Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Greatest Threat to Choice

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 7, 2007
Pro-life protest
AP Photo / Evan Vucci

Amber Good, left, of Harrisburg, Pa., Alice Betts of Georgetown, Del., and Jared VanHorn, of Mifflintown, Pa., right, pray and protest outside the Supreme Court in Washington in 2005.

By Chris Hedges

Jeniece Learned stood amid a crowd of earnest-looking men and women, many with small gold crosses in their lapels or around their necks, in a hotel lobby in Valley Forge, Pa.  She had an easy smile and a thick mane of black, shoulder-length hair.  She was carrying a booklet called “Ringing In a Culture of Life,” which was the schedule of the two-day event she was attending, organized by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.  The event was “dedicated to the 46 million children who have died from legal abortions since 1973 and the mothers and fathers who mourn their loss.” 

Learned, who had driven five hours from a town outside Youngstown, Ohio, was raised Jewish.  She wore a gold Star of David around her neck with a Christian cross inset in the middle of the design.  She stood up in one of the morning sessions, attended by about 300 people, most of them women. The speaker, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had asked if there were any “post-abortive” women present.  The most fervent activists in the pro-life movement have usually had abortions, with large numbers admitting to multiple abortions.

Learned runs a small pregnancy counseling clinic called Pregnancy Services of Western Pennsylvania, in Sharon, where she tries to talk young girls and women, most of them poor, out of having abortions.  She speaks in local public schools, promoting sexual abstinence as the only acceptable form of contraception.  And she has found in the fight against abortion, and in her conversion, a structure, purpose and meaning that previously eluded her. 

The relentless drive against abortion by the Christian right—the first salvo having been fired with the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last month to uphold the federal ban on the procedure known as “partial birth abortion”—has nothing to do with the protection of life.  It is, rather, a cover for a wider and more pernicious assault against the ability of women to control their own bodies, the use of contraception and sexual pleasure.  The movement openly conflates contraceptives with devices or substances that cause abortion.  It holds up as heroes of “conscience” those pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives.  It works to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B emergency contraceptive pills.  It peddles, with hundreds of millions in tax dollars handed to the movement by the Bush administration, abstinence-only sex-ed curricula and opposes a vaccine against the HPV virus, the major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity. 

The denial of contraception, as is well documented, increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  And abortion is never going to go away.  If it again becomes illegal, the rich, as in the past, will find ways to provide abortions for their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, and the poor will die in unhygienic back rooms.  But since this is a war with a wider agenda, abortion statistics and facts do not count.  The Christian right fears pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, which it sees as degrading, corrupting and tainted.  For many, their own experiences with sex—coupled with their descent into addictions and often sexual and domestic abuse before they found Christ—have led them to build a movement that creates an external rigidity to cope with the chaos of human existence, a chaos that overwhelmed them.  They do not trust their own urges, their capacity for self-restraint or judgment.  The Christian right permits its followers to project evil outward, a convenient escape for people unable to face the darkness and the psychological torments within them. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The leaders of this movement understand that the only emotion that cannot be subsumed into communal life, which they seek to dominate and control, is love.  They fear the power of love, especially when magnified and expressed through tender, sexual relationships, which remove couples from their control.  Sex, when not a utilitarian form of procreation, is dangerous.

They seek to fashion a world where good and evil are clearly defined and upheld by the nation’s judicial system.  The battle against abortion is a battle to build a society where pleasure and freedom, where the capacity of the individual and especially women to make choices, and indeed even love itself, are banished.  And this is why pro-life groups oppose contraception—even for those who are married.  The fight against abortion is the facade for a wider fight against the right of an individual in a democracy.

Army of God, a pro-life organization that holds up as Christian “heroes” those who murder abortion providers, defines birth control as another form of abortion, as do many other pro-life groups.  In the “Birth Control Is Evil” section of their website it reads:  “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?”

Learned’s life, before she was saved, was typically chaotic and painful.  Her childhood was stolen from her.  She was sexually abused by a close family member.  Her mother periodically woke Learned and her younger sister and two younger brothers in the middle of the night to flee landlords who wanted back rent.  The children were bundled into the car and driven in darkness to a strange apartment in another town.  Her mother worked nights and weekends as a bartender.  Learned, the oldest, often had to run the home.  She got pregnant in high school and had an abortion.
 
“There was a lot of fighting,” she said.  “I remember my dad hitting my mom one time and him going to jail.  I don’t have a lot of memories, mind you, before eighth grade because of the sexual abuse.  When he divorced my mom, he divorced us, too.” 

“My grandfather committed suicide, my mom and my dad both tried suicide, my brothers tried suicide,” she said.  “In my family, there was no hope.  The only way to solve problems when they got bad was to end your life.”

She eventually married, had a born-again experience and began taking classes at Pacific Christian College in Orange County in California.  During a chapel service an anti-abortion group, Living Alternative, showed a film called “The Silent Scream.”

“You see in this movie this baby backing up trying to get away from this suction tube,” she said. “And, its mouth is open and it is like this baby is screaming.  I flipped out.  It was at that moment that God just took this veil that I had over my eyes for the last eight years.  I couldn’t breathe.  I was hyperventilating.  I ran outside. One of the girls followed me from Living Alternative.  And she said, ‘Did you commit your life to Christ?’  And I said, ‘I did.’ And she said, ‘Did you ask for your forgiveness of sins?’  And I said, ‘I did.’ And she goes, ‘Does that mean all your sins, or does that mean some of them?’  And I said, ‘I guess it means all of them.’  So she said, ‘Basically, you are thinking God hasn’t forgiven you for your abortion because that is a worse sin than any of your other sins that you have done.’ ” 

The film ushered her into the fight to make abortion illegal.  Her activism, like that of many women in the movement, became atonement for her own abortion. 

She struggled with severe depression after she gave birth to her daughter Rachel.  When she came home from the hospital she was unable to care for her infant.  She thought she saw an 8-year-old boy standing next to her bed.  It was, she is sure, the image of the son she had “murdered.”

“I started crying and asking God over and over again to forgive me,” she remembered.  “I had murdered his child.  I asked him to forgive me over and over again.  It was just incredible.  I was possessed.  On the fourth day I remember hearing God’s voice.  ‘I have your baby, now get up!’  It was the most incredibly freeing and peaceful moment.  I got up and I showered and I ate.  I just knew it was God’s voice.”

The fight against abortion is a battle against a culture she and those in the movement despise.  It is a culture they believe betrayed them.  The rigidity of the new belief system, the sanctification of hatred toward those who would “murder” the unborn or contaminate America with the godless creed of “secular humanism,” fosters feelings of righteousness and virtue.  But it also means destroying all competing communities.  The sense of entitlement and inclusiveness, brought on by the certitude of belief, is matched by the power of destructive fury.

Learned lives in the nation’s Rust Belt.  The flight of manufacturing jobs has turned most of the old steel mill towns around her into wastelands of poverty and urban decay.  The days when steel workers could make middle-class salaries are a distant and cherished memory.  She lives amid America’s vast and growing class of dispossessed, those tens of millions of working poor, 30 million of whom make less than $8.70 an hour, the official poverty level for a family of four.  Most economists contend that it takes at least twice this amount to provide basic necessities to a family of four.  These low-wage jobs, which come without benefits or job security, have meant billions in profits for corporations that no longer feel the pressure or the need to take care of their workers.  But this new American landscape has also bred a profound despair and hopelessness, as well as physical destruction of community that fuels the Christian right.

The war to “protect life,” to crush “the culture of death,” is a war against the open society.  It is a war to push back the gains in women’s rights, in personal choice, in the power of the individual to form his or her own life.  It is a war that seeks to refashion America into a place where external forms of repression, imposed by the government, are used in a bid to contain the brokenness, desperation and emotional turmoil of those Americans whom we, as a society, betrayed.  It is, in short, a war of revenge.  And until we re-enfranchise these Americans into society, until we give them hope and alleviate the economic and social blights that have plunged them into the arms of demagogues and charlatans who promise a mythical, unachievable Christian paradise and utopia, we will have to face a growing assault on our personal liberties and freedoms.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Jaki, July 14, 2007 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one on this planet can say for sure that there IS a “God,” or “Goddess,” or any Supreme Being who either watches over us, or judges us, or creates us, or has anything to do with us (or anything else).  There is absolutely no material proof, and anything else is irrelevant.

Some people choose to believe in any number of “dieties” for reasons one might say are due to:

indoctrination…
fear of judgment…
comfort of the rituals…
fear of death…
laziness…
irresponsibility (very hard to take responsibility sometimes for one’s actions, so go to the priest for “absolution”)...
fear of the unknown…
egocentricity (no one wants this life to be the only one—somehow one’s “spirit” must survive)...
justification of actions (one can kill in the name of god, allah, or whatever)...
and a million other reasons, including “heavenly rewards,” like your own harem of virgins.

“Religion is the OPIATE of the masses.”

It keeps people down, keeps them from confronting injustice, keeps them PACIFIED, turned into SHEEPLE, not genuinely curious, caring, compassionate human beings. (not to forget it robs you of your money!)

HOWEVER, democracy demands that people can have their religion if they want it…“Freedom OF Religion,” but we rarely hear about the other half of that, which democracy also demands:  FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

In this way, it is imperative that religion or any mention of God, be kept out of government, our schools, political campaigns, health care, the military, and anything else that affects the lives of ALL of the people and is paid for by us (taxes).

Religion (or any kind of “spirituality”) should only be a private choice made on a individual basis and should never ever EVER be forced on anyone or given any support by the government or its institutions.

If this becomes the case, as it should, then we won’t have to worry about the fanatics.  Let them stew in their own juices. There will be many more of us, now called “atheists,” which really just means we like to stay free from “theisms” and it will lose it’s pejorative judgmental definition, just as will the word “socialism” get separated from “communism” (two entirely different concepts IF YOU ADD THE WORD
“democratic” to socialism) when we figure it out that we need “socialized medicine,” like they have in Canada, France, England, and Cuba, in order to survive.

Every single person who lives in the United States owes it to themselves, their families, and future generations, to do 2 things right now:

1.  See Michael Moore’s brilliant indictment of our corrupt medical system—“Sicko”—and take as many friends as you can.

2.  Support the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHENEY, so that we do not maintain the “Imperial Presidency” they have forced on the country, where future holders of that office can follow precedence set by this current group of thugs in power.

It isn’t just about those personalities (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld)—it is about the power of government, particularly the Executive Branch.

Impeachment is not a diversion from more important things (like the war, etc.).  It is THE ISSUE OF OUR TIMES and the crimes committed by Cheney and Bush are exactly what our forefathers meant when they inserted the possibility of impeachment into our Constitution.
Read it!

Writeyour congresspeople! Phone them. Send them postcards. Email them. Tell Nancy Pelosi that she is wrong wrong wrong ON THIS ISSUE and that impeachment MUST be put on the table and NOW!

Report this

By Jim H., July 13, 2007 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: 78959

Phyllis Poole

You talk of “God”!  Can you describe ‘it”! Can you ‘prove’ ‘it’ ‘is’ or, ‘ever’ existed?  No facts? No truth! 

There is no excuse for intelligent people to be so ignorant of facts about the charlatan fantasies and make-believe pretenses of religion, that works to undermine the true Democratic principles and unifying influences of our Democratic Society! To promote, propagate, profligate or publish the same pretentious and pompous falsehoods that are the evil tools used by Fallwell, Baker, Haggard, the Pope, and their ilk to brainwash, indoctrinate, brand, and subjugate innocent children and fools so as to use them to gain ever more money, power, and divisive influence, is tantamount to supporting pimping, and prostitution. And, because those charlatans use their evil schemes and lies to control, and enslave those misled ‘bovine-like’ advocates by rendering them ‘virtual’ robots that do their bidding; they are criminals, and all of those supporting them, are criminal cohorts, equally guilty of the crimes they commit against humanity, those fools, and the children.
The vast majority of “religious” people were: forced into their ‘belief’! They had no say in the matter, they were imposed upon, brainwashed, and indoctrinated when innocent and defenseless! They were not old enough, wise enough, or informed enough to make a decision, or to determine the value of the information passed to them by elders who, they were taught to obey and were not able to question or contradict! And, generation, upon generation the same methods have been perpetually used and promoted by a big gang of thieves as their victimizing schemes to rob people of their pristine mental facilities and their ability to determine fact from fiction! 
Most religious indoctrinated “children” never reach an “age and ability” to recover from the ‘desease’!
‘Religious’ “parents” already mezmerized and ‘indoctrinated’; are the absolute worst ‘indoctrinators’!(because, they have first access to the innocents at the earliest age!)
Religious parents mind’s are warped by the charlatan’s lies and fairytales, and by passing it on, they are naive, unwitting cohorts of the ‘criminal’ charlatans’; and are abetting the spread of the infectious plague-like desease called “Religion”!  These “parents” are criminals! They are guilty of ‘branding’ and ‘warping’ the ‘pristine’ minds of the innocent defenseless children and robbing them of the mental acuity they were born with.
Religion’s evil bigotry has relegated all non-religious people and realists, to a lower class ‘infidel’ status.
And, the time has arrived for all ‘Secular’ Organizations, and realists to seriously consider aligning under one ‘banner’ to fight the fight of our lives; to overcome the deadly influences of those religious fanatics who intend to overthrow our once Democratic Government and accede to domination of our society by brainwashing innocent children and fools, infecting them with the plague-like desease called “Religion”
and thus branding and converting them into mezmerized, robot-like monsters, and cohorts, suborned to ever ceaseless efforts aimed at gaining total, and complete control over our entire way of life.
How does the US Government guarantee ‘newborn’ US citizens the “Right” to: “freedom of religion”?
“—-U.S.citizens are guaranteed freedom of—-religion—-” (?) But; how, can the ‘pristine’ acuity of innocent children’s minds possibly survive the corrupting influence of mind-warping religious indoctrination they are unable or free to question or object to?

Report this

By Jim H., July 2, 2007 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: 78959

Phyllis Poole

You say “There is a God—-”

I say: YOU ARE WRONG!  You live in a FAKE WORLD! 

You are: (Bigoted) “—-selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic.”

FAKE things, like dolls, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, make-believe “Creator God”, Porky Pig, Mortimer Snerd and Charlie McCarthy are MAKE BELIEVE! FAIRYTALE! ‘MENTAL CONCOCTIONS’! 

If you don’t realize this, you are dangerous to both yourself, and the rest of humanity!

And, anyone who thinks, or ‘pretends’ otherwise, is either an imbercile, an escapee from a ‘Nut house’, or a thieving charlatan seeking to perpetuate the schemes and tricks used to prey on, and enslave innocent children, and fools (like you?), give them ‘inferiorty complexes, and compel them to kneel and plea for ‘grace’ for their “sins” (whatever that means) which often is only granted in return for criminal sexual perversion.

Wake up! And stop lying to yourself!      You had better see a Psychiatrist!

Mass/energy never disappear
Ever were ever here!
J.H. 5/8/07
Without something to ‘create! a “so-called “Creator-God” is an impossibel superfluous nonentity!

      Conservation of Mass/Energy “E=mc2”
1.The Universe contains an infinite amount of matter and energy.
  We cannot create nor can we destroy matter or energy. 
2.Matter can be changed in form, or state.
3. Energy can be changed in form.
4. We change matter to energy and energy to
matter never diminishing the totality. 
  ———————————————————
          THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Beginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there’s no beginning or end
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
                  JH 8/29/06

Report this

By purplewolf, June 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Phyllis: Study the bible. For condemning killing, God sure did a lot of that. Check out when God was mad at King David for the census and to punish him he killed 70 thousand men-women and children were not mentioned,2 Samuel 24:10-17. The flood in Genesis 8:21, Noah and his progeny and their spouses-the whole world was destroyed- again mass murder and also the promotion of incest as now there a four married couples only left on the planet to repopulate it, and since chriatians do not believe in evolution how do you explain the different races of people on the plante? so there was a lot of inbreeding going on there. Shouldn’t that be a sin. Sodom and Gomorrah,Genesis 19:24-25. Exodus 7 1-14 another planned genocide.
God uses people to kill others he is displease with Moses and his loyal followers were ordered to kill about 3000 people in Exodus 32:26-28. Deuteronomy 2: 32-35 and again in Deut. 3 1-4 God orders Moses to kill every man woman and child.
God also uses animals to kill i.e.: 1 Kings 20:35 God sends a lion to kill a man who would not hit another. God sends out his lions to kill a group of strangers to Samaria 2 Kings 17: 24-26. Again in 2 Kings 2:23-24 God sends forth two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha, a bald man.For a diety who condemns killing he sure had a taste for it. This is only a few examples there are to many to mention here.
Read your bible with an open mind-hard to do for most people and question does this make sense or right or even logical. In most cases the answer is no. Oh yes I was raised in a Christian home, been to many different types of churches professing Christian beliefs, all think they are the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong. And I have studied theology in college. I am not an expert on the bible but I have probably read and researched more of it than most people,as most of them believe everything told to the by however tells them what to believe from a pulpit. A news report show recently talked to people on the street in interviews who those who claimed to be knowledgable christians and when asked simple bible quotes everyone in America has been subjected to in the last 60 years should know they didn’t know. Shows how much the dogma stays in the intellect of the average human.Now there are many more examples you can find, if you take the time to read and research the bible. As you quote” When you can kill or think it is okay to kill another human, that is also an imbalance One that is selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic(al). And lets not forget about all then infanticide either,as that was thought at one time that it pleased God to sacrifice your progeny to HIM. Smile, have a good day, now go grab your bible and start on page 1 old testament-the beginning.

Report this

By Phyllis Poole, June 18, 2007 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I read with not knowing where this article was going.  It goes from one side to the other and ends with a definite wrong conclusion. 

This person has the wrong perception of the world.If one has no perception of God and why we are here, it is dispair.  There is a God and some “right wing” people have a fanatical, emotional imbalance, true, but let’s get balanced.  There is a God and His 5th commandment says Do Not Kill.  When you can kill or think it is ok to kill another human, that also is an imbalance. One that is selfish, ruthless and also emotionally fanatic.

Report this

By purplewolf, June 8, 2007 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

I don’t try to force my views and beliefs onto other people and I don’t appreciate my rights being denied because of your misguided religious view of what you think is reality. I don’t like children, people think that is a crime, why? Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is really “forced servititude”, which the late Ronald Reagan tried to say was when you allowed a woman to abort an unwanted fetus. As usual the polititians have it backwards. When a person is allowed to control her own body it is not forced. As usual the people who would deny a woman her own right to self determination then go on to claim that having an abortion is something a woman is forced into, being denied the ability to control your body and to carry an unwanted or defective fetus to term is forced as a woman then has no rights. Remember a fetus is nothing more that a parasite until it is born, it is totally dependant upon the host(mother) for everything it needs and if the hosts body does not have enough nutrition in it, the parasitic fetus takes all it needs first.(True medical and scientific fact about your fetus).
I had a preemie in 1984, born at six months gestation, 10 days of labor and 96 hours of hard labor and finally a c-section. The baby weighted 2 lbs. 4 oz. and lived just under 10 weeks. He was infected with yeast in his blood from the medical staffs lack of universial techniques in cleanliness. We were told that the medicine to cure him would absolutely kill him, but that if we told the doctors “no “,the goverment would come in, declare us unfit parents and give the medicine to the baby, even though they knew it would kill him, which is what happened. We had no rights to even make a choice to refuse this treatment. If you think your children are yours, think again. A few months later, in 1985, a woman called me on the phone wanting me to sign an anti-abortion petition to try to stop all abortions. I don’t know who she was or how she got my phone number. I was polite, but I told her that I believe in abortion in certain situations and told her my problems with the whole 6 month pregnancy I just went thru, the expermentation,(which is what it was at the time medically) my preemie went thru and told her that if I were ever to get pregnant again with similar complications I would not hesitate to have an abortion as I would never put another baby thru that type of torture. It was between me, my doctor and husband and that if her God felt I were to suffer all eternity for an abortion, so be it. She didn’y know what to say.
  I wish they would make laws to allow people no more than 3 children as they do disrupt neighborhoods, and cause a lot of problems more often than not.Why don’t these pro-lifers adopt the excess bi-racial children that many do not want of the mentally and physically challanged that no one wants first. We do not need all this excess of unwanted people( babies) as we cannot take care of the ones alredy here. When there is to much of anything it has no value as it is commonplace and not a rarity, humans fit that catagory. We need to have quality people, not a quanity. Every baby does not come into the world a wanted baby, many will lack basic medical care, proper housing, enough food, and many are neglected, abused and mistreated. It is in every newspaper somewhere in this country on a daily basis we hear about the way babies are being murdered for crying to much, or it threw up on me, it soiled it’s diaper, and other numerous excuses for this treatment. There have been several cases of a baby being killed in my area alone. Not what’s better, to have a baby to beat it to death or to abort a fetus, which one do you think feels the most pain?

Report this

By gncarlo, May 20, 2007 at 1:27 am Link to this comment

“Undifferentiated tissue mass”?

Another perspective, from a Roman Catholic who, referring to AIPAC and Congress, coined the phrase “Israel’s Amen Corner”, thereby getting himself fired as editor of National Review, once America’s foremost conservative magazine, and now neo-con rag. Click on the box in the lower left-hand corner.  I doubt that it will change anyone’s mind, still….

http://www.sobran.com:80/columns/index.shtml

Report this

By Jaki, May 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Clutter?”  What an understatement.

Next question:  Relevance to the article under discussion?

Next question: What business do men have even discussing what women do with their bodies, or coopting the discussion to suit their own intellectual preferences?

Shades of the 60s when women left the male-dominated left to organize on our own behalf and have conversations relevant to that struggle.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Oh, regarding the “convictions” of the “religious, Right”  are you quite sure that they are not for show?  I note the photos of Dubya visiting the wailing wall in Israel, wearing a yarmulke. Does that sound like a convinced Protestant?  Also, there were Jews “praying” with him.  Yet, the Talmud says that a Jew who prays with a Gentile commits an abomination. Go figure…
 
  You made the remark that I had made some “clever arguments” seeming to imply that I am trying to “trick you” or “trip you up.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Do you often suspect that someone who has a different world-view must harbor sinister motives?  I am always interested in picking the brains of people whose conclusions differ from mine and who can discuss things in a civil manner.  I feel I am enriched by the exchange of ideas and experiences.  We can’t always agree but we can stretch our minds in different directions than if we spend our lives “preaching to the choir.”
  You seem to have firm reasons and/or rationalizations for your beliefs about “how the world should be.”  I agree, to some extent. I can think of a number of reasons why I “should” win the lottery. 
  However, I think I function a little better than I used to, by trying to understand the world the way it is, not the way it “should be.”
  Having heard each other out, I don’t think that either of us is going to change the other’s opinions, on this topic, at least. And, yes, I will, in the future refer to you as “ITW” rather than “Windy” There was no disrespect intended. Just whimsy. Your screen name is rather long and, being old, I get bored and tire easily from all the typing.
  I am vaguely familiar with the Scopes “Monkey” Trial.  Many years ago, I read HL Mencken’s piece on it.  Some humorous descriptions about the participants and regional inhabitants.  I think that was where I got the line about “from those remote marches where the peasants handle snakes and sleep in their underwear.”  Mencken was outrageously funny, a prolific and insightful writer.  Unfortunately, about 1937, he made some complimentary remarks about Hitler putting everyone to work, with actual labor shortages in Germany, while four years of Roosevelt’s New Deal resulted in even more people unemployed or selling apples.  Angry Jewish publishers and newspaper syndicators boycotted him and he gradually receded from the public arena.
  ” Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel”-  Oscar Wilde. 
              Regards

Report this

By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

< “OK, here you are mixing apples and gorillas. Individuals being rude is entirely different than an organized philosophy to change laws and intimidating people by design into silence.” >
  I haven’t noticed many of the Feminists being “intimidated into silence.”
And “organized philosophies” don’t change laws; people do. And those people listen to the other people who shout the loudest and who can furnish their reelection campaigns with the most money.  I don’t believe for a second that the Bible Belt can bring to bear more than a small fraction of the money available to Hollywood and the “professionally compassionate” Left, for funding political campaigns.  Not to mention who controls the “bully pulpit” of Major Media.
    <“Lots of people seem to be able to function in democracies where they have to accept that sometimes they rule, sometimes the other side does.” > I don’t know what planet you come from but, the last time I looked, in federal elections, most of the time, the moneyed establishment hand-picked two multimillionaire lawyers for the voters to choose from, “empty suits” yawping about “freedom” , “democracy” ,  “the future lies ahead” and “if elected, I promise to serve.”  They certainly don’t represent or even consider my wishes and interests. If the number of people who don’t vote is any marker, I am not alone in my views. < “And the wisest (unlike the moron we have in the White House) understand that a vocal, but loyal opposition is what keeps those ruling on their toes and, well, honest.” > Did I hear you right, “honest”? If I fall off this chair laughing any more, I’d better get a seat belt.  <“But the Christo-fascists want to seriously stifle dissent….” >Only one of a number of interest groups similarly disposed.  Do the posts by most of the “pro-choicers” give you the impression they are open to other’s views.  Come on, you are clearly an intelligent person.  Try to move beyond the fog of ideology.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

<“First off, you’ll get nowhere with me arguing the propaganda about “partial birth abortions” which isn’t even a medical term and, in fact, mis-represents the actual procedure. The doctor is performing a (still) legal procedure, and due to medical complications must take an alternate path and perform the unpleasant extraction.”>
  I believe I used the term “late-termers” which I take to mean the third trimester.  If you mistook that for “partial-birth” abortions, perhaps I should have been more clear. Since I don’t know the nuances of the procedure you describe, I am not qualified to discuss it with you, and don’t have sufficient interest or time at the moment to dig deeper.  Like I have said repeatedly, it is not my issue, and I don’t have an ax to grind. I am here to learn, principally by asking people why they believe what they believe. 
  You repeated my line about “whales and puppy dogs” being non-topical.  I think it is topical.  You thoroughly discuss what you see as the woman’s “needs,” the doctor’s integrity, etc, etc. But you nowhere address the interests of the life which is being terminated.  For example, you do not directly address the rest of the statement:
“Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth. They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe.”  Is this life not even worthy of comment?  Why do you pass over this in silence?
    I will note in passing , though, that using “a (still) legal procedure” as a justification is probably not wise.  One could note that in parts of the world, it is still “legal” to buy and sell human beings, as well as to stone them to death for adultery or homosexuality. In Europe, it is illegal for Gentiles to question any part of the jewish “Holocaust” story, however much that may evolve from day to day.  Thus, since the plaque at Auschwitz that states 4 million were gassed there has been taken down and replaced with one that says 1.1 million,  the official “Holocaust” story line remains fixed at 6 million Jews.  Thus, in Germany, the law says that, where the jews are concerned, 6-3 =6 is the “historical truth” as decreed by political courts. If you disagree publicly, you may go to prison.  As a judge in Mannheim famously said to Ernst Zundel: “The truth is no defense”!
  Consequently, that something is “legal” does not make it right, fair, just,  or even logical.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 18, 2007 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

<” First, let’s make a distinction: Israel is a nation. When Congressmen go to another nation as Congressmen, yes it’s all-expense paid. It’s supposed to be a fact-finding official trip.  They are, theoretically (ouch!) acting as statesmen (don’t laugh TOO loud!)”>
  Well, it’s a sign of hope when even you realize the preposterousness of some of your positions.  Many of these trips are junkets paid for by AIPAC, not fact-finders funded by the State Department. When asked where the borders of the nation of Israel were, both Golda Meier and Ariel Sharon were said to have replied: “Israel is wherever a Jew is.”
 
  <” George Bush sure as hell doesn’t own my life or my body, and he’s gotten far too many killed for no good reason.”>  Try to hold down the rhetorical flourishes. You are smart enough to know that,  in reality, he (well, his “minders”) do own your life and body.
And you are smart enough to know Dubya didn’t just wake up some morning with an actual idea: “let’s bomb Iraq.” He is simply a compliant ‘goy’, a speech reader. Or as Lenin called them: “useful idiots.”
 
    <  ” “Are there any documented speeches by Falwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court? } “
Actually, yes.”>
  I am not questioning your integrity but am not going to let you off that easily.  Perhaps you could post some links?  I would be astonished to see a direct quote from Falwell or Robertson supporting the nomination of a Roman Catholic to the SC.
 
  <” This is actually a clever argument and I had to think about it. First off, you immediately jump to the conclusion that every MD performing abortions is doing it for the $$$.”>
    I didn’t mean to appear “clever.”  I am sure $$$ are a very real consideration.  It would not take a terribly talented doctor to perform this procedure.  It’s not like they had to diagnose some mysterious illness.  There are obviously no shortage of customers.  And if the taxpayers can have the costs rammed down their throats, regardless of their own views, he or she has a guaranteed payday.  You ARE aware that doctors are often accused of ordering unnecessary surgical procedures, for strictly financial reasons.  <“I just went to 2 different opths to get evaluated—the first came up with a way to do it despite me being a lousy candidate—good for $7000 in fees for him. The 2nd said “No” too many risk factors for me. What protects me from the first?” > Exactly. And if the abortionist is taken out of the decision-making loop, except in the case of valid emergencies,  then there can be no questions about his motives, right?
  <“So with close examination the implication of your argument makes no sense.”> Only if you consider a fetus not a human being, which was the issue I raised in my very first post on this thread. <“Procedures need to be reviewed by other MDs when there is a MEDICAL need to do so, not a political or religious one. “> I consider a fetus a human being long before actual birth, although not quite sure where in my own mind, thus, to me,  it would be a political issue as well.  Politics’ alleged reason for being is to arbitrate conflicts between human beings, even those who can’t speak for themselves. I guess, given our different definitions of what constitutes a human being, we will have to agree to disagree.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 18, 2007 at 4:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Moderators:
Please delete my posts 70715 and 70716.
I was having troubles submitting and these duplicates of 70713 are the result.  There’s enough clutter in this thread without the dups!

Thanks!

ITW.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.

{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }

Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!”  I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage.  AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd.  It’s more like the other way around.  Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy.  I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.

I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors.  Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.

“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.

{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }
Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!”  I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage.  AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd.  It’s more like the other way around.  Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy.  I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.

I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors.  Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.

“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

{“If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows. While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
With reference to your point, I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors. Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? }
OK.

{“However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.”
Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize. A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force. I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies; and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict. Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities. Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets.
Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.” “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs. If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world. I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names. However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist. I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW, if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ? And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington? }
Oh, please! Yet again “It’s those damn Jews who are running everything!”  I can’t believe an intelligent man like you buys that garbage.  AIPAC is a PAC, but this pure NONSENSE about Israel running the US is absurd.  It’s more like the other way around.  Plus, given the way Israel has been run since Rabin’s murder, it looks like the same incompetents running US foreign policy is running Israeli foreign policy.  I agree that the big oil and mil-indus has far, far too much influence over our Republican leaders.

I do not understand why the “anti-Zionists” decry bigotry in Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East but ignore the vile bigotry in her Arab neighbors.  Nothing Israel has done in 60 years compares to what Sudan has done in the last 10.

“Anti-Semite” means hatred of Jews the way “American” means US Citizen, and not Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians or Bolivia.

Phew!!  That was a lot of work posting all that.  How about YOU make one post’s point, then I’ll make one? OK?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

{“ Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US. It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.”
The previous paragraph is another wonderful example of hyperbolic propaganda which, upon analysis, shrinks to absurdity.
#1. While virtually all congressmen, with the notable exception of the remarkable Ron Paul of Texas, have enjoyed well-documented all-expense paid trips to Israel, I would be dubious about similar claims of visits to your alleged “hate-mongers” I recall a few years back about someone, maybe Bush I, Clinton, or even Newt, making a speech at Oral Roberts University, which banned interracial dating at the time. As I recall, the media attack dogs required him to recant and apologize profusely to the PC gods. So, I just doubt there are very many pols eager to make widely-publicized visits to these Christian groups. I would be curious as to just who and over what time-frame have made such “pilgrimages.” }

First, let’s make a distinction: Israel is a nation. When Congressmen go to another nation as Congressmen, yes it’s all-expense paid. It’s supposed to be a fact-finding official trip.  They are, theoretically (ouch!) acting as statesmen (don’t laugh TOO loud!) When they go to LBU, or Oral Roberts,  or Bob Jones it’s purely as politicians grooming votes, usually to keep the Religious Right loyal or from being too vicious.  Let us not forget that the late, little-lamented Falwell consulted monthly with President Idiot. He had access to the President.

{#2. I am not a Christian. I fancy myself an agnostic. However, I know a little about Baptists, who are said to be the prime suspects in the “hate-monger” category. The Missus has several sons, one of whom is a rising star among Baptist preachers nationally, as well as assorted former in-laws who practice this particular set of delusions. A few of them have made efforts to proselytize me, but I have let them know that I am no more interested in their peculiarities than in those of the “cargo cult” of New Guinea. However, one thing I have noticed that is a constant in all our conversations. That is that they refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ. So, I conclude they would just as soon see Satan on the Supreme Court. For this reason, the argument that Fallwell, Robertson, et al have, in the last 26 years, placed four Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court sounds like a piece of propaganda written by some PC propagandist with no knowledge of the differences within the Christian community. I could be wrong, but I would like to see some proofs other than the word of their political enemies. Are there any documented speeches by Fallwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court? }

Actually, yes.  And when they didn’t their shills in the Senate did. The Abortion issue was milked rather brilliantly by Falwell et al to make common cause with Catholics.  The 5 Catholic Justices strike the “right” balance between true Catholicism and the positions of the Christo-fascist right.  Common Cause.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

{“That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus. There is no way you can get around that. If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows. If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers. Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers. “
Not trying to get around anything. Do you unconditionally own your own body, if the draft board comes for it? Do you own your house unconditionally? Try refusing your property taxes and see what happens? If I own my hands and they are capable of strangling someone, does that give me the right…..the possibilities are endless. The point is that this “unconditional” business is opinion, not fact. And, in the real world, differences of opinion often end up in wars and horse races. }
Well, I’m old enough to remember the draft, but we haven’t had one for many years.  I had a draft card and all, 1-A, but they only drafted 19 year olds and I turned 18 and got the card the year the draft finally ended.  I am convinced that the draft violates the 14th Amendment, clearly.  George Bush sure as hell doesn’t own my life or my body, and he’s gotten far too many killed for no good reason.

{“Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant).. “ Oh, really? You apparently haven’t spent much time in divorce courts. One might also reflect upon what percentage and to what degree women who have been proven to have made false rape accusations have been held legally accountable. }
A different argument for a different day.  One thing is clear: both are legally persons.

{“..... then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body.” True; I realistically assume that whoever has control of the guns, clubs, and jail cells owns our bodies. }
No, they don’t.  They are the ultimate thieves.  That is why our criminal laws must be consistent, non-political and sacrosanct.  And when they are not, you have the Inquisition.

{“Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises.” How does this logically follow? }
If men own their bodies and women don’t,  then men are legal persons and women aren’t.  But if all are legal persons then either both men and women own their bodies, or they don’t.

{“If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.” No argument with that conclusion. } 
Thanks!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Secondly, we come back to the point of whose body is it, anyway?  As for your question about compassion for whales and puppy-dogs, the same can be said about the anti-abortionists who don’t give a damn about the slaughter in Darfur, about the crisis in adoption in America, or that in the richest nation on earth, millions go to bed hungry every night while others are allowed to amass obscene amounts of wealth from failure.  But that is also a tangent.
{“When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment.” I have no control over what free associations you make with my words. }
Gncarlo, I’ve come to realize that you are far too smart to expect to get away with that.  In fact, you precisely picked those words to make it sound that the woman’s womb is simple that: a domicile. Pretty effective too.

{“You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s. “ I think you have me confused with someone else. I have more than once stated that I have no problem with abortion where the fetus is severely damaged and/or unlikely to remain viable outside the womb without extreme and continuous medical intervention. My proviso was that this should be determined by competent medical authorities other than the abortionist, who has a fiduciary interest in performing the procedure. I would also have no problem with abortion where the hard choice is between the life of the mother and the child . But, again, I think that, where time is available, competent medical authorities should be called in to determine that such an “emergency “ really exists. ]
This is actually a clever argument and I had to think about it.  First off, you immediately jump to the conclusion that every MD performing abortions is doing it for the $$$.  Actually, there are safer and better ways to make money, even in OB-GYN—who wants to get shot?  The argument about fiduciary interest applies to just about every doctor in America.  Opthamologists saw cataract surgeries getting simpler and cheaper, and were dying to get laser surgery.  I just went to 2 different opths to get evaluated—the first came up with a way to do it despite me being a lousy candidate—good for $7000 in fees for him.  The 2nd said “No” too many risk factors for me.  What protects me from the first? Nothing more than my own suspicions.
So with close examination the implication of your argument makes no sense. Procedures need to be reviewed by other MDs when there is a MEDICAL need to do so, not a political or religious one.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 17, 2007 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gncarlo:
I’ll see how many points I can discuss.  You make some good ones.
Let’s start at the beginning: If you don’t like being called names, don’t call me names like “Windy”. “Inherit The Wind” is the name of the GREAT dramatization of the Scopes trial where Clarence Darrow showed the world that you don’t teach The Bible in science class, you teach science.  It also is from The Bible “He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind. And the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart”.  If you want a shorthand, use ITW, please.
{“Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny.” Who doesn’t? Power corrupts.  }
Lots of people seem to be able to function in democracies where they have to accept that sometimes they rule, sometimes the other side does.  And the wisest (unlike the moron we have in the White House) understand that a vocal, but loyal opposition is what keeps those ruling on their toes and, well, honest.  But the Christo-fascists want to seriously stifle dissent because they “know” since they believe they have God’s word.  There is a serious difference between Western Democracy see-sawing and Taliban-like demands for conformity.

{“ They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed….... I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s. You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.”
Oh please! The first thing that I noticed when I came to this thread was the relative civility of the pro-Life people who were soon driven from the page by the foul-mouthed insults and bigotry of many, although not all, on your side of the argument. This is one of the most vicious and insulting bunches of people that I have ever witnessed. Much of it has been ideological proclamations backed up by vile four-letter words. Note that I do not so far include you in this. }
OK, here you are mixing apples and gorillas. Individuals being rude is entirely different than an organized philosophy to change laws and intimidating people by design into silence.  Plus you do not address the fact that Falwell did everything possible to prevent opposing arguments from being made, not just disproving them.

{My position remains that the decision to make the baby’s leaving the birth canal the point at which it has some rights that the authorities need protect, even from the mother, is an arbitrary judgment based on assumptions which science have long since proven invalid. Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth. They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe. Why do people who show great compassion for whales or puppy-dogs dismiss concerns about this as “bigotry”?
“In an age of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.”- Orwell }
First off, you’ll get nowhere with me arguing the propaganda about “partial birth abortions” which isn’t even a medical term and, in fact, mis-represents the actual procedure.  The doctor is performing a (still) legal procedure, and due to medical complications must take an alternate path and perform the unpleasant extraction.  It’s not in and of itself a choice of convenience.  Despite the USSC’s ruling I believe most medical experts in the field of OB-GYN would argue that the alternative path mis-named “partial birth abortion” is ONLY done when it’s a medical necessity to preserve the physical health or life of the mother.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

“Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny.”  Who doesn’t?  Power corrupts. 
      ” They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed….... I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s. You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.”
  Oh please! The first thing that I noticed when I came to this thread was the relative civility of the pro-Life people who were soon driven from the page by the foul-mouthed insults and bigotry of many, although not all, on your side of the argument. This is one of the most vicious and insulting bunches of people that I have ever witnessed.  Much of it has been ideological proclamations backed up by vile four-letter words.  Note that I do not so far include you in this.
  My position remains that the decision to make the baby’s leaving the birth canal the point at which it has some rights that the authorities need protect, even from the mother, is an arbitrary judgment based on assumptions which science have long since proven invalid.  Make no mistake about it; fetuses do feel pain and are viable often months before birth.  They (late-termers) no doubt die agonizing deaths drowned in saline solutions or having their brains sucked out with a hypodermic syringe.  Why do people who show great compassion for whales or puppy-dogs dismiss concerns about this as “bigotry”?
  “In an age of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.”- Orwell

Report this

By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

“When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment.”  I have no control over what free associations you make with my words. 
      “You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s. ”  I think you have me confused with someone else.  I have more than once stated that I have no problem with abortion where the fetus is severely damaged and/or unlikely to remain viable outside the womb without extreme and continuous medical intervention.  My proviso was that this should be determined by competent medical authorities other than the abortionist, who has a fiduciary interest in performing the procedure. I would also have no problem with abortion where the hard choice is between the life of the mother and the child .  But, again, I think that, where time is available, competent medical authorities should be called in to determine that such an “emergency ” really exists. 
      “That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus. There is no way you can get around that.  If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows. If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers. Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers. “
      Not trying to get around anything.  Do you unconditionally own your own body, if the draft board comes for it?  Do you own your house unconditionally?  Try refusing your property taxes and see what happens?  If I own my hands and they are capable of strangling someone, does that give me the right…..the possibilities are endless.  The point is that this “unconditional” business is opinion, not fact.  And, in the real world, differences of opinion often end up in wars and horse races.
        “Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant).. ”  Oh, really?  You apparently haven’t spent much time in divorce courts. One might also reflect upon what percentage and to what degree women who have been proven to have made false rape accusations have been held legally accountable.
      “..... then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body.”  True;  I realistically   assume that whoever has control of the guns, clubs, and jail cells owns our bodies.
          “Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises.”  How does this logically follow?       
      “If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.”  No argument with that conclusion.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

“ Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US. It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.  In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.”
  The previous paragraph is another wonderful example of hyperbolic propaganda which, upon analysis, shrinks to absurdity.
        #1.  While virtually all congressmen, with the notable exception of the remarkable Ron Paul of Texas,  have enjoyed well-documented all-expense paid trips to Israel, I would be dubious about similar claims of visits to your alleged “hate-mongers”  I recall a few years back about someone, maybe Bush I, Clinton, or even Newt, making a speech at Oral Roberts University, which banned interracial dating at the time.  As I recall, the media attack dogs required him to recant and apologize profusely to the PC gods.  So, I just doubt there are very many pols eager to make widely-publicized visits to these Christian groups. I would be curious as to just who and over what time-frame have made such “pilgrimages.” 
      #2.  I am not a Christian.  I fancy myself an agnostic.  However, I know a little about Baptists, who are said to be the prime suspects in the “hate-monger” category.  The Missus has several sons, one of whom is a rising star among Baptist preachers nationally, as well as assorted former in-laws who practice this particular set of delusions.  A few of them have made efforts to proselytize me, but I have let them know that I am no more interested in their peculiarities than in those of the “cargo cult” of New Guinea.      However, one thing I have noticed that is a constant in all our conversations.  That is that they refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ. So, I conclude they would just as soon see Satan on the Supreme Court.  For this reason, the argument that Fallwell, Robertson, et al have, in the last 26 years, placed four Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court sounds like a piece of propaganda written by some PC propagandist with no knowledge of the differences within the Christian community.  I could be wrong, but I would like to see some proofs other than the word of their political enemies.  Are there any documented speeches by Fallwell or Robertson endorsing these Catholics before they were appointed to the Supreme Court?
More later…..

Report this

By gncarlo, May 17, 2007 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

Windy,

  “If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.”
        Sir, I thank you for at least remaining more civil (so far) than some of your fellows.  While calling me an “asshole” or saying that I am a chimp about to commit murder at the behest of my “controllers” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t particularly bother me, it doesn’t improve my understanding of the issues either.
  With reference to your point,  I will repeat that I reposted one post once after changing a few words for what I assumed might be offensive to the censors.  Why would you repeat your complaint about that, as a mantrum, except as a putdown (“mantrum” is the singular; “mantra” is the plural, which would be inaccurate as you used it) ? And how would that help either of us gain any understanding of the other’s positions? 
  “However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.” 
        Again, if you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize.  A moment’s reflection will remind one of what sets the Media’s attack dogs in a frenzy. AIPAC and the Lobby is a driving force, the principle, but not the only driving force.  I would also include, among others: armaments manufacturers; some, but not all, oil- related companies;  and, the authors of all modern wars, the money lenders to statist organizations on both sides in these conflicts, who reap the harvests of all chaos and conflict.  Of course, these groups are not all strictly defined and isolated entities.  Many of the elites belong to more than one of these subsets. 
  Oh, and I would remind you that the ruling elites of Israel are Ashkenazim, not the semitic “People of the Book.”  “Semite” refers to a language group which is mainly, although not entirely, composed of Arabs.  If we are not to rewritethe language to suit our current political fashions, it would be accurate to say that Israel and AIPAC are the premier “anti-semitic” organizations in the world.  I do freely admit to sympathizing with the Arabs and being angered by the largely-unacknowledged genocide currently being carried out with our tax money and in our names.  However, I freely admit to being an anti-Zionist.  I don’t see how anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the least bit of compassion for their fellow-human beings can do other than to speak out against these ongoing atrocities in the Middle East. BTW,  if it is “free speech” to refer to the “Christian Right” or “Christo-fascism”, is it still “hate speech” to refer to the “Jewish Left“ ?  And if so, would not that be a clue as to who holds real power in Washington?
  Out of bandwidth; more in a minute….

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 16, 2007 at 5:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

gncarlo,
If you were simply dealing with Truthdig’s extreme slowness to process and post entries, and not simply repeating the same argument as a mantra then I apologize for criticizing you on that count.

However, whenever I hear about “AIPAC” as the driving force as the conspiracy controlling America, all I hear is another anti-semite.

Christo-facism has a very strong hold on the US.  It has forced people like McCain and Guiliani to make pilgrimages to such hate-mongers as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.  In the last 26 years it has placed four of the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court.  It was those five Catholic men, who, following the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, decided they know more about medicine and OB-GYN than trained doctors.

Christo-fascism does not include all Christians, or even all Catholics.  But fundamentalist Southern White Baptists and Catholics parallel each other in many ways.  Anti-abortion and anti-sex are two of them.  Of course, Catholicism differs now that the late Pope John Paul II made opposing the death penalty a Catholic tenet. Therefore murdering women’s health clinic doctors is also a no-no for Catholics.

When you talk about the “occupant” of the woman’s uterus, you make it sound like it’s an apartment.  You STILL insist that the “rights” of that occupant supercede the woman’s.  That unambiguously implies that she does not unconditionally own her own uterus.  There is no way you can get around that.

If her ownership of her uterus is not unconditional, including the right to evict the “occupant”, then the rest of my argument still follows.  If her uterus is not unconditionally hers, then it is not hers.  Since it is part of her body there is then no restriction on claiming that other parts of her body don’t belong to her either, ie, her body is not hers.

Since we generally have come to the position in America that legally men and women are equivalent (let’s ignore the differences that do exist as irrelevant) then we must assume nobody owns his or her own body.  Either that or we are re-establishing that men are somehow superior to women solely because they don’t have uteruses and do have penises.  I hope you agree that such a society is fundamentally unjust.

So, unless we go back to women as chattel and only men as persons, we are stuck: Either we own our bodies or we don’t. There’s no other path.  If we do own them, then there can be no legal reason to prevent a woman from having any abortion she wants and can afford.  If we don’t own our bodies, then we are living under tyranny.

Since it is the Christo-fascists driving the anti-abortion, anti-birth control movements, I infer that they want tyranny.  They do try to suppress criticism, and in many places succeed.  It’s just harder to do it in cosmopolitan cities like NYC or L.A.  I find the late Jerry Fallwell’s philosophy to be no essentially different than the Taliban’s.  You belong to the state and no deviation will be tolerated.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 16, 2007 at 1:15 am Link to this comment

Rudeness is the Weak’s substitute for Power. -anon

Report this

By Jaki, May 15, 2007 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

LOGICIAN LOGICIAN LOGICIAN!!!  Heed your words to me.
Ignore the ignoramus!  He is a VAMPIRE, sucking our time and energy to no good, except to fill his blood-sucking, mind-less, heart-less empty cavern.

If that last pseudopsychiatric response isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what else it might be.  It is laughable.  He is laughable, but I’m personally not going to waste another ounce of my energy in DIRECT combat with that sorry, sick asshole.

There are so many more important things to say about this critical issue, and many others (check out the TRUTHDIG article by Scott Ritter—quite a conversation going on there about the war and the New World Order, etc.).

I think G has been adequately exposed.  Thank you and others for that.  Actually, he did a pretty good job on his own.

peace

Report this

By gncarlo, May 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

I am sure the world will some day give you all proper recognition in “exposing” me; I am told the lines are open at Art Bell every night.  Perhaps they can work you in right after the gentleman who says he is the Lindbergh baby.    Moving on,
you might want to check out these symptoms from the DSM, see if they remind you of anyone. If I were religious, I would pray.

Paranoid Schizophrenia
Causes
The causes of schizophrenia are still under debate. A chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but the reason for the imbalance remains unclear. We do know that you’re a bit more likely to become schizophrenic if you have a family member with the illness. Stress does not cause schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse.
Signs/Symptoms
Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:
Confusion
Inability to make decisions
Hallucinations
Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
Delusions
Nervousness
Strange statements or behavior
Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
Neglect of personal hygiene
Anger
Indifference to the opinions of others
A tendency to argue
A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you
Care
Drugs such as Thorazine, Haldol, and Risperdal combat symptoms in 4 out of 5 patients. An acute attack usually can be cleared up in 4 to 8 weeks. Counseling and group therapy help recovering patients to understand the disease and to function effectively.
Risks
Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them.

Report this

By Logician, May 15, 2007 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Re# 70074 by gncarlo on 5/15:

Embarrassed, aren’t you?  Knowing you have NO DEFENSE against the truth, you resort to the USUAL Christian passive/aggressive slimy sh*t: “Sir, I don’t mean to sound unkind, but…”

Are you kind?  NO!  YOU are the HATERS of humanity!  “Man is born of sin and must be born again or he WILL BURN IN HORRIBLE AGONY FOREVER!!!” You arrogantly sit in judgement upon women and state they have NO RIGHT to make decisions in their own lives because YOU KNOW BETTER!

With my own eyes I have seen Christian church-goers almost sexually fondling their semi-automatic weapons while they recite the heaven-sent moral mandate they are on to “cleanse the world of sin.”

I’ve seen you a thousand times, heard your filthy hatred vomited from from a thousand mouths, and I know you.  So I have exposed you for what you are on this site and you react EXACTLY as always, with passive/aggressve hate-filled hypocrisy.  Why?  Because someone knows you are a hypocrite filled with woman-hatred incapable of independent thought and has exposed you.  So you condescendingly smile and state I must need help because I don’t think like you.

In that you are correct: I think, you do not. Simple as that.  Because IF you did think, you wouldn’t feel you have the right to tell women what to do in their own lives and you wouldn’t believe in fairy tales. 

Remember, gncarlo, it is CHRISTIANS who kill pregnant women trying to get abortions, it is CHRISTIANS who kill the doctors who perform LEGAL procedures on women who have the LEGAL right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.  It is CHRISTIANS who are HATE-FILLED PSYCHOS in need of professional help.  But of course your controllers conditioned you well to use this twist of argument in order to appear “caring” and “love-filled.” 

It’s a lie, like ALL words and pretensions of Christianity, so you can drop the facade.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 15, 2007 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Logician: “These chimps have been well conditioned (can’t say trained, that would imply capabilities simply not present in these atavisms) to sound just like humans…...Make no mistake, they would kill you in a second if secular laws did not protect you.  This is NO exaggeration.  Chris Hedges has told me NOTHING I have not witnessed with my own eyes.  These people are dangerous…..The ones with the most teeth are chosen to repeat the lies of their controllers.  They are repeatedly conditioned to look, act, and talk human enough to fool all but the most astute.  But in time they will devolve right in front of your eyes and you will see that they are nothing but highly conditioned, dangerously hate-filled attack chimps, as gncarlo has finally revealed for all to see. “

Sir, I don’t mean to sound unkind, but are you currently under any kind of medical supervision?  If so, I hope you will follow your doctor’s advice and take ALL your medications.  If you are not under medical supervision, I urge you to print out some of your own posts and show them to a doctor, professor, or someone else whose judgment you respect. I would hate to contemplate the possibility you might some day walk past a playground and think that the laughing children are laughing at you because their “controllers” want to kill you. Please get help!

Report this

By gncarlo, May 14, 2007 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Good Grief! You are one sick puppy!  Please get help. Get help soon, before you hurt yourself or someone else…

Report this

By Logician, May 14, 2007 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment

Re#69767 by Jaki on 5/13:

Don’t feel bad, Jaki.  These chimps have been well conditioned (can’t say trained, that would imply capabilities simply not present in these atavisms) to sound just like humans.  At times it IS difficult to realize just how disgustingly atavistic they really are.

Their humanity-hating (especially women) dogma is the same the world over. It’s fueled by the superstitions of ancient times that are so transparently ignorant even a child can see through them.  If you’ve heard one, you need not bother to listen to one more for the rest of time. 

Their filth has been with us for too long.  They are the ones who condemn you while wiping the feces of little boys they’ve raped off their privates.  They are the ones who rail against “homos” while they are stoned on cocaine they’ve scored by performing fellatio.  They are the ones with illegitimite babies and who scream the loudest about “adulterous” women having abortions.  They are the filth who gutted people who would not kowtow to them during the Inquisition. 

Make no mistake, they would kill you in a second if secular laws did not protect you.  This is NO exaggeration.  Chris Hedges has told me NOTHING I have not witnessed with my own eyes.  These people are dangerous. 

The ones with the most teeth are chosen to repeat the lies of their controllers.  They are repeatedly conditioned to look, act, and talk human enough to fool all but the most astute.  But in time they will devolve right in front of your eyes and you will see that they are nothing but highly conditioned, dangerously hate-filled attack chimps, as gncarlo has finally revealed for all to see.

Report this

By Jaki, May 13, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

To no one in particular…would you say that a person allegedly engaging in serious conversation on important issues, like choice and control of one’s body, who says their asinine ramblings reflect that they “like to jerk chains” is worth responding to?

Me, neither.

It sometimes takes me a couple of minutes to really believe them when they actually say what they are up to. Apologies to those who warned me.

My bad.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 13, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

“Well, GNCARLO, although I had decided not to spend any more energy responding to your nutty ravings…” 
  To dream the impossible dream; I was hoping you would maintain your decision.  Actually, I was responding to Inherit The Wind who, so far, has been able to largely suppress whatever hostility he/she may feel at someone who has the temerity to entertain an un-PC opinion.

Report this

By Jaki, May 13, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Well, GNCARLO, although I had decided not to spend any more energy responding to your nutty ravings, for once you sound partly sane, and I agree with some of what you said.  However, let’s not say either/or with regard to AIPAC/Zionist Lobby and/or The Corporations.  They are in lock-step, regardless of motives, for the creation of a New World Order.

Abortion in late term is a very sticky issue.  As I said in one of my responses, I don’t believe women will chose late-term abortions unless it is absolutely necessary to save her own life, or it is clear that the being within her womb is in a severely grotesque and non-viable state and would never have any quality of life (nor would the parents). 

By the way, have you had the courage and willingness to take a look at the website pictures and read the text therein referenced by GINNY?  I did and it wasn’t easy, but it might enlighten those who do.

When it all comes down to it, the bottom line has to be a woman’s choice and you have to respect that.  We have to respect her wisdom, her knowledge of what is right for her life, regardless of how you or religious zealots or The State wish to define wisdom,
“Universal Truth” or The American Way.  And most of all it has to be respected that she owns her body, all of it, all of the time.

Good counseling and reasonable opportunities for adoption for late-term decision-making re abortion is certainly desirable.  But State Control (Federal or individual States) generally results in continued expansion of the line that is drawn.  That is another reason why the Anti-Choice forces celebrated when The State declared an inutero child killed by drunk driver or rapist or murderer as a victim included in adjudication.  An inroad.  Fetus as person.  Next it will be, if they have their way, 2 cells as person.

I’m afraid this is an either/or situation, with no compromise.  A woman owns her body, all of it, at any stage of anything.  She can decide to reject medical treatment (as can men), keep a growing fetus to term, or not.  If we have truly available, affordable, safe, compassionate services for abortion—I mean truly available and convenient (which the Anti-Choice zealots have certainly taken away over the past couple of decades)—making the decision at the earliest time will be much easier.

I also believe all of us have a right to die when we please, and physicians should be free to assist us, with informed consent and counseling, of course.

You are so wrong on the issue of abortion clinics abounding in racial ghettos.  Got any addresses?

And last, you insist that abortion will cause pain to a fetus because you buy in to the gross horror propaganda of the Anti-choice forces.  No one knows this.  And—think about it—with the medical technology we have currently, and compassionate medical practitioners—if it doesn’t exist already, which I suspect it does—certainly we can find a way to do abortions which do not cause any physical distress to the fetus once it has the capacity to feel pain.  If we can go to the moon and beyond, surely we can figure this one out.  We just have to get politics (and religion) out of the way.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 13, 2007 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

Windy,
  Appreciate your little dig, but I think I redid and reposted one block one time.  There was a 24-hour delay in posting the first version and I thought that the moderator might have been put off by my reference to Zionists, so I euphemized that, for the benefit of the “Thought Police.”  The last time I looked, “one” and “several” had different meanings.  If this is the best putdown you can think of, you must be desperate.
    “Of course, since all the anti-abortion crowd don’t believe a woman has the right to make decisions about her uterus, it is implicit that you believe she is not the owner of her uterus”
    I am happy that you know what “all the anti-abortion” crowd do or don’t believe. Not being a part of that “crowd,” what I believe is not ‘implicit’, and I wouldn’t hazard a guess. 
    I have nowhere disputed that woman is the “owner of her uterus”, so kindly do not put words in my mouth.  I have simply asked questions about the occupant of her uterus and whether and at what point any of you would agree that that occupant had some rights which the State is obliged to protect.  From the point of birth, the State claims that it has all sorts of obligations to protect that child, even from its mother, if necessary.
  I feel, philosophically, that, at some point prior to birth, the child feels sufficient pain, and has sufficient worth as a human being, to possess rights which the State should protect.  I am not yet clear in my own mind where this point is, which is why I ask questions from people with different POVs.
  “And, of course, this is exactly what the christian fascisti teach: You only have your body on loan from the state or the church.”
      I would agree that the situation with regard to the State is the prevailing view of the New World Order in the two faces of the American Totalitarian Party (Dems and Repubs) who disagree on very little of substance in their game of “smoke and mirrors.”  The Modern Totalitarian State does view you and all your possessions, and mine as well, as the State’s resources.
  However, what the “christian fascisti teach” is a straw man argument.  I seriously doubt that the policies of this government are controlled by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or others “from those nether regions where the peasants handle snakes and sleep in their underwear.” (HL Mencken’s words, not mine.).
  A truism is often true. For example: “If you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize.”  In America, for example, you may ridicule bible-thumpers all you like, you may display a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it “art.”  No one calls it “hate speech” or demands public apologies. Most people couldn’t care less.
  If, on the other hand, you say that perhaps AIPAC and the Zionist Lobby (and not “big oil” or “big corporations”) are the primary reasons we are engaged in eternal war and genocide in the Middle East, you are immediately virulently and relentlessly attacked with epithets like “anti-semite“ and neo-Nazi.”  If you have a public career, it may very well be history.
        To reiterate:  “If you want to know who holds real power, ask who it is you may not criticize.”
        Cheers

Report this

By Jaki, May 13, 2007 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

LOGICIAN!  HEAR HEAR! & HERE HERE! 

Let’s tip our ‘tinis to an end to oppressive faith-based controllers, who are always asking you to prove your arguments with facts at a moment’s notice (like none of us read, remember what we read, but can’t give page & paragraph).  But ask them to PROVE
the existence of whatever version of “god” they are
basing their arguments on…riiiight.

As one of my inspirations once said:
“Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
It dulls the thinking capacity, lulls people into a false sense of security about after death, makes them into willing tools of the forces of oppression and justifies just about any form of cruelty…and takes their money to boot.  What do they give back?  A whole shitload of guilt and fear and self-righteousness.  Just what the world needs.

I totally loved one of the comments about the Catholic Church having no right to say anything about sex…other than their area of expertise—sex with altar boys.

hear hear

and Cheers!

Report this

By Logician, May 13, 2007 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Re#69594 by Jaki on 5/12:

Let us hoist together, then:

Here’s to equal rights for both sexes and a world without the disgustingly vile filth of religion,

Ziggy Zocky, Ziggy Zocky, Hoi, Hoi, Hoi!

Salud! wink

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 12, 2007 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

GNCARLO:

I’ve seen you post the same post several times. Do you have trouble figuring out how to use the submit button? I understand re-wording an argument, but to simply repost the same post several times is both insulting to everyone else, and doesn’t reflect well on you.

What the anti-abortion crowd believes but refuses to say is that a woman’s body is nothing more than a breeding machine for men.  If not, then there would be no issue at all about who makes the decision about a woman’s uterus—its owner.

Of course, since all the anti-abortion crowd don’t believe a woman has the right to make decisions about her uterus, it is implicit that you believe she is not the owner of her uterus

Who does?

And if she doesn’t own her uterus, how can she own any other part of her body?

Well, she can’t.  Therefore she doesn’t own her own body.

Therefore, neither do men.

Where does this leave us? In Stalinist Russia where you, your body, your life and your children were the property of the state.  Or in Feudal times when you belonged to your lord from birth to death.

And, of course, this is exactly what the christian fascisti teach: You only have your body on loan from the state or the church.

It aint yours so somebody else tells you what to do with it.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“To GNCARLO…Didn’t say all women are conscious. Many are vulnerable to the brainwashing of their controllers. I think it is called The Stockholm Syndrome”
That would be women who are not pro-choice zealots? How did you and your sisters-in arms avoid this “brainwashing”?  Are you smarter than the women who disagree with you?

Are all men “controllers” ?  As a female judge in Quebec famously said, regarding “men exploiting women” through prostitution, “why do they call it a ‘trick’, and who leaves the motel room with whose money”?

“ Add religion to the mix and there you have it.”  Are only “religious” women pro-life?  Are there no other valid reasons one could object to a child’s having its brain sucked out with a hypodermic syringe?

“Didn’t say all men are unconscious.” What?

“ I know one or two who have evolved into compassionate understanding.”  I’ll bet! Like Logician, whom you enthused with, and who references his own earlier juvenile potty-mouthed screed that contributes exactly nothing to the sum of human understanding. God help us! I generally don’t respond to such foul-mouthed examples from the shallow end of the gene pool, but do fervently hope they exercise their “choice” not to breed.

“And I even see evidence of many more when I watch DEMOCRACY NOW! and other programs that SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER on FreeSpeech TV“.

I like FreeSpeech TV, too.  Link TV even more. I don’t agree with everything I see, but that’s why it’s called “free speech.”

“You say you have no axe to grind? Give me a break.”

What axe would that be? Like I said before, I was following links to some of Mr. Hedges comments on other issues, and that was how I ended up here.  Abortion and “wymmyns issues” are just one link in the greater game of the New World Order’s destruction of Western Civilization.  Still, I must confess I enjoy jerking the chains and, hopefully, stretching the minds of “true believers” like yourself.  Unfortunately, there are time constraints ...

Report this

By gncarlo, May 12, 2007 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ginny says: ““respect for life”?? Countries like Africa and India, where thousands upon thousands are born into grinding poverty; swarm like flies; beg in the streets; die from malnutrition, starvation and AIDS, and millions of children work long hours in sweat shops or are sold into prostitution. Dead bodies lying out in the streets are picked up like garbage (my friend who visited there says). The Catholic church tells people that contraception is a “sin” and if one has an abortion or even helps someone obtain an abortion or performs an abortion , they are automatically ex-communicated from the church.”
“JAKI…..THANK YOU! I will no longer call these people “pro-lifers” .”

Uh, sorry to break the news to you, girls, but Africa is not a country. Oh, and the Catholic Church is a non-factor in this scenario:  Africa, in the north, is Muslim, while the Negroid belt of central Africa is a hodgepodge of various animist religions. India is primarily Hindu with Muslim, animist, and Christian minorities.

  And all the social dysfunctions of the Third World can be blamed on the lack of abortion facilities?  American ghettos have an abundance of contraceptive devices available at any drugstore, usually for less than the cost of a bottle of cheap wine.  There are abortion clinics surrounding these ghettos, which are often funded by taxpayers, many of whom profoundly object to this use of their tax money. Despite oceans of money transferred to these areas, they remain largely cesspools of third-world crime and squalor.    Don’t you suspect that possibly low IQs might have something to do with these conditions?  I realize that that contradicts the dogma of cultural anthropology and socialism, but you might want to think about it a little, however un-PC the possibilities.


The terms “contraception” (which I have no problem with) and “abortion” are not
interchangeable.

  “GINNY: You said it beautifully. Most abortions are done in the first trimester when the
cells that have come together have no pain sensitivity.”
  But the law, as it stands, does not restrict abortions to the early stages, when there is allegedly “no pain sensitivity.”  This is your issue so I am sure you have read a lot more about it than I; correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will!), are not the various pro and con groups still arguing over the legality of so-called “partial-birth abortions?  Would not the “pain sensitivity” of the child at this point be a more important ethical consideration than the socio-economic convenience of the woman and/or the advice of the “provider” who, let us be honest about this, has a financial interest in doing the procedure.
  “And it still doesn’t matter.”  Uh, the “pain sensitivity” of the child “doesn’t matter”? 
  “ The issue is a WOMAN’S CHOICE to maintain control over HER life and destiny, not the dictates of the ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN, ANTI-FREEDOM forces. “  Which is another way of saying “it’s all about me”!

Report this

By gncarlo, May 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...sensitive, intelligent Pro-Choice men who have taken the time to respond.  Hopefully, The Forces of Light will eventually overpower the Forces of Darkness.”
Well, Jaki, would “Logician”, whose idea of a debate is to call someone a “twerp” or a “f*cking idiot”,  be an example of the above?  Actually, I have endured far more creative bigots, like the Zionists who called me “neanderf*ck” or that old favorite: “neo-Nazi.”  The Japanese have a proverb: “the first man to raise his voice has lost the argument.”
Just a few more little comments to get out of my system and I will stop wasting both our time.

Report this

By Jaki, May 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

LOGICIAN LOGICIAN LOGICIAN!!!  Thank you.  I certainly won’t waste any more energy on that guy (it has to be a guy (or an it); even the most brainwashed Anti-Choice women aren’t that bizarre).  I am new to this computer blog response thing and I do enjoy participating in good debates and responses to issues, but you are totally right on about wasting time with people like GNCARLO. They are a closed circuit.

And thank you for my first LOL today!

And now I have to go fix MYSELF a martini.

Report this

By Logician, May 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Re#69474 by Jaki on 5/11:

Jaki, Jaki, Jaki.  Do you REALLY think you’ll make any headway attempting to reason with gncarlo?  gncarlo is the kind of twerp outlined in post #68584.

Every time you point out the truth he/she/it whines that white men are just SO oppressed and SO unfortunate.  Why, *sob*, *sniffle,* just look at the laws and how they protect all those non-white non-men!  How HORRIBLE!

And OMG, don’t get started on the poor, suffering corporations!  It’s just so TERRIBLE that they have to pay for destroying the environment, ruining lives and generally doing just whatever the hell they want.  They’re CORPORATIONS, by god, and they should be allowed to do as they see fit, damn every living body that gets in the way!

“God bless America!  God is REPUBLICAN, Jaki, and DON’T YOU FORGET IT!  And if you’re a woman, what the hell are you doing anyway?  Why aren’t you pregnant and fixing your man a meal?  That’s god’s plan for you, baby, and unless you want to go to hell, shut up and bear babies!

You are NOTHING but god’s blessing bearer and you have NO say about that womb!  The MAN gave you his SEED and you must BEAR it even unto DEATH! If you don’t, you should be KILLED!”

Think I’m exaggerating, gncarlo?  I’ve walked in the lines of the protesting pro-lifers in SEVEN states and EVERY word I’ve quoted above I’ve heard come out of some idiot’s mouth in one or more states.  And you wonder why people think pro-lifers are f**king idiots? 

Save your time and trouble, Jaki.  gncarlo has obviously listened to the oxycontin-chomping Rush blubber over how ‘persecuted’ the ruling class is.  He/she/it is clueless and will remain so, facts completely notwithstanding.

Keep fighting where it counts, in the halls of government, lest the atavisms gain any more ground.  Best to let them inbreed themselves out of existence and concentrate on what can be done.

Report this

By Jaki, May 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

To GNCARLO:  I can’t imagine anything I could say in response would reveal the truth of who you are any more than your own words.

But I will say one thing…any laws (since The Constitution) that were made by men in power that address the needs of oppressed people were done so because those people organized, educated, confronted, and diligently and patiently applied pressure.  It was rarely, if ever, done because the majority of those in power had any inherent compassion for them.

Otherwise, there would have been no need to organize.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 12, 2007 at 2:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“There are so many ways that “The Rule of Law” is used to justify and enforce oppression of people of minority status (this includes women, even though we are a majority).”  An “oppressed minority” that is not a minority, and if a long life, fewer violent deaths, fewer suicides, inheriting more of the privately held wealth, etc.  are any indications, not particularly “oppressed!”

  “we certainly do need an overhaul of The System as it currently exists. It is based on regressive, as opposed to progressive, thinking, and punitive revenge rather than rehabilitative or compassionate possibilities.”
  Do you have any suggestions for overhauling “The System” in more progressive, rehabilitative and compassionate possibilities for dealing with, oh, say, serial rapists?  How about murderers? Or pedophiles.

  “Shall we move on, now, to the corporate interests that move the powers that be to create laws?…” 
    Which of course would include “usually all white men.”? 
  Did the “corporate interests that move the powers that be”  create laws that compel themselves to hire and promote less qualified blacks or women over white men, and pay huge sums in litigation, so that their corporations can be less efficient than, say, competitive Asian corporations that suffer from no such handicaps.  One wonders, as the limousine liberals congratulate themselves on their compassion and progressive thought, what the workers think as they watch their jobs go offshore.  No doubt they will be eternally grateful for the Section 8 housing and, with gasoline prices soaring, bicycles that are every bit as good as those that Chinese workers have.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 12, 2007 at 2:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, Jaki, it seems to me the problem is that the pro-abortion and the pro-life people are always talking past each other.  People like you are almost always talking about the woman’s needs and feelings while the pro-life people are focusing on the child, which people like yourself seem to deny has needs or feelings, well at least any that are worthy of consideration.  As for the mere male who fathered it, not even the slightest mention.  Of course you can offer anecdotal evidence of all the dastardly things some men do to some women all day long.  I am sure that there are people who can offer an equal number of examples of reciprocal behavior.  Both of which prove nothing.
  “The act of eliminating cells from a woman’s uterus (by her own choice) that have no consciousness or ability to feel pain might be, however, interpreted as benign, which I do.” 
  Again, on the basis of what do you infer that they “have no consciousness or ability to feel pain”?  If I, or anyone else, had both the time and inclination to do the research on the internet, I suspect that there are probably a countless number of scientists and scientific studies which would take issue with that statement. It is indisputable that babies respond to external stimuli months before birth.  It is documented that babies born months prematurely have grown up to live normal lives.  It has also been documented that occasionally a baby refuses to die during this “safe” procedure, and has to be killed by the, uh, “caregiver”  Are you contending that life begins at birth?  I thought we got past that notion back about the time we were arguing over whether the earth was flat.

  “I think the first place to begin is with “The Rule of Law.” Who makes those laws? In whose interests?
Historically, our laws were (and are) made by men in the interests of men, usually white men. “

  Ah, now we get to the nub of the matter: PC Political Indoctrination 101.  Do you mean ” all white men” ?  One of the most common maxims that a law student learns is that if you are going to be a divorce lawyer, don’t represent the man, especially in places like Barbara Boxer’s state.  I agree that one subset of “usually white men”,  lawyers, are prime beneficiaries, but women have almost universally been enthusiastic co-conspirators.
 
  Would racial and sexual quotas in hiring and promotions be examples of laws that are “in the interest of men, usually white men?”

  Would men dying three years earlier than women on average and committing suicide ten times as often be examples of the benefits of “usually white male” oppression?
     
    “In fact, historically, men often (in times when childbirth more frequently resulted in a threat to the mother’s life) demanded the doctor save the child if it came down to a choice.”
    On the basis of what do you make this assertion, other than that it sounds good to the true believers?  I am reminded of the feminist canard, accepted as gospel truth for years, that more women got beaten up by men on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year.  No one has ever been able to produce any statistical basis for this assertion. But it validated the prejudices of a particular class of angry women,  so who in the media or the feminist posse wanted to let facts get in the way of a good story.

Report this

By Jaki, May 11, 2007 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Again to GNCARLO, since you insist on answers to the alleged contradictions you perceive in Chris Hedges’ article and some of the responses:

First, I don’t recall anyone claiming abortion is a “benign procedure.”  It is a medical procedure where things can go wrong (as in my case), which is why it is important to have it be legal, safe, affordable, and readily available. 

The act of eliminating cells from a woman’s uterus (by her own choice) that have no consciousness or ability to feel pain might be, however, interpreted as benign, which I do.

That does not mean, however, that a woman has no emotional response before, during, or after having the procedure.  Hormones are flooding her body.  All of us are vulnerable to cultural pressures and unquestioned moral dictates.  However, even if we know that we may be preventing a life from flourishing in our bodies, ultimately to become a child, and that may bring sadness, we are still “grown up” enough to make the choice based on our own wisdom and knowledge of what is best for our lives at any particular time. And, painful as it may be, we recover, and do so much better if we have a support system, which is what the Women’s Movement has provided.

I also believe (and the reported facts support this) that women rarely, if ever, choose to abort a fully-developed fetus at late term, unless her life is at stake.  The Anti-Choice Forces make this a constant false issue drum beat.  In reality, it is a non-issue.

Secondly, your proposed “dilemma” about the drunk, who hits a pregnant woman with a car and gets prosecuted for killing her unborn child vs. the legality of abortion by choice does pose an interesting contemplation.

I think the first place to begin is with “The Rule of Law.”  Who makes those laws?  In whose interests?
Historically, our laws were (and are) made by men in the interests of men, usually white men.  Women who act in the interests of women are rarely ever elected to National office (with notable exceptions—Barbara Boxer of California being one).  But they are so outnumbered their power is muted.  Look at the gender of our Supremes (8 to 1).

Why would men make a law that favored the inutero life in a car accident?  Because men claim that life to belong to them (collective unconsciousness).  In fact, historically, men often (in times when childbirth more frequently resulted in a threat to the mother’s life) demanded the doctor save the child if it came down to a choice.  The child is his
heir.  She is merely a replaceable receptacle.

With regard to abortion, SHE is taking control. Can’t have that.  However, Roe v. Wade would never have become the law of the land without years of political struggle by masses of women, and excellent female lawyers.

There are so many ways that “The Rule of Law” is used to justify and enforce oppression of people of minority status (this includes women, even though we are a majority).  I’m not saying we don’t need laws; but we certainly do need an overhaul of The System as it currently exists.  It is based on regressive, as opposed to progressive, thinking, and punitive revenge rather than rehabilitative or compassionate possibilities.

Shall we move on, now, to the corporate interests that move the powers that be to create laws?...

Nah…That would take forever.

And finally, I have just reviewed all of the comments thus far to this article and wish to appreciate the number of sensitive, intelligent Pro-Choice men who have taken the time to respond.  Hopefully, The Forces of Light will eventually overpower the Forces of Darkness.

Thank you Chris Hedges for stimulating this conversation.

Report this

By Jaki, May 11, 2007 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

To GNCARLO…Didn’t say all women are conscious. Many are vulnerable to the brainwashing of their controllers.  I think it is called The Stockholm Syndrome.  Add religion to the mix and there you have it.

Didn’t say all men are unconscious.  I know one or two who have evolved into compassionate understanding.

And I even see evidence of many more when I watch DEMOCRACY NOW! and other programs that SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER on FreeSpeech TV.

You say you have no axe to grind?  Give me a break.

Report this

By Jaki, May 11, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

GINNY: You said it beautifully.  Most abortions are done in the first trimester when the
cells that have come together have no pain sensitivity.

And it still doesn’t matter.  The issue is a WOMAN’S CHOICE to maintain control over HER life and destiny, not the dictates of the ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN, ANTI-FREEDOM forces.

Sometimes that choice for women is difficult due to many circumstances (as you so poignantly described) not just, as MR. GNCARLO, assumes our “mere socio-economic convenience.” 

AND EVEN IF THAT IS OUR REASON, it should still be our choice. The only consultation we might need is with the providers of abortion re health and safety.

It was not so long ago that women were considered the property of men, a status maintained over the centuries by The State and Religions.  Fortunately, that is changing and some enlightened thinkers and compassionate souls (albeit forced to act by massive organization and protest) have seen the light that we are equal people on this planet, and deserve to be treated as such, including the right to control our own bodies, hence Roe v. Wade.

BIOLOGY IS NOT DESTINY.  This was a theme of the Second Wave of Feminism started in the 60s.  KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF OUR BODIES was our demand to those in power. IF MEN GOT PREGNANT, ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT, one of my favorite truisms emerging from that movement.

Sometimes words guided by logic and fairness fail to seep into the dense consciousness of those who would continue keeping women under their thumbs.  Perhaps you can hear, MR. GNCARLO, so concerned about our hearts, a personal story better.

In the 60s, after years of low-paying jobs while working to achieve a Master’s Degree, I was offered a position teaching at a local college.  Then I got married.  My husband had just given four years of his life to the United States Military and it was his turn to become educated.  His military “skills” were useless in finding a good-paying job.

We used every form of birth control my body could tolerate, and we were vigilant.  One of them failed and I became pregnant. Believe it or not, the policy of U.S. Educational Institutions at that time was a woman could not teach while pregnant!

So our dilemma—I would have to throw away years of hard-earned education and be a parent and he would be forced to take menial jobs.  Or we could try to postpone starting a family and terminate the pregnancy. Unfortunately, this required that I go to Mexico because there was no legal abortion available in the U.S. at that time. 

We believed the resentment we would inevitably feel about being forced to go through a pregnancy we did everything possible to avoid would overwhelm us and probably harm our relationships and any child we might bring into the world as well.  This is an all-to-common occurrence.

The experience for us was a nightmare and I almost died from hemorrhaging before I got back to the States.  But I do not regret it. I only wish there had been a safer alternative. If there ever was a politicizing experience, this was it for me.

Too much of what this oppression and control is about centers on religious beliefs.  Let us not forget that this country was founded on the separation of religion from government, and freedom to practice whatever faith you wish. It is also founded on the FREEDOM NOT TO PRACTICE ANY RELIGION OR TO BELIEVE OR NOT IN ANY KIND OF GOD OR OTHER SUPERNATURAL BEING OR FORCE, or how they define “life”.

And to Mr. GNCARLO, the answer to your question “Why does it all have to be about ‘me’?
Well, it isn’t.

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this very important dialog.  Those who are so short-sighted and bent on control of women may not see how critical it is, but they will when the planet can no longer support the glut of humans forced into
existence by the regressive, repressive forces of Church and State, IF they are allowed to maintain power and control.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 11, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Part II:  “Anti-choice”  If it’s such a benign procedure, why dress abortion up with a euphemism?  Why not call it what it is? 
  “Anti-woman”?  What does that mean?  It sounds like another one of those mindless epithets like “racist,”  designed to end the dialogue because you have nothing else to say that makes any sense.  How do you or your associates presume to speak for all women?  Do you know all women?  Have you taken a poll of all women?  Just in my own everyday experience, I have seen a lot of cars with pro-life bumper stickers, driven by women.  Could it be that not all women can be stereotyped as having one opinion?
  We all tend to try to rationalize and justify our own prejudices.  Self-examination is difficult,  but (as someone whom I don’t remember once said) the unexamined life is not worth living.
  I am reminded of how the radical feminists had been saying incessantly that every interaction between men and women was “rape” by the male.  Regarding rape accusations and shielding the accuser but not the accused from negative consequences, even revealing their names, the line was: “women never lie about that!”  Then a number of women came forward and accused William Jefferson Clinton, husband of “the smartest woman in the world,”  and the silence was deafening.  Apparently women do “lie about it”  when they accuse someone who is in a position to help the “wymmyns movement.”  “Hypocrisy” is another word you might want to include in your lexicon.
  “Freedom”  People like you who want to use the coercive power of the State to get your way don’t have the remotest clue.
  Let me give you a quote from a mere dead white male, Benjamin Franklin: ” ‘Democracy’ is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner; ‘freedom’ is being a well-armed lamb. ”
  And while I’m in the mood, just a thought on Mr. Hedges, who is rightly enraged when “our most reliable allies” in the Middle East use eight-yr-old children walking to school for target practice, but then is able to compartmentalize his sympathies to exclude the humanity of unborn children, who, at least in the third trimester, do feel pain “as we know it.” I find such selective indignation odd.
 
Good Night.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 11, 2007 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It never fails to irritate me when the
ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN,and ANTI-FREEDOM folks..”
    It never fails to irritate me when some silly person who knows nothing about me chooses to label me with stupid epithets.
  I am not a member of the so-called “Religious Right” or religious anything.  I have no ax to grind.  I was simply clicking on links to Hedges because of what I see as his rather odd and contradictory opinions on other issues.  After scanning this article, I thought I might interject my opinion, for what it’s worth.  The last time I checked, that was still legal in America.  If my opinion is a little too “diverse” for this crowd, I am sure your moderator will delete it.  I hope he/she will do me the courtesy of an email explaining their reasons.
    First of all, let me note in passing that you didn’t “choose” to answer my question regarding the legal flummery regarding when and under what circumstances the State “chooses” to call a fetus “human”.  Evidently for purposes of prosecuting a drunk driver or suing him for everything he possesses, but not when it impedes the convenience of the “modern liberated woman” or the profit motive of the abortion industry.
    No doubt I have not devoted as much time to this issue as many of you but I seriously doubt that any more than a very small percentage of aborted babies are seriously deformed. BTW I have no problem with abortions for severely retarded or damaged fetuses who, in the opinion of medical experts, could not function without continuous extraordinary measures outside the womb.  My only proviso would be that several expert opinions be given in a court of law and that none of those giving opinions be an abortionist, vis have a financial interest in performing such procedures. 
  I am told there have been more that 40 million abortions in America alone since Roe v Wade.  The notion that these were all or nearly all grossly deformed creatures is preposterous.  I suspect that most abortions are performed for such “diverse” reasons as the child not being the desired sex,  not wanting to be a mother until later (if ever),  a teen-aged daughter who can’t support it and may not even know who the father is,  a wife who has had a “multicultural” affair and for whom having a baby of another race would be a faux pas that could cost her her marriage, etc. 
  As I understand it, and I know you will correct me if I am wrong,  one of the most common reasons given for abortion is “the health of the mother.”  As it was originally presented in the arguments for Roe v Wade,  this meant forfeiting the child when childbirth would likely cause the death of the mother.  No argument with that.  But decades of creative lawyering have expanded this to include the “mental health” of the mother, a legal loophole one could drive an eighteen-wheeler through.  If the woman doesn’t feel good about having a baby at this time, if it would cause her “stress” etc., that is apparently sufficient cause in the eyes of the law.
    I can sincerely relate to the heartbreak of holding a child who only lives a half hour after birth. My youngest brother was a twin and his brother died within the hour. My mother grieved but got over it.  She lived and died with a lot more class than what I have seen in the entire lot of modern, brainwashed, self-absorbed tribe of “fem-victims.” We all have to face disappointments and pain in life. It’s called “growing up.” 
  Such a loss, however, pales in comparison to the pain a child must feel being drowned in saline solution in utero, or having its brain sucked out by a hypodermic syringe.
      More later…

Report this

By bogi666, May 11, 2007 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXISTS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AND HUMANS, WOMEN, SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE SAME. Lions and numerous other species as well can’t conceive while raising its offspring. Badgers, wolverines and kangaroos will retard or terminate fetal development unless circumstances for a successful birth and environmental conditions,water, food, weather, exist for their offspring to survive. The churchianity-religionists doctrine for todays human sexuality was created in the 5th century by St. Augustine who concluded that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation, based on his observation of the animal kingdom, rabbits I suppose. The ovum wasn’t even realized until 150 years ago and the male sperm was the ‘seed’ according to the Bible. human sexuality is quite different from animal due to the emotional factors although the same physiologically. A LOT HAS BEEN LEARNED SINCE THE 5TH CENTURY.WOMEN SHOULD BE ACCORDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD JUST AS THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. Remembering it was the SPCA that initiated he first legal action against child abuse, a young girl, around 1875. They had to use the laws against cruelty to animals because their were no laws against cruelty to children then.

Report this

By gncarlo, May 11, 2007 at 1:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It never fails to irritate me when the
ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN,and ANTI-FREEDOM folks..”
    It never fails to irritate me when some silly person who knows nothing about me chooses to label me with stupid epithets.
    First of all, let me note in passing that you didn’t “choose” to answer my question regarding the legal flummery regarding when and under what circumstances the State “chooses” to call a fetus “human”.  Evidently for purposes of prosecuting a drunk driver or suing him for everything he possesses, but not when it impedes the convenience of the “modern liberated woman” or the profit motive of the abortion industry.
    No doubt I have not devoted as much time to this issue as many of you but I seriously doubt that any more than a very small percentage of aborted babies are seriously deformed.  I am told there have been more that 30 million abortions in America alone since Roe v Wade.  The notion that these were all or nearly all grossly deformed creatures is preposterous. 
    I can sincerely relate to the heartbreak of holding a child who only lives a half hour after birth. My youngest brother was a twin and his brother died within the hour. My mother grieved but got over it.  She lived and died with a lot more class than what I have seen in the entire lot of modern, brainwashed, self-absorbed tribe of “fem-victims.” We all have to face disappointments and pain in life. It’s called “growing up.” 
  Such a loss, however, pales in comparison to the pain a child must feel being drowned in saline solution in utero, or having its brain sucked out by a hypodermic syringe.
  “Anti-choice”  If it’s such a benign procedure, why dress abortion up with a euphemism?  Why not call it what it is? 
  “Anti-woman”?  What does that mean?  It sounds like another one of those mindless epithets like “racist,”  designed to end the dialogue because you have nothing else to say that makes any sense.  How do you or your associates presume to speak for all women?  Do you know all women?  Have you taken a poll of all women?  Just in my own everyday experience, I have seen a lot of cars with pro-life bumper stickers, driven by women.  Could it be that not all women can be stereotyped as having one opinion?
  We all tend to try to rationalize and justify our own prejudices.  Self-examination is difficult,  but (as someone whom I don’t remember once said) the unexamined life is not worth living.
  I am reminded of how the radical feminists had been saying incessantly that every interaction between men and women was “rape” by the male.  Regarding rape accusations and shielding the accuser but not the accused from negative consequences, even revealing their names, the line was: “women never lie about that!”  Then a number of women came forward and accused William Jefferson Clinton, husband of “the smartest woman in the world,”  and the silence was deafening.  Apparently women do “lie about it”  when they accuse someone who is in a position to help the “wymmyns movement.”  “Hypocrisy” is another word you might want to include in your lexicon.
  “Freedom”  People like you who want to use the coercive power of the State to get your way don’t have the remotest clue.
  Let me give you a quote from a mere male, Benjamin Franklin: ” ‘Democracy’ is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner; ‘freedom’ is being a well-armed lamb. ”
  And while I’m in the mood, just a thought on Mr. Hedges, who is rightly enraged when Zionist pigs in Gaza use eight-yr-old children walking to school for target practice, but then is able to compartmentalize his sympathies to exclude the humanity of unborn children, who, at least in the third trimester, do feel pain “as we know it.” I find such selective indignation odd.
 
Good Night.

Report this

By Ginny Forbes, May 10, 2007 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Quote: “Surely the unpleasantness that the woman would feel in giving the child up for adoption pales in comparison to the pain the fetus endures while being killed.”

It never fails to irritate me when the
ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN,and ANTI-FREEDOM folks (or those who call themselves “pro-life”) speak of “the child” or try to paint a picture of a perfectly healthy, fully developed child; and always play up the “pain” of the fetus or “child”.  In reality, a mass, or clump of cells has not developed to the point of feeling pain. Do some research on the development of a fetus and at what stage , what timeline each of the organs and nervous system takes place.  Stop trying to portray or insinuate that ALL abortions are done in the late stages of pregnancy.  And stop trying to paint this cozy, cutesy picture of the adoption process; or that all children are born perfect and healthy and or have these wonderful loving parents lined up waiting to take them to never never land filled with bunnies and sugar plums. 

Check out ANACEPHALY babies, or harlequin babies, or crack babies.  Just a couple weeks ago, a couple here in my area were told their baby would die very shortly after birth. The baby was anacephalic.  The mother was seven months along. She waited until the eighth month and the doctors did a cesarean. The baby lived for a little over a half hour before dying.  Ok, so you get this nice picture of the family being able to hold the child, say goodbye, whatever.  B.U.T…...the child had no brain; no nose, extremely deformed mouth.  I simply cannot imagine the pain of witnessing all this. I don’t think I could. I’d never get over the resulting nightmares.  Ah, but would you even care to check out some of the REAL reasons why someone would choose top have an abortions; or are all abortions to you….perfectly, healthy, bouncing bundles of joy who would have perfect mommies and daddies and live in perfect homes ?

Check out ENCEPHALY babies:

http://pets.webshots.com/photo/1513355847058529287XMzKTU

Harlequin babies:

LOOK at these and then come back and talk about “pain”.....please, I beg you!

http://www.thefetus.net/page.php?id=1448


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin_type_ichthyosis

Report this

By gncarlo, May 10, 2007 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here, where I live, if you’re a pregnant woman driving down the street and a drunk driver hits you, and your baby dies, the charge is usually vehicular manslaughter, which states that the fetus is legally a live human. If, on the other hand, the drunk misses you, and you make it to your appointment at the local “family-planning” clinic, where a state-sanctioned physician terminates your pregnancy, the fetus has reverted to being an “undifferentiated tissue mass” (I believe the usual description is).  I am curious as to at what point the reversion back to non-person status occurs, in the opinion of those who style themselves “pro-choice”?
  In an age of relative morality in which self-serving politicians conduct focus-group polls to determine where they stand on the issue, it is depressing to think that the decision comes down to the mere socio-economic convenience of the woman.  Surely the unpleasantness that the woman would feel in giving the child up for adoption pales in comparison to the pain the fetus endures while being killed.  Why does it all have to be about “me”?
  The same logic could be extended to speeding up your inheritance by euthanising your doddering parents because you presume to judge (selflessly, of course) that their lives are not worth living. 
    Just curious about how others resolve this in their hearts.

Report this

By Noa, May 10, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

I encourage everyone to read this very pertinent talk on Leviticus, by Angela J. Davis, with important lessons on public health and abortion.  The link is: http://www.jewsonfirst.org/howjewsseerepro.html#davis  In her profound interpretation of the portion called Emor of the book of Leviticus, the third book of the Torah, Davis acknowledges that the book is widely used by “religious leaders who would consign gays and lesbians to eternal damnation and politicians who would consign them to second-class citizenship – or worse. There is also plenty in Leviticus to offend feminists and all who champion gender equality, as well as individuals with disabilities…”
But, she says, Leviticus’s “approach to public health in which our leaders do not arrogate to themselves a supernatural understanding, but instead look unflinchingly at human illness and suffering is an urgent message for our time.” Davis considers that message in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision outlawing a medical procedure for abortion—and in light of her family’s experience with the Tay Sachs genetic mutation; babies born with this mutation all die a painful death.

Report this

By TAO Walker, May 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Among the free wild natural peoples it is and has always been entirely within the discretion of the women whether, when, how, and with whom they make babies.  There are and have always been available to our women safe, natural, privately personal means and methods to either prevent or end pregnancies. 

In the Natural Living Arrangement only the women have the intuitive wisdom and innate integrity necessary to make those decisions that ultimately affect the health and well-being and very survival of the basic organic human form (called by the Lakotas “tiyospaye”).  One (among many) examples of this is found in the Six Nations “law” that gave the Women’s Council the final say on whether to resort to war in defense of the Peoples’ hunting grounds.

It is a fundamental principle of the whole civilizing process that women must be made subject to the dictates of men….with all the life-threatening consequences we see everywhere today. One of the most damaging of these (the gross and grotesque “mismanagement” by men of human reproduction) is the subject of Chris Hedges’s article here.  When men usurped from women this vital function in human society it became a dead-certainty the condition the civilized peoples’ condition got in, finally, would be exactly what it is today.

This explains why rolling-back the inroads our civilized sisters have made lately (and with such monumental difficulty) into the once near total control of their re-productivity by their menfolk, is being met with such rabid resistance.  If the predator classes lose control of “their” women, they know their whole project will collapse catastrophically. 

The thing is, to all intents and purposes they’ve lost it already.  Theirs is a “zero-sum” all-or-nothing undertaking.  A generation of young women worldwide are taking back the things that belong naturally to them.  It is true this is coming at a high and even terrible price, especially where religious “doctrine” rules with its heaviest and most brutal hand….and is amplified by the police forces of “the State.” 

Here on Turtle Island there are those shadowy presences who want to wage war openly, using both those instruments of illusory “power,” on what the Book of Changes calls “The Feminine Principle,” as they feel their once seemingly secure death-grip here weakening more-and-more everyday.  When it is finally shaken loose once-and-for-all it will’ve been the women who did it….for all of us and All Our Relations.

HokaHey!

Report this

By Jaki, May 9, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, GINNY, for your support for my “stop calling them Pro-Lifers” campaign.  Language matters.  It gets into our unconscious mind as something “good” when it has this positive spin.  It is the antithesis of good.

Thank you also for reminding me that while I was correct in my contentions that women (in the U.S. and other industrialized nations) will get abortions regardless of what the Anti-Choice forces do, this is not true for women in poorer countries, who have no resources at all.  One of the greatest evils inflicted today by the Bush Creeps is the insistence that any aid given by the US to these countries comes with the strings of their having “no family planning and/or access to birth control or abortion.” 

This is unbelievably cruel and heartless, not to mention lacking in foresight.  Hopefully we will get new people into power soon who understand the need to provide these resources, not only for the sake of the women and unwanted babies, but for the survival of the planet.

Report this

By Ginny Forbes, May 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Pope just visited Brazil where he condemned abortion. 

Quote:  “...he said he’s certain that the bishops will reinforce “the promotion of respect for life from the moment of conception until natural death as an integral requirement of human nature.”

“respect for life”??  Countries like Africa and India, where thousands upon thousands are born into grinding poverty; swarm like flies; beg in the streets; die from malnutrition, starvation and AIDS, and millions of children work long hours in sweat shops or are sold into prostitution. Dead bodies lying out in the streets are picked up like garbage (my friend who visited there says).  The Catholic church tells people that contraception is a “sin” and if one has an abortion or even helps someone obtain an abortion or performs an abortion , they are automatically ex-communicated from the church.


JAKI…..THANK YOU!  I will no longer call these people “pro-lifers” .

Quote:

Jaki   : “They are ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN,and ANTI-FREEDOM.  To call them Pro-Life (as they choose to be called) takes what they do out of the realm of evil and gives it a positive spin (“Pro” “Life”).  Stop doing it!”

Report this

By Jaki, May 9, 2007 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

We will not go backwards. Women have the right to control our own bodies and our destiny. If and when we want children we will have them, naturally or by adoption…or NOT AT ALL.  It is our CHOICE.

CHOICE. PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. “The Pursuit of Life (women’s), Liberty (women’s) and Happiness (women’s)” (does that sound a bit familiar?) That is what this is all about.

Regardless of The Supremes’ unconstitutional, paternalistic dictates, or the States, or the barbarian so-called “pro-life” zealots, who threaten, bully, intimidate, and even kill (doctors, clinic workers, activists), WE WILL HAVE ABORTIONS.

The most important issue for all to consider for their daughters, wives, granddaughters, sisters…is will the procedure be safe, clean, legal, competent, compassionate, affordable and readily AVAILABLE.

In the 60s I did not have this option (pre Roe v.Wade) and had to borrow the money (I wasn’t rich) and go to a foreign country (Mexico)  to have
an abortion, which almost cost me my life. But, then, at that time, there were hundreds of thousands EACH YEAR who did not survive chemical, coat-hanger, and back-alley abortions, all of which will reappear if The Supremes and Neo-Cons and
Religious Zealots have their way.

Is this what you “freedom lovers” out there want?

Remember: No matter what is done to interfere with a woman’s right to choose, A WOMAN WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF SHE WANTS IT. And there will always be providers.

What kind is up to us.

And, while I’m at it, let’s stop using the term “Pro-Life” for these “ANTI-CHOICE” controlling zealots.  They are not Pro-Life when it comes to killing innocent children and women in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else in the world the U.S. has “interests.”  They are not Pro-Life when it comes to the health of the planet, which is so over-populated it cannot be sustained, and which is losing LIVES everyday because of poverty and lack of resources, like water and sanitation, and let’s not forget habitats of disappearing species that are being ravaged because of corporate greed.  Let’s stop even using that term to designate who they are or in our responses to them.  They are ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-WOMAN,and ANTI-FREEDOM.  To call them Pro-Life (as they choose to be called) takes what they do out of the realm of evil and gives it a positive spin (“Pro” “Life”).  Stop doing it! 

And finally…Keep in mind—the next President of the United States will probably appoint Justices. This issue should be paramount and the question we all should ask constantly of those who are running for this office: Do you UNEQUIVOCALLY support a Woman’s Right To Choose? There is no compromise that is acceptable.

.

Report this

By Avalanche, May 9, 2007 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

Bravo, Mutterhals (and everyone else who has taken a stand on this issue).

It would seem ludicrous for us to try and make Christianity and its morals illegal in this country, so why is it being tolerated from the Christian standpoint?

Christians turn themselves into victims when such things as school prayer are voted as unconstitutional (even though Christian kids can pray and read the Bible at school on their own time). Yet these same Christians cannot see how they are infringing on individual rights on a much more EXTREME basis when they try to tell others that they cannot get abortions or participate in gay marriages, or any number of other things.

When will this double standard end?

As I said before, everyone in this country has a right to live how he or she wants to live—or, rather, this is how it is SUPPOSED to be. The religious right has taken this one step further, trying to make it so EVERYONE has to live by their own moral standards.

I hope that everyone can see how dangerous this is becoming. We need to put a stop to it NOW.

—Ava

Report this

By Jim Evers, May 9, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t it amazing that you never hear any concern expressed for a woman’s soul in the abortion debate.  Its always the poor innocent baby’s death.  This seems odd since most christian dogma teaches that the soul of the unborn fetus goes straight to god by a process known as babtism by fire.  In other words these fortunate souls get a free pass to heaven as a result of the mother’s decision.  From the baby’s standpoint it sounds like good deal to me.  Meanwhile the woman who has the abortion is doomed as a murderer to burn in hell for eternity and no mention of trying to save her from herself is ever forthcoming.

Report this

By mutterhals, May 9, 2007 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You cannot talk about abortion rationally, because prolifers refuse to see this subject for what it is. This shouldn’t be a public issue; it’s a health issue to be discussed by pregnant women, their spouses and their doctors. You have a right to your opinion, but you do not get to impose that opinion on others. I really don’t care if you think abortion is sinful or evil; I don’t and I should be afforded the option. I think christianity is evil and detrimental to society (especially children) and while abortion effects a large number of people, christianity infects whole nations and societies. Yet it would be foolish of me to expect my government to legislate based on my opinion.

Report this

By Virginia Blue, May 9, 2007 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

At the end of the day, what the Anti-Choicers want is to deny women’s control over our own destinies which consists of our health, lives and bodies. It does not matter that there are “women” within this despicable movement; the Anti-Choice cause is still very Anti-Woman in that it seeks to disallow us women the right to decide whether & when to reproduce which so deeply affects our very being. Such “Pro-Life” women who seek to legally make other women (& their compassionate healthcare providers)criminals for making their own reproductive decisions about their own bodies, are traitors to other women, plain & simple. This all boils down to coercion which is what such “Pro-Life” folks seek to do.

If the “Pro-Life” movement was truly about “helping women”; then they would only seek non-coercive ways to persuade women not to get abortions by helping them through their (many times) tragic, unwanted pregnancies rather than trying to use the State to criminalize them for getting abortions. I honestly cannot think of anything more oppressive to women than the State disallowing us the right to decide whether and when to reproduce.  If we cannot own something so basic as our own uteruses, then any other right is meaningless.

Keep the government out of our wombs! Let us decide, in conjunction with our families & doctors rather than opportunistic poiticians deciding for us like that slimey, discredited (& very “Pro-Life), Tom DeLay & others of his ilk!!!

Report this

By a voice from the wilderness, May 9, 2007 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Thank you Ava and more for Adrian and others,

While civility in all discussions is more likely to succeed than is bigotry, I venture that much of the “anti-Christian” sentiment is little more than push back.  The rest of us are tired of having views and values, which of course do not reflect those that Jesus actually taught, crammed down our throats in an attempt to revise both Christianity and history.

It’s also interesting that the more virulent forms of contemporary “Christianity” are really very similar to the more virulent forms of contemporary Islam and that both find the most support among people who have been left behind by progress.  A careful examination shows that the curricula used by many self-identified Christian schools and home-schools has much in common with the anti-intellectual content of madrassahs.

Report this

By Maxim, May 9, 2007 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

a voice from the wilderness,

“To be sure, there are perversions of Islam, just as there are perversions of Christianity today.  Those Christians who pay more attention to the Old Testament than to the Gospels come to mind, as do those Muslims who have forgotten the Qura’anic injunctions regarding the “People of the Book.” “

Firstly, whatever ‘Qura’anic’ injunctions there are regarding the people of the book didn’t prevent Mohammed from slaughtering thousands of Jews who wouldn’t convert.  Nor did it prevent the Pact of Omar, which prevented Jewish practices in public, the building of synagogues, and the building of higher-than-ground-level graves (so people could walk over them uninterrupted).  These injunctions, whatever they are, are certainly not practiced today.  Yet I fail to see the relevance of this issue to the issue of abortion.

Secondly, with regard to perversions of Christianity focusing on the Old Testament, I’d like you to explain that if possible.  What exactly is perverse about the Old Testament?  Does it not suit your sentiment?  Lucky for you no one is asking you to practice it—and don’t give me that crap about “Christo-fascists”.  You want to see a real fascist, look in the mirror some time.  They had the same attitudes toward religion as you do—as did the Soviets and as do the Communist Chinese.  Examine your political allies and see where you really stand.

Report this

By Sam Sharp, May 9, 2007 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t it obvious that the largest problem on planet earth is religion? Followed by population, ignorance, and war (caused by religion).

Atheists must unite. We are the only hope for the future. The road forward through superstition isn’t pretty. Religious people brainwash their children to perpetuate a 2000 year old fairy tale and these fundamentalists must go or we are doomed. If the religious bastards of the world continue trying to impose their will on their neighbors we will make no progress, period. The world is ours to make into a heaven or hell. The resolution of the religions of the world to make the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

I recently read about someone who recommended that the earth’s human population be brought to under 1 billion. I concur. Quality instead of quantity has become a necessity. Unfortunately, we can’t seem to govern ourselves and so we lanquish along the road to oblivion and we will take down an entire planet with us. Someday when the world has absorbed this piece-of-shit species, the oceans will again be full of fish and the sky and land will again be prestine. Until then, we will destroy this earth like a cancer destroys it’s host.

Sam Sharp

Report this

By Ginny Forbes, May 9, 2007 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I could writea book on the thousands of observations I personally have witnessed which showcases the hypocrisy of the pro-life, christian right.  One good example is my own sister. She had 7 children by 5 different fathers (only two were by the same man; her husband); the other 4 were by men who were married to someone else.  Now….4 of her children had kids out of wedlock, and one son fathered 5 kids by three different women, all not married.  It boggles my mind to think about all these church going people with their nose all up in the air dissing and pointing fingers at those who are “unsaved” sinners.  In their bizaare, twisted, ignorant minds I’m witnessing a it’s-okay-anything-goes-as-long-as-your-a-born-again-child-o-god kind of thinking. 

AdrianConrad wrote:
“Instead of speaking to us Christians in a reasonable, cultured and intelligent debate you consistently rely on petty insults to get your way.”  Lady, you simply have no idea.  Speaking from MUCH experience, m’dere; with most of the die-hard, in your face , god-is-on-my-side, christian nuttters, speaking to them with reason, intelligence and culture DOES NOT WORK! In my experience, it is always shouted down, and I’m forever being told that I’m ‘condescending’ or they think I’m acting ‘superior’ , and even resent and refuse to even hear, read, or consider any factual information about the subject!  Adrian, I do wish you could come sit by me . I guarantee you a cultured and intelligent debate.  I’d present a hard cold REALITY .

Report this

By Avalanche, May 8, 2007 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

I wish to address Adrien, along with all of the others who may agree with what he/she has been saying.

I am a very active secular humanist, and I am also a very feminist liberal. It may surprise you that I used to be a Christian. It was only after thorough investigation and choosing to no longer ignore my own rational thought, that I left the world of religion.

That being said, I can honestly tell you that I, as well as many others, are not ignorant about Christianity. Nor are we igorant about what many Christians are trying to do to this country.

The bottom line here is this: you, nor any one else, has the right to tell others how to live. This goes for abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, and a great many other issues. It must be remembered that this country was founded on a firm belief in the separation between church and state, not on Christianity (as some believe). Most of our founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and are probably turning in their graves at how much the religious right has tried to gain control over this country.

If you don’t like the idea of abortion, then don’t have one—but you have no right to tell someone else how to live their life. If you don’t want to participate in a gay marriage, then don’t—but, again, don’t try to tell someone else how to live their life. If you want to teach your children creationism, fine, but keep it to Sunday school. Not everyone in this country is a Christian, and nobody has a right to say that everyone needs to live like a Christian.

You have the freedom to choose your own lifestyle, just like I do. But I think I speak for many others when I say that you are crossing a very dangerous line by trying to make everyone else live by your standards.

—Ava

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” –James Madison (Founding Father)

Report this

By a voice from the wilderness, May 8, 2007 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

OK, Adrian,
I’ll address more of your points.  You are aware, of course, since you say you are an expert on the Crusades, that during Europe’s Dark Ages the Arab Muslims preserved the knowledge of science and medicine that the Greeks had developed while the European Christian monks would just as soon have destroyed it utterly.  And while we’re at it, I suppose you know that when the Muslims gained control over Jerusalem, they managed to avoid the blood-baths that characterized both the Crusader and Jewish conquests of the city. 

Remember those algebra courses that you took in high school?  You have the Muslims to thank for developing algebra. Have you read any of the great Islamic poets, philosophers, or scientists?  Have you studied Islamic art to see the wonders it contains?

To be sure, there are perversions of Islam, just as there are perversions of Christianity today.  Those Christians who pay more attention to the Old Testament than to the Gospels come to mind, as do those Muslims who have forgotten the Qura’anic injunctions regarding the “People of the Book.”

I would pose to you that it isn’t the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, that are the problem so much as it is the human failings of those who try to follow them, and in the case of Christianity the insistence of the institutional church to preserve its power.

Much of the hostility that appears in the responses to this article is a response to the hypocricy of people who call themselves Christians but who fail utterly to follow Jesus’ teachings.  Perhaps if more of you people who call themselves Christians practiced the values that Jesus taught, you’d find less anger coming back at you.

As far as the “strict father” paradigm is concerned.  There are other ways to raise moral, ethical children—children who are able to think for themselves, who take personal responsibility both for themselves and for the state of the world.  They are people who don’t sit around waiting for God to bail them out, but who use their intelligence to try to make the world a better and a more peaceful place. 

I was raised as a Christian, but what I see around me today that passes itself off as Christian is a far cry from the values that I was taught.  When people who claim to be Christians exhibit more hatred than love, more judgement than forgiveness, who think that war is the solution to problems, they don’t deserve to call themselves Christians.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Contraception is not even 100% effective. Condoms only work 77% of the time. They are not 100% effective (and Plan B killed several women for unknown reasons).”

Where, Oh Where did you get THAT piece-of-crap statistic?  Condoms work more than 99% of the time.  Believe me in the last 14 years, the ONLY time my wife got pregnant was when we STOPPED using condoms so she could.

You need to stop getting your propaganda from Fox Noise and the 700 Club and get it from REAL sources.

Plan B is far, FAR safer than bringing a baby to term—and it is NOT the pharmacist’s f***ing business if a woman, married or not, wants to use it.  You want to deny people prescribed medication? You should be stripped of your license and forbidden to practice as a pharmacist FOR LIFE! 

Again, some christo-fascist is trying to force other people to live as HE wants them to live, against their will.

Report this

By J.C. Tripp, May 8, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I live in a small community in North Carolina’s Smoky Mountains. A very “Christian” town to say the least. The local high school currently has 16 pregnant teenagers. Again, a small Christian town with 16 pregnant teens. A recent program to educate teens on the realities of sex was rejected by the school board’s Superintendent (google Macon County News Franklin to read about it). Also, we have an absolute “crank” epidemic going on and where is the Christian community in this? There are hundreds of Christian Realtors here, destroying God’s land with disgusting mult-thousand-square-foot homes for rich Floridians to vacation in. They have no moral qualms about this. But, decide to do what you want with YOUR BODY and watch out, all hell breaks lose. EVEN THOUGH, the BIBLE says absolutely NOTHING about abortion. NOTHING!

So, basically kids are told to abstain but nature, peers and TV say: Do It!!! And then go into real estate. Great lesson.

Report this

By J.C. Tripp, May 8, 2007 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I live in a small community in North Carolina’s Smoky Mountains. A very “Christian” town to say the least. The local high school currently has 16 pregnant teenagers. Again, a small Christian town with 16 pregnant teens. A recent program to educate teens on the realities of sex was rejected by the school board’s Superintendent:

http://www.maconnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=659&Itemid=34

So, basically kids are told to abstain but nature, peers and TV say: Do It!!!

Report this

By AdrianConrad, May 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

“Throw this scum to the lions.

Christians are such assholes!”

Or better yet perhaps we should throw bigots like you to those lions? Ya us Christians really are bigots. An open minded peaceful atheist like yourself isn’t ,Lion King. Aren’t the lions what you used against us 1600-1900 years ago?
  It failed then and it would fail now. Why are you filled with such hatred? Don’t you look at the things you think?
P.S.- With the exception of voice from teh wilderness none of you have bothered to combat anything I have said (voice answered one of my points the rest are unanswered.

Voice in the wilderness, what you say is true. However, the person I directed my previous post to was insinuating that abstinence was dangerous and led to unplanned pregnancies. Also abstinence is the one thing that stops unplanned pregnancies because if your not having sex then there is no chance of pregnancy. Contraception is not even 100% effective. Condoms only work 77% of the time. They are not 100% effective (and Plan B killed several women for unknown reasons).

Report this

By Lion King, May 8, 2007 at 9:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Throw this scum to the lions.

Christians are such assholes!

Report this

By a voice from the wilderness, May 8, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Adrian,
I agree abstinence is effective when practiced without fail.  However, one can have the best technical solution, but if it doesn’t work in practice—in the REAL world—it’s worthless.  As I’m sure you’re aware, despite all of the taxpayer dollars that have been thrown at abstinence education over the past six years, the results show that, practically speaking, it is ineffective at delaying the onset of sex among teens. 

As to the Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the aspect that affects all of us, regardless of gender, sexual activity, age, or any other category is that the court has determined that it has the right to make medical decisions—a right that apparently it can make without benefit of medical training or license.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 8, 2007 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“However, my current situation is completely incompatible for that to work. However, I do believe that perhaps a few years from now(when I am on my feet) I will be able to adopt.”

Exactly.  Just the same reasons a pregnant woman uses to justify an abortion. EXACTLY THE SAME!

I DO judge you because YOU judge others.  And how and why you are in that situation is, as you say none of my business NOR ANYBODY ELSE’S!

That’s the point: YOU demand privacy for your situation, but won’t extend it to others.  Like all hypocracy “it’s not the same thing!”  Sure it is.

“YOu said that abstinence does ot work because of research indicating that many puritans had babies less than 9 months after their marriage thus indicating sex before marriage. This is a foolish statement as that is NOT abstinence. For abstinence to work you have to ABSTAIN FROM SEX. Is the reason you wrote what you wrote because you do not understand the definition of abstinence? I am not ridiculiing you just saying that you were off by miles.”

Adrian, I FULLY understand the concept of abstinence.  I’m wondering if you are being deliberately dense.  MY point was that even in the MOST rigorous and intrusive society, people found abstinence IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN!  Let me put it simply: No matter HOW intrusive and cruel punishment gets for pre-marital sex, PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO DO IT!  This is simply a fact MUST be acknowledged.  Sure, IF you abstain from all sex, pregnancy won’t happen. But that’s a BIG IF!

To pretend that people will sustain abstenance is like a doctor pretending he doesn’t have to wash his hands because he’s a gentleman and BY DEFINITION his hands are clean! (that literally was how they thought up until the mid-to late 19th century. Only in the last 20 years have doctors FINALLY started washing their hands between each patient).

The ONLY way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is education.  Uganda has been MORE successful in reducing AIDS (which parallels unwanted pregnancies) than the US by pushing the slogan “A-B-C”

A: Abstain
B: If you can’t “B” faithful
C: If you can’t USE A CONDOM

Why is that SO terrible?

Finally, what I found in this article was nothing that I didn’t LONG recognize was going on.  There was nothing new there.  I remember Jim Bakker and Jerry Fallwell with their ideal mythical families and towns back in the late 70’s—Man in charge, Woman as Mom and Homemaker. HE is the boss. She says “Yes, Sir!”

Christo-fascists have been trying to outlaw birth control in ALL forms for over 40 years.  You probably don’t know this (maybe you do) but the Roe v. Wade decision was based on the principle of an earlier decision from the early 60’s: Griswold

“Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”.”—Wikipedia.

In 1965 they were trying to prevent MARRIED couples from engaging in sex solely for pleasure.  That, too, was nobody’s business. Why ON EARTH is it the State’s business if a married couple uses birth control?  Yet the creeping attempt to out-law it is everywhere.

So I don’t “believe” this article at all. “Belief” is irrelevant.  Facts, evidence and reasoning are how I have come to the same conclusions as the author.

Report this

By James Yell, May 8, 2007 at 8:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a very complex issue, so rather than trying to address all the implications I will say this. Women are the ones whose health is at risk from pregnancy, whose economic status is effected by pregnancy and children, who must try to attend the result for at lest 18 years per child. It is their bodies and by and large it should be their decision to carry or not to carry a pregnancy.

A group of people calling themselves “right to lifers”, but who are against social programs to care for and feed, educate, shelter the results of pregnancy really have no business having an opinion in this matter and certainly not to call themselves “right to life”. All rights in procreation belong to the women.

Report this

By Maxim, May 8, 2007 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how a person’s personal circumstances disqualify them from having certain beliefs.  For instance, a moral opposition to abortion on demand does not mean that one has to have adopted 50 Ethiopian babies.  If I haven’t personally saved someone’s life, does that mean that I can’t oppose murder?  The logic there eludes me.

Report this

By AdrianConrad, May 8, 2007 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

Greetings. Interesting posts.

Inherit the Wind, I will answer the questions you posed. However, I expect you to answer one of mine (as well as all others that post here).
  You spoke of adoption. I truly want to adopt a child. However, my current situation is completely incompatible for that to work. However, I do believe that perhaps a few years from now(when I am on my feet) I will be able to adopt. No this is not an excuse but a reason. I don’t need to explain my current situation to you as it really is none of your business. Amazingly enough you do not know me so do not judge me.
    2nd you spoke of the miraculous effects of contraception. YOu said that abstinence does ot work because of research indicating that many puritans had babies less than 9 months after their marriage thus indicating sex before marriage. This is a foolish statement as that is NOT abstinence. For abstinence to work you have to ABSTAIN FROM SEX. Is the reason you wrote what you wrote because you do not understand the definition of abstinence? I am not ridiculiing you just saying that you were off by miles.
  Now here is my question to you. You completely believe EVERYTHING this site says. The great Christian conspiracy eh? You failed to answer the questions in my second post that you quoted as well as the first post. If you are going to quote me then how about you actually try to refute me?
        But then again what does a “stupid fairy tale believer” know about the world?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 8, 2007 at 5:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“#68733 by RobertBennett on 5/07 at 11:53 pm
(47 comments total)

The message of Christ was simply the Power of Love.

If the Anti-Abortion movement became the ‘Love Desperate Women in Need’ movement, everyone would be better off.

Providing a safe and loving environment for women to deliver children they are not prepared to raise, and then assuring those children are adopted by loving parents, would do more to stop abortion than all the Laws in the world.”

Notice this last paragraph.

“#68678 by AdrianConrad on 5/07 at 4:51 pm

Oh and one more thing for those of you who read my previous post I have one thing to add:I find it amazing that you believe EVERY SINGLE WORD these truthdigger articles have in them. You do not question you simply believe. You consider us Christians of not being open minded and looking at what others belief but do you question what is told to you?”

But notice that this poster, a so-called “Pro-Life” person, says NOTHING about adoption.  Nor has he told us that he’s adopted a single mother’s child.

Any “pro-lifer” who hasn’t adopted a child put up for adoption, whether healthy or special needs, is nothing but a phony hypocrite who is EXACTLY who this article is talking about.

Any “pro-lifer” who hasn’t adopted a child has NO RIGHT to tell ANY woman what she should do.  Why haven’t YOU adopted?  Bet it’s ALL the same reasons a woman chooses to abort—can’t afford a child, wrong time of her life, will make her nuts (kids do that—it’s their job), not ready for it, etc, etc.

But like all hypocrites, it’s easy to point the finger.

Because like the article says, the anti-abortion movement mostly is NOT pro-life—they are anti-sex and anti-equality for women.

Adoption isn’t easy.  It takes longer to adopt than to grow your own. It’s expensive, and an emotional roller-coaster. But if you are TRULY Pro-Life and not a phony, you won’t worry about that, because that little person is worth it all. 

If you are a phony “pro-lifer”, you’ll come up with a thousand excuses why YOU can’t adopt but someone else should.  It is the TRUE acid test of your supposed morality.

As a pro-choice man and the father of an adopted child, I speak from experience.

Adopt and mind your own business. Get your head, hands and laws out of people’s crotches.  The BEST way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy.

Abstinance has been a phony forever—analysis of the Pilgrims—the Puritans in America—shows an AWFUL lot of the women gave birth less than 9 months after marriage.  The most rigorous and invasive religion to come to America STILL couldn’t prevent pre-marital sex.  Only safe and effective birth control works.

Report this

By Jim Pharo, May 8, 2007 at 3:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think most commenters missed the main point of this wonderful essay:

And until we re-enfranchise these Americans into society, until we give them hope and alleviate the economic and social blights that have plunged them into the arms of demagogues and charlatans who promise a mythical, unachievable Christian paradise and utopia, we will have to face a growing assault on our personal liberties and freedoms.”

Attacking right-wing kooks is completely unproductive (and I might add singularly un-Christian).  These people, while heaping scorn and disdain on the rest of society, are in fact victims themselves, and it does no good to return fire.

The only way to make these people normal, productive members of our society is to create the structures necessary for everyone to feel that there is hope.  No matter how far someone has fallen, no matter how much help they might need to get back on their feet, we’ll be there for them.

Our society has abdicated its responsibilities under the cover of “personal responsibility.”  Starting with Ronald Reagan, we have become comfortable with the notion that those who need help are probably reaping what they’ve sown, and that helping them only encourages others to have problems.  (In the 19th century, English lords worried that if they gave the poor Irish free shoes, everyone would become poor just to get the shoes.)

Anyone who has ever tried to get help in our society has learned the hard way that it is a degrading and humiliating process—and it’s that way on purpose.  We need to return to our heritage of helping those in need.  Until we do, we can expect lots and lots of right-wing kooks.

Report this
RobertBennett's avatar

By RobertBennett, May 8, 2007 at 12:53 am Link to this comment

The message of Christ was simply the Power of Love. 

If the Anti-Abortion movement became the ‘Love Desperate Women in Need’ movement, everyone would be better off.

Providing a safe and loving environment for women to deliver children they are not prepared to raise, and then assuring those children are adopted by loving parents, would do more to stop abortion than all the Laws in the world.

Peace,
Bob Bennett
Lick Skillet, AL
http://thespiritandthestone.squarespace.com/

Report this

By dr.nerdarino, May 7, 2007 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

so refreshing to see your article. thank you so very much. please support your local pro-choice movement.
don’t have sex with pro-lifers. birth control not bans. bring back the f**king in the streets! with the sex-positive and body-positive movement. self sex is safe sex. remember may is masterbation month. participate and/or pledge in the masterbate-a-thon!

Report this

By ripstop, May 7, 2007 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.  That means that the aborted life is smaller than the tip of your fingertip.  Let’s face it, there’s far more soul in the cattle you get your beef from than in the a two month old fetus.

It’s simply not a big deal to abort a pregnacy in the first trimester.

In fact, I would say it is a very reasonable and responsible choice for anyone not wishing to have a child or unable to care for said child.

Report this

By AdrianConrad, May 7, 2007 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Oh and one more thing for those of you who read my previous post I have one thing to add:I find it amazing that you believe EVERY SINGLE WORD these truthdigger articles have in them. You do not question you simply believe. You consider us Christians of not being open minded and looking at what others belief but do you question what is told to you?

Report this

By AdrianConrad, May 7, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Advice:read this entire post.
  Tsk tsk tsk. Hatred, anger, and violence. Each and every single post has shown nothing but these things. “STupid Christians!”; “stop believing in fairy tales!”; “be open minded!”.
        Has it not struck any of you that YOU are being close-minded. Instead of speaking to us Christians in a reasonable, cultured and intelligent debate you consistently rely on petty insults to get your way. Every single article about abortion, gay marriage and Christianity has nothing but comments that are anti-Christian. Some of you people are so ignorant.
What do I mean by ignorance? I’m not speaking about scientific facts. But about Christianity and history. Well lets start with history.
  Someone here stated that Christianity is evil due to 2 main things:the crusade(listed in a previous article) and the Jews in the Old Testament(commented about in this article.
    As someone who has researched the Crusades I am willing to bet that if they never happened and if the Church never existed all Europe and America would be Muslim today. If you don’t believe me then you need to pick up a book and read about Islamic expansion from the 7th to 17th century.
      The OT argument is foolish too. For one thing God did this for 2 reasons: 1)the people around the Israelites would have decimated them. Its a survival thing:kill or be killed. 2)Just as a Father is strict with his young son so his son will know the rules before he grows up so must God be strict with humanity at first.
        As someone who has meet people both from the pro-life movement I can tell you that there is no mass conspiracy to enslave women as some of you suggest. Personally such comments should be placed upon a conspiracy site(isn’t that what this is).


Well most of you probably just scrolled down to the bottom of the arguement and probably did not bother to read half of what was written. You will undoubtedly make posts condemning a “stupid fairy-tale believer” and be oh so confident in your own “knowledge and reason”. Your arrogance is simply amazing.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, May 7, 2007 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

I sometimes can’t believe I am from the same planet and education system as many of those who post here. I just don’t understand how anyone with an IQ over room temperature can so wholeheartedly throw reason and logic and FACT overboard to embrace “teachings” and ideologies so firmly rooted in fantasy and wishful thinking.

Of course, Christianity itself is rooted in GUILT. The whole concept of “original sin” sets the stage for the mind-control of the susceptibly simple-minded, of which there appears to be millions!

Has anyone bothered to explain to these poor souls that women NATURALLY and UNAVOIDABLY ABORT FERTILIZED EGGS BY THE THOUSANDS. After a deposit of viable sperm makes its way to the “egg chamber” - many eggs are fertilized but perhaps only ONE or TWO become embedded in the uterus with the possibility of growing to term. The rest of these fertilized eggs “go with the flow.” The body NATURALLY ABORTS THEM.

A deliberate abortion simply unsticks the egg from the wall and shows it “the door.” Of course I’m not talking about causing the abortion of a healthy fetus several months of age… that’s a whole different issue.

And MILLIONS of the uneducated and emotionally fragile go on lifelong guilt trips over it BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN TAUGHT TO GO ON GUILT TRIPS by those who are on EGO TRIPS teaching GUILT TRIPS.

Report this

By dr. crabby, May 7, 2007 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another insightful and thought provoking piece— thanks—is there any chance any of the democratic candidates are reading this? Or perhaps their advisors—one can only hope. Hope too that these gop bastards are kicked out in two years so that some of the government money sent to these wack jobs can be cut off. Is this depressing or what? Abortion and roe have been such a godsend for the gop fat cats who can have it both ways –the fig leaf of legal abortion that gets these Christers all in a lather—the reality is that abortion has suffered the death of a thousand blows since 72 and like gay civil rights now largely depends on where you live and how much money you have—if you live in LA or NYC abortion is easy –not so in vast sections of this country (especially if you’re poor or young)—isn’t there one provider for all of south Dakota? Same for being gay and having some of the same privileges straights take for granted—not so easy in Alabama (again especially if you’re poor)  –essentially we are turning into two countries – one that resembles a theocracy with the nut jobs braying to their sky god and one that looks more like Canada –too bad we can’t break away—I’d be too happy to stop sending my tax dollars to Mississippi

Report this

By James, May 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great article.

Fascinating read.

Report this

By terradea, May 7, 2007 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Attention christianists and other blind, feeble-minded followers of something other than freedom and knowledge:

1) I don’t believe life is sacred and neither do you (and neither does god) ... if you did, you wouldn’t support war, the death penalty, the killing of abortion doctors;

2) Sex IS sacred and powerful and I have made it my life’s mission to educate every young teenager by providing this pertinent information;

3) You are twisted and sick and need serious help in order to learn to love being what god made you; a human being, with desires and pleasures and an independent, FREE WILL;

4) If anyone needs to embrace abortion, it is the christianists, christians and other religious zealots, for it is only when we eliminate those who wish to oppress us that we can truly be free to explore being human;

5) The supreme being is on my side, not yours.

Report this

By Dale Headley, May 7, 2007 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

These mean-spirited, narrow-minded bigots who profess their belief in a “right to life” are the very same ones who strongly support the death penalty and waging deadly war to “spread American values”.  They (overwhelmingly male) have no interest in protecting life; their true agenda is the degradation of women who do not shrivel under the domination of men.  In fact, their Old Testament God sanctioned the diminution of women as well as the wanton destruction of human life to gain territory.  He was decidedly not pro-life.

Report this

By rowdy, May 7, 2007 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

“The most fervent activists in the pro-life movement have usually had abortions, with large numbers admitting to multiple abortions”. this seems to hold for all former alcoholics and drug addicts as well. there is no excuse for drunks and druggies fucking and making unwanted babies. texas is trying to pass a law ordering the death penalty for child molesters, maybe justice would be better served by making multiple abortions a death penalty offense. abortion should be a personal choice, not making babies in the first place should be the highest priority for everyone. we need more fags, fags like myself, who have no use for babies.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, May 7, 2007 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People who want power have been using the broken since time immemorial.The old saw about a religious person that they stay up nights worrying because someone is having fun somewhere is as aplicable today as it ever has been.Adult societies like France realize the human condition to the point an unmarried mother of four can run against a man who is married and does not live with his wife.
Like all fanatical movements it is not that they only control themselves they must control you .Be it communism ,facism or fanatical christianity they know what is right for everybody.
I beleive it was Upton Sinclair who said,“when dictatorship comes to America it will be draped in the flag carrying a cross.”
What a wonderful piece. Thank you very much.

Report this

By pro-lifer, May 7, 2007 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If white, middle/upper class, males (I am one) were physically capable of conception, abortions would be preformed by drive-thru clinics. “

Your assertion that men feel freedom to oppose abortion only because they cannot get pregnant doesn’t sqare very well with the fact that most pro-life activists are women.

As for logician, you need to change your name to bile.  I didn’t find any logic in your post, just rage.

Report this

By Frankie L. Winchester, May 7, 2007 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris Hedges presents a clearer picture of anti-abortion activists than most.  However, he fails to point out the severe misogyny of this movement.

They not only want to take away the choices and control contraception affords women, they also want pregnancy to be as dangerous as possible for women. The failure to offer an exception for women’s health and life in the current cycle of abortion laws would serve no other purpose. Priests for Life, a Catholic anti-abortion group made up of priests, believes that women should not be allowed to end a pregnancy for any reason. This includes an ectopic pregnancy, which can never be carried to term and in most cases, would lead to fatal hemorrhage for the pregnant woman without a doctor’s intervention. (This is on their web site). The anti-abortion movement also wants to ensure that abortion laws are punitive to women.

Report this

By Michael Boldin, May 7, 2007 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

interestingly enough, I think everyone’s focus is in the wrong direction on the abortion issue. I know i’m in a tiny tiny minority with that too…

But, anyone who spends their time focusing on vetos, congressional legislation, the supreme court, and the like, are doing their own position more harm than good.

Why? because as soon as you give the federal government power over this issue, you also give those politicians who vehemently disagree with you the same power.

Then what happens? We’re always worrying about 1 or 2 people that can change the whole world. That’s power that no one should have over the entire nation!

Hopefully that makes a little sense.

For a better explanation, read:

“The Misplaced Jubilance of the Anti-Abortion Right”
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_misplaced_jubilance_of_the_anti_abortion_right

Report this

By R.M., May 7, 2007 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with Logician 100%.  Not even the Supreme Court…(the 9 cadavers we have who decide when life begins)...have the right to put forth on this issue.

While I’m posting here, I would like to suggest another ammendment to The Constitution…“Separation of Church and Television”.  I feel there needs to be a right to be free from the pervasive daily intrusions of the money changer evangelists.
Only the worst of them end up on “the box” preaching.

Thanx

Report this

By Nigel UK, May 7, 2007 at 11:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Call it Schadenfreude if you like, but I can hardly wait until the day when a secretary to some US religious right-wing guru gets caught in Truthout making a (discrete) visit to London, doing the tourist sites:  Buckingham Palace, Madame Tussauds, the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey…oh, and I almost forgot - a family planning clinic in Harley Street!

Do they have a betting line somewhere on when this will happen?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook