet and that Catholics have a duty to protect the rights not only the unborn but also of children and adults.

The second reason for avoiding the term “pro-life” is rhetorical. I strongly recommend the work of George Lakoff on framing issues with language. If the author says she opposes the pro-life movement, she unintentionally invokes the “pro-life” frame, the opposite of which is pro-death. Indeed, her opponents would say that she is part of a “culture of death.” Calling her opponents the “ban-abortion” movement would be far more accurate than “the pro-life movement.” Or NARAL may think of a better way to define its opposition in terms of NARAL's values. Perhaps the “We-decide-for-you movement?”

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

» RE: eframe the Issue Posted by: sailorgurl135
» RE: reframe the Issue Posted by: pizzmoe
» RE: eframe the Issue Posted by: ConnecttheDots
I AM NOT A SINNER
Posted by: WyrdSister on May 18, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am Pagan. I do not believe in sin.

It is simply outragous that someone from a religion that I do not believe in, can think, and truely believe, that they have any right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.

Sex is not dirty or a sin or only for procreation in my religion. In fact it is a Sacred Right.

The whole misogyny thing started way way back before monotheism. In the Goddess worshiping cultures there were a group of men who were afraid of the mysterious power that women held and set off to destroy it. From this sprung the male deity. The single male deity that does not revear women as equals, but rather something to control.

Religious morals CANNOT be legislated.

Zealot delusions infringe on my personal freedom and I for one will NOT stand for it.

If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!

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

» RE: I AM NOT A SINNER Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I AM NOT A SINNER Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: I AM NOT A SINNER Posted by: tristansmum35
WHOSE life? How about ANTI-CHOICE?
Posted by: smilingkim on May 18, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many of the "anti-legal-abortionists" are writing checks and taking unwanted children by the 100's into their own homes? If unwanted kids were puppies at the shelter, there would be 1000's slaughtered daily.

These anti-choice people are billboards for preventing pregnancy - you might give birth to one of THEM.

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

Bill
Posted by: wthwaites on May 18, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moonray said, "We would scrap the many ridiculous and hateful laws that are based mainly on Bible-thumper beliefs."

I'm an atheist too, but I try to suppress urges to hate. From the Moonray quote above we can see a level of hate that is on par with those who have passed all those "hateful laws."

Belief for many of us is an involuntary thing like a heart beat. That is why I am an atheist -- I can't control it. Fundamentalist aquaintences have suggested that their belief is like an insurance policy in case there really is a heaven and a hell.

While it might be nice if I could believe something just because it was good for me, I might just as well be asked to leap a tall building in a single bound because it would be good for me.

If fundamentalist beliefs are also involuntary, we ought to try to come up with a system that discourages all of us from trying to force our own beliefs on others.

Trying to outlaw abortion and contraception is certainly an attempt to force a belief on others. It ought to be opposed by those of us who do not believe that abortion is murder.

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

» RE: Bill Posted by: beffie
Thoughts...
Posted by: kryptx on May 18, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe the government should have any legislation that prevents people from using any form of birth control they wish, including abortion within reason. But neither do I believe that the government should have any legislation ensuring that its citizens have access to the same (yes, that includes Roe v. Wade), and certainly oppose any government funding of any form of birth control or contraception, even implicitly.

So I think I agree with the policies of the group that is being categorized as pro-life, even though I myself am quite pro-choice. I just don't think the government has any business legislating any of that; it's not their job and they've repeatedly proven themselves incompetent.

The people who write articles should try to avoid the fallacy of the undistributed middle, pigeonholing all who oppose government funding of birth control as pro-life religious zealots, because quite often there are more concerns involved than just religion.

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

I'll Drink to That!
Posted by: aussidawg on May 18, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that the moral "Christian" right(?) thinks the it is a sin to enjoy yoursef. For example:
Sex is a sin (unless you do it for procreation and in marriage only, and for God's sake(?) don't enjoy yourself while procreating!
Alcohol is a sin
Gambling is a sin
Dancing is a sin
Drugs are a sin
Prostitution is a sin
Pornography is a sin
Rock music is a sin
Being rich is a sin (I love this one!)...
Birth control is a sin
The list is endless.
Well, since I can't do anything else, I guess I'll have another glass of that water that was turned to wine!

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

» Actually... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I'll Drink to That! Posted by: Aussie Kim
Just a thought,...
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare on May 18, 2006 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but do any ProLifers have any skeletons in the closet, any hidden kinks? Normally, I'd baulk at dirty tricks, but if someone's being hypocritical, I feel it's important to point it out and make them into figures of ridicule. I mean, Neal Horsley intimated he'd fucked a mule, for Chrissakes. Eeeuw! These are supposed to be the guardians of morals? Is Horsley keeping a mule-faced boy in the basement?

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Dennis Diderot.

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

» RE: Just a thought,... Posted by: ukdawg
timeless
Posted by: timeless on May 18, 2006 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
war is sex afrodeegeeact re....design the thoughts of over power to lets com...municate. Ideas...aloha

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

War on sex starts at birth
Posted by: rwinkel on May 18, 2006 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really a war on love itself, the redirection of the desire for ecstatic intimacy into socially approved activities like workaholism, while cutting bonds of trust which would otherwise create a network of community solidarity. In other words, like religion itself, it's about social control and division. And the first targets are new-born boys (and girls, in other countries).

See: http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

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

» RE: War on sex starts at birth Posted by: Aussie Kim
Whoa!
Posted by: Kelly on May 18, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the scariest thing I've seen posted here in a long time.

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

Whoa!
Posted by: Kelly on May 18, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the scariest thing I've seen posted here in a long time.

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

The Pill
Posted by: tristansmum35 on May 18, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the hell can the pill cause an abortion when there is no fetus to abort!? That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard!

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

» RE: The Pill Posted by: Vyking
» RE: The Pill Posted by: maddy
» RE: The Pill Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: The Pill Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Pill Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: The Pill Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Pill Posted by: aussidawg
One little, two little, good little Puritans. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 18, 2006 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, sure, what a great idea: first, ban abortion; then ban contraception, the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancy while still enjoying sex; after that, label the alternative sexual methods, such as oral and anal, as godless sodomy; and THEN remind everyone that masturbation is banned by the Bible!

So, what's left to do? Well. . .buy lots of stuff to compensate, and if you're in the government, push people around to get out your pent-up aggression and, ideally, make them as miserable as you are. Gee, ain't the Puritan Ethic just grand?

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

» Good one! Posted by: Blue Heron
» Yes, and Posted by: Kelly
THIS is the future they want
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 18, 2006 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exclusive Bretheren

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

Good!
Posted by: TWilliams on May 18, 2006 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The majority of people getting abortions are using it for birth control. Is this ethical? I don't think so. I personally don't care though. I think aborition should be used as population control. We have enough people on this planet an we are destroying it.

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

» RE: Good! Posted by: carcinoid112
It gets worse
Posted by: kewlbuwl on May 19, 2006 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They don't even want to allow emergency contraception in cases of rape.

Whose conscience counts?
Emergency contraception - also known as the morning-after pill - could prevent 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions every year in the United States alone. Given these statistics, conservatives and anti-abortion crusaders should be extolling emergency contraception's virtues and trying to increase its distribution, right?

Not exactly. In fact, if Republican legislators get their way, women across America may no longer be able to get emergency contraception from their neighborhood pharmacies and emergency rooms, even if they are victims of rape.

Story Here

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

To freethink7
Posted by: boing007 on May 19, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'... a fascist totalitarian theocracy/Taliban running this country where women will be mandated to wear burkas.'

I doubt whether American women will be mandated to wear burkas in the literal sense, like Hester Prynne wearing the letter A on her dress in The Scarlet Letter. But American women could be mandated to repress themselves in an all too real figurative sense once the fanatincal wing of the American Religious Right takes over the government, the courts and congress. With the help of the military and business, of course. Sounds like Fascist Germany/Italy/Spain/Afghanistan, ad nauseum.

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

Leaving the US Website
Posted by: boing007 on May 19, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks great, if you're a millionaire.

I left the US during the Vietnam War. Sometimes I think that I should have stayed home to fight the good fight at the source even if it meant going to military prison for a year.

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

do not give these folks the respect of the term pro-life
Posted by: KPelley on May 20, 2006 3:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not use the term pro life--that is just what they want. There are many terms depending on the contest such as anti abortion, anti birth control, anti living, unrealistic, and so on. Most of them are not pro life or they would not support so much killing in an unnecessary war and the death penalty.

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

WHAT IS THIS?!
Posted by: philosopherintraining on May 21, 2006 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't outlaw abortion and then make it easier to get pregnant!

It makes no sense! It makes no flippin' sense! Why do the extremist minorities get heard the most? If this is democracy, why does the minority win? Why don't they get out-voted and told to shut up?

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

» RE: WHAT IS THIS?! Posted by: Aussie Kim
Speaking of Choice...
Posted by: Burton on May 21, 2006 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...what is the left's position on sex work? I assume that since the left believes in choice and sexual preferance, it is willing to take it to the streets to demand an end to all laws against prostitution, strip clubs and porn?

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

» RE: Speaking of Choice... Posted by: Aussie Kim
"The Handmaid's Tale" in reality
Posted by: Burton on May 21, 2006 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In "The Handmaid's Tale" the fundamentalists subjugate women by not allowing women to make bank transactions, thereby making them financially dependent on men. It was a sort of technocratic means of repression since it could be done by essentially electronic means, avoiding the usual fuss of repression (and Atwood did have a good sense for what technology could allow a police state).

Today, of course, it is feminists who use such means of repression. For example, the Lautenberg Amendment (supported by feminists) automatically disqualifies anyone with a domestic violence convinction, even a misdemeanor, from owning a firearm. Given national databases, this is relatively easy to enforce.

Why are feminists so opposed to gun onwership, a basic right under the Constititution? Are feminists anti-civil liberty?

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

Sex ONCE a week? The terrorists have won....
Posted by: rexvisigothis on May 23, 2006 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a depressing statistic...no wonder there is an epidemic of prostate cancer in men and bad temper in women. May one hope that the remaining 15% are fucking like rabbits? (or is the implication of the stat to be taken as an index of their complete abstinence?) Jocelyn Elders, pick up on line one--we need you now more than ever....

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

It is because I love my children that I use birth control
Posted by: Sarah_UK on May 25, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband works, I do not. We have one child so far and hope for up to 3 eventually. Like most we have a good standard of life, but we do not have an unlimited budget.

I'm fortunate to live in the UK where healthcare is free to all at the point of use and I am also fortunate to have a usually healthy child. Many the world over, including in the USA, are not so fortunate. Even a common illness like asthma can put intollerable strain on an uninsured family. Let alone the clothing and equipment costs of a fast-growing baby, or several babies!

This is 2006, not 1926. The modern standard of living simply does not support our biological ability to produce a child every year or 2 years for the 30 years a woman is fertile.

Are these anti-contraceptionists seriously suggesting American famillies of avarage or lower incomes can afford to provide a limitless suply of food, clothing and healthcare to a limitless supply of children? Who will pick up the bill for these children, and provide care for them when thier mothers are over burdened?

What is the point of the "freedom" America shouts about constantly if you then enslave 50% of your population and make them worthless except in terms of child-production?

I, like many women, find it easy to concieve. Without birth control I would probably reach the menopause with in excess of 10 children. That is just absurd! How can I give 10 children the quality of education, nutrition, one to one care, or standard of life that I can give 1 to 3 children? How would I drive them all to school? How could I cope with a family of 12 in a 3 bedroomed house with one bathroom?

In the days when famillies of 12 were common cars and bathrooms weren't a feature of life for many. Nor were computers, foreign travel, healthcare and so many more things that are pretty much a basic right in our times.

In the 1920's when my grandmother was the 6th child of 13 born to an English shepherd she had no bed to sleep in, and no shoes for most of her childhood. She had to leave school at 14 to work in a factory to support her siblings. 3 of her sisters died before they reached 12 years old from treatable diseases (healthcare wasn't free then) because of a lack of money for medicines. Is that what America expects of it's avarage-income population now?

If you love your children you do not simply blindly go on producing more of them. This arguement is akin to saying that I love my 2 Border Collie Dogs therefore I will allow them to breed annother 10 Border Collies, in spite of the limits of space and money available to me. If those dogs then have to all share the space realistically fit for two dogs then that is irrelevant; and if I can not afford to feed or take 10 dogs to the vetinarian and 2 or 3 die then it is Gods will. How absurd!

You wouldn't breed animals for the sake of it, and I will not breed children so irresponsably. These people need a serious reality check.

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

I can't trust a government that doesn't abide by it's own rules.
Posted by: dewdude on May 29, 2006 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the major issue.

This country was formed mostly out of religious perscution, and yes, in this country, we are still free to worship, or not worship, any way we choose. One other smart thing the founding fathers did was seperate church and state..seperate. This means, at least in my mind, that church is supposed to stay out of government affairs, this should ALSO mean that religious ideals stay out of government.

The whole abortion and banning of contraceptives, really, is a way of forcing a few people's religious views on a nation of people that may or may not beleive the same way. Isn't that why people left in the first place. I for one do not want to be forced to not have a good time with a young woman because every bit of protection has been banned because it's "immoral". I'm very anti-religion, and for the reason that all the religous types are forcing thier antiquated values on a nation.

I for one am not going to stand for this. This is supposed to be a land of free, granted we're more free than a lot of countries...let's face it, overall it's still a good country. But the government keeps wanting to remove rights we should have because it doesn't go with the bible...a book that isn't meant to be taken literally, and a good 80% is made up.

So, if the government can start abiding by it's own rules, and completely remove religious ideals out of the lawmaking process, everything will be fine. Otherwise, me...I'm leaving the country, cuz we're in a handbasket and there's 2 exits left.

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

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement