Is It Time We Stopped Saying ‘Feminist’ and Started Saying ‘Eugenicist’?
Image via Dana Loesch at Breitbart.com
From my friend Bethany Mandel at Commentary, “Dems See Women as Objects, Not Voters”:
At the Democratic Convention this week in Charlotte, we’ve learned what mainstream feminism has become. What was once a movement to fight for equality for women in every sector of society has somehow turned into a parody of itself. Since the feminist movement began in the mid-1800s, feminists strove to move past the era where women were seen merely as sexual and reproductive objects. These feminists fought for women to have roles outside of their marriages and their homes, to have equal opportunities in education, the workplace and the political arena.
Cut to Charlotte in early September 2012 and these “feminists” are representing themselves solely as human beings with female reproductive organs. At the DNC this week, women are promoting the Democratic agenda by walking around the convention wearing pins that read “I’m a slut and I vote” in addition to dressing up in costume as birth control dispensers and vaginas. These female reproductive organs, devoid of any other identifying characteristics, are duty-bound to vote for Democrats in order to protect themselves from government (while simultaneously demanding governmental involvement in their reproductive choices).
Read the whole thing. And be sure and follow Bethany and her husband Seth on Twitter here and here.
I thought to just instant message Bethany to tell her about this book that I started reading the other day, but then it seemed to make sense to just throw it out as a blog post instead because I’m sure there are commenters much more versed in this subject than I am who can provide their own recommendations:
I used to think it strange that my leftist friends who were the most outspoken about abortion “rights” and their own promiscuous sex lives were also loud about worrying about overpopulation and the proliferation of unwanted poor babies cursed to miserable lives. But when we understand Margaret Sanger’s ideology as institutionalized within the platform of the Democratic Party then suddenly it comes into focus how the two subjects of hedonism and eugenics would be related in today’s progressives. “Feminism” and “women’s rights” and “coat-hangers” were just the cups of the shell game distracting guilty, do-gooder “liberals” from Sanger’s eugenic utopianism. Here’s an excerpt from page 14 that seems relevant today:
Hmm… “Thus the working classes are pressured to copy the particular reproductive choices of society’s elite.”…
Now why might Valerie Jarrett be so adamant about making sure that Catholic institutions pay for their employees’ abortions and contraception?
Is this really about “empowering women,” or is it about making sure fewer poor minority women are born in the first place?
Related this morning at the Daily Beast, Jesse Ellison reviews Jessica Valenti’s new book Why Have Kids? and comes up unfulfilled:
The ultimate conclusion that Valenti comes to goes like this: “The truth about parenting is that the reality of our lives needs to be enough.” This line is repeated both in the book’s conclusion and its promotional materials. But it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not to have children. It doesn’t actually tell us much of anything at all.
It’s also a line, and a book, that makes me think about what my friends have described as a lack of mental clarity experienced during their own pregnancies, and a fuzziness of thought that comes from the lack of sleep after having given birth. It reminds me of my own ambivalence when it comes to having children. And it makes it hard not to think that the book would have been much more convincing if she’d been asking the question—Why Have Kids?—not as a new mom herself, but as a young woman trying to decide whether or not to become one.
Last week PJ Media’s New York editor David Steinberg offered a thoughtful essay on persuading those who are sitting on the fence over a related question, The Transitional Voter: Winning the Actual ‘Bitter Clingers’:
I suspect that for many considering conservatism in 2012, the whole thing comes down to abortion. So let’s talk abortion. (Bright folks disagree on this, but I am not convinced cowardice on abortion, or any other plank of conservatism, is advisable. Conservatism is still a mystery to most leftists, whereas Reaganian, Ryanian, Breitbartian presentations of reason are our greatest communication successes.)
Sooner or later, Romney and Ryan should expound upon “I believe life starts at conception” and must discuss the logic and rationality, even beauty of a pro-life stance. I think this springs the dam. Even those not yet ready to consider being pro-life will feel comfortable voting Republican if they can respect pro-lifers enough that fiscal and foreign policy conservatism leapfrog Roe on their issue hierarchy. Call me crazy, but a pro-life shot across the bow starts a preference cascade, and a country in transition.
How about that: prescribing unapologetic, proud conservatism, using reason to win the country rather than catering to bigoted fears. The latter tactic has never, to my knowledge, won anything
The answer to Jesse Ellison’s question that she’s struggling with — “Why Have Kids?” — is the same as the question “Why not permit partial birth abortions, infanticide and gendercide?” (And it’s another plank of the “unapologetic, proud conservatism.”)
The only answer that makes sense is because a Higher Power exists, has created every human being in its image, and has called on us to marry and have children, and treat each other ethically. Otherwise, having children is a wholly irrational act, all moral judgments are relative, and we all might as well live hedonist-bohemian lives using abortion-as-contraception like Margaret Sanger wanted.
****
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
If we all belong to the government, then we are resources for the government to manage. If we are not useful and productive resources, then we are a drain on the government. Therefore, the government entity needs mechanisms to lessen the output of resources not likely to be useful.
The UK’s national health service (NHS) has a mechanism for this. It’s called the Liverpool Care Protocol.
It was invented by NHS doctors under Labor’s Tony Blair to “ease terminally ill” patients into death. It takes 36 hours. It begins with taking the patient off IVs, to stop any kind of hydration or nutrition.
Why would the patient’s family agree? Who can say? One selling point to the family is the doctor’s view that the patient will never ever get well, and well linger indefinitely and any number of persusuasive reasons why the family might wish to prevent their loved one from lingering.
What does the NHS get out of this? Frees up needed beds. (Due to Blair’s migration policies and the high birth levels of migrants, the NHS serves a larger population without an increase in beds.)
So do Liberals want to control and eliminate minorities in order to create a eugenicist utopia, or do they encourage minority growth through welfare and illegal immigration in order to gain and consolidate power?
Which is it? Both goals are mutually exclusive.
“Which is it? Both goals are mutually exclusive.”
That’s kind of an odd statement.
They can’t want to kill American blacks and flood the country with immigrants from other ethnicities at the same time?
Is it time we stopped saying ‘feminist’ and started saying ‘eugenicist’?
Is it time we stopped saying ‘progressive’ and started saying ‘fascist’?
Is it time we stopped saying ‘liberal’ and started saying ‘leftist bigot’, or ‘anti-American’ or ‘un-America’?
Is it time we stopped allowing Leftists to ‘frame the debate’ and associate socialist fascism like Nazism with terms like ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’?
Um, yes.
Yes, I’m very much a proponent of this. Here’s where I argued last fall that we should use “Marxist” instead of “Liberal.” http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/10/23/our-deceitful-marxist-presidents-cruel-war-on-sick-medicinal-marijuana-patients/?singlepage=true
OK, now take this, but also take Misandry Fluke’s demands for government-funded Sex Changes into account?
What’s the missing link between it all?
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
George Washington
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
George Washington
“Is It Time We Stopped Saying ‘Feminist’ and Started Saying ‘Eugenicist’?”
In a word,yes.
In a few words, yes, and ‘female supremacist’ could easily be put on the table right alongside ‘eugenicist’,'Marxist’,'dangerous and delusional ideologue’ and a host of other terms that rightly describe feminist beliefs and proponents.
It is hugely ironic to see so many women, black women in particular, vigorously defending Planned Parenthood today when the founder of the predecessor of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was such a profound advocate of aborting negro babies in the name of weeding out undesirables, aka eugenics.
Especially since a common Leftist justification for PP is “pay for abortions now or welfare later.”
And somehow the leftist programme ends up as abortions now and welfare later. After all, PP is not interested in actually helping anybody out of poverty regardless of the excuses they use for their barbarous practices.
Have you heard it, too? “The problem is”, she’ll say while sidling up to me, “The Problem, is that all the wrong people are having children”. She’ll tilt her head down, eyebrows up and look up at me in the way racists silently say, You know. Coloreds.
feminists strove to move past the era where women were seen merely as sexual and reproductive objects
Someone who would write something like that without joking is not worth reading.
these “feminists” are representing themselves solely as human beings with female reproductive organs.
So they are trying to pass themselves off as men?
Men have female reproductive organs?
You’re questioning the feminist agenda. Good.
To all those African Americans out there who are so pro Obama and so very pro abortion, they should stop and think about which community is affected the most by abortions. According to the US Census Bureau, there are 13.8 abortions per 1,000 white women and a stunning 48.2 abortions per 1,000 black women. You can see the whole breakdown here:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf
So as African Americans are sitting at the Democratic convention yelling and cheering for upholding the right to kill even more babies, just think about which racial or minority group will have the greatest number of kids taken away from it. That’s right, African Americans. You are actually encouraging the gradual extermination of your own race. Perhaps that’s the way Margaret Sanger wanted it, but the reality is that the rate of abortions in this country affects African Americans way more than any other minority group. And if African Americans keep this rate of infanticide up, not only will they be an even smaller minority than they are now (which means fewer votes and less political clout in Washington), but African Americans will also be considered insignificant as a voting block simply because there will be fewer of them to vote. And as we all know in Washington, if you can’t produce the votes, you don’t get the federal subsidies that every minority seems to crave for, from food stamps and welfare, to more money for education and housing. In short, the fewer of you that are out there, the less political power you will have, and then you WILL be ignored by Washington.
And it’s happening right now. Just look at how the Democratic Party is pandering to hispanics rather than African Americans. Why? Because there are so many more of them, and more hispanics are flooding into this country on a daily basis. The Democrats are starting to take blacks for granted in this country and the way Obama is not reacting to the high rate of unemployment among blacks just proves the point. You’re just not that important to the Democrats anymore.
So to all African Americans out there, not only do Democrats want to keep you on a government plantation, they’re actually hoping that by encouraging unlimited numbers of abortions that the population on that plantation will gradually get smaller and smaller. Yep, it sure stinks when a political party like the Democrats uses the “right” to an abortion as a tool for destroying your population. Margaret Sanger would be proud. I find it disgusting.
“That’s right, African Americans. You are actually encouraging the gradual extermination of your own race. Perhaps that’s the way Margaret Sanger wanted it” Perhaps my fourth point of contact, that’s EXACTLY what she was pushing for.
I’d love to see a pictorial representation of the ethnic makeup of the neighborhoods nearest “Planned
Extermination, er, Parenthood officesWhy drag eugenics into this? If you call what Planned Parenthood does “eugenics,” what has changed? Or is eugenics just one of those words, like “fascist,” used because of its emotional connotations when one has no argument?
“Why drag eugenics into this?”
I didn’t drag the elephant into the living room. I just pointed out what was there.
“If you call what Planned Parenthood does “eugenics,” what has changed?”
More people will begin to recognize that it’s an evil organization exploiting poor people, not a liberal health organization empowering poor women.
“Or is eugenics just one of those words, like “fascist,” used because of its emotional connotations when one has no argument?”
The argument is this: only the stupid or the malicious could argue with a straight face that it’s just a coincidence that Planned Parenthood’s founder was a Eugenicist who lectured in front of the KKK and that today the party of Robert Byrd wants to provide as much taxpayer money as possible to this same organization in order to increase the number of minority abortions even higher.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted – on camera – that she understood roevwade and PP’s purpose was to eliminate the undesirables – meaning black people.
Exactly. Birth control as sexual freedom was just a way to sell it.
Excellent points, Dave
An appeal to end abortion as an electoral strategy is fine in theory, but doomed to backfire in practice. Most people have conflicted emotions about the matter, acknowledging that abortion is evil, but that maybe having government interfere in moral issues is not so great, either.
The reality is that women have been controlling, or attempting to control, their childbirth choices since the beginning of time. Men don’t like that much.
So be it. We’re the anti-slavery party, and abortion is a greater atrocity than slavery. If being pro-life and anti-slavery costs us the election, then America has proven it deserves to live under a a fascist regime. If you disagree, then lick your wounds and beg for scraps from the fascists, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Master of Disaster writes this disaster of logic, “. . . maybe having government interfere in moral issues is not so great, either”.
I think it’s a little too late for that. All of our laws in Judeo-Christian countries are based on morality: e.g., what it is that we owe each other in a civil society. Until recently, this morality was based on a belief in a loving and just God, the Ten Commandments, and, Jesus’s Second Commandment, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Thus, we had, until the Godless, secular society reared its ugly and un-neighbourly head, laws against such things as murder, theft, and false witness—as in malicious slander and libel. (I believe that all our pre-secular laws can be traced back to one of these concepts.)
Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbour?” In response, he told a parable (The Good Samaritan). The feminazis and fellow fascists on the left have absolutely no concept of “neighbour”: to them, a neighbour is someone who agrees with them. If you don’t/can’t, to hell with you/it! (Michelle Obama’s statement that her husband—at least that part’s true—values all people, whether Republican or Democrat is patently false—and she knows it.)
Master of Disaster, if you can name a law that isn’t based on morality, please do—with an explanation. (Good luck!)
Actually, the federal government didn’t interfere UNTIL Roe; before that, different states had different laws. I’d be cool with the government getting its big butt out of the abortion issue; red states would thrive while blue states would die out even faster than they are now. Yes, I’m sad that unborn children are dying but really, no one wants Sandra Fluke to procreate, no one wants America to be “punished” with another Obama should his daughters get pregnant. The “Roe Effect” would be even more obvious than it is now.
Casey vs Reproductive Health Services, or something like that, was based out of a midwestern state- I want to say Missouri. The owner of RHS noticed that her patients were going to New York City for abortions. She convinced the legislators that they’d prefer to keep that ( taxable, highly taxable) money in-state.
The memoirs of doctors during that time are really something amazing. New York was the only state, or one of two states, that had medical abortions. The doctors would get $75 cash for an abortion. They would have money dripping out of their pockets. People were travelling from out of state to get these procedures. They would lie about how far along they were. So experienced doctors would estimate early or late, and pounce on the early ones, b/c it was an easy procedure, and then foist the longer, more difficult, more dangerous ones off on residents. These residents would have to do a second or third trimester abortion- it’s a delivery in the third trimester- on a years’ worth of medical school training. This is to say, training without rotations, so no experience on a maternity ward. They would complain about how long the abortions took, how mangled the body was, how hard it was. But each one- $75. They paid for medical school doing this.
do you think that, maybe, some of the later term abortions maybe sterilized some of the women? Or that paying for med school by performing abortions maybe blighted some of their consciences?
The owner of RHS had started as a volunteer on a suicide hotline. A number of callers were not suicidal. They wanted abortions, and had heard they could call this line. The woman started figuring out how to get them abortions. Then she built a clinic, when it became legal.
When she opened, the local Catholic church sponsored a march for life, and against abortion. I’m still wondering why they didn’t have a march for a pregnancy crisis center, or for an adoption agency. I’m still not understanding why militant, public yelling was supposed to persuade people of private dilemmas. Anyway, Mr Casey was the Attorney General. He eventually sued RHS.
The owner by then had lost her family, most of her church, most of her friends. Living in court does that. The book on the subject ended up with her on a bad day, in the legislature building, trying to find a friend, someone to hug her, someone to pray for her. She ended up hugging the guy who had organized the first march, and her most steadfast policy foe. He was her emotional rock, at that point, the one person she knew to be kind and loving.
The guy who organized the march, to be honest, didn’t strike me as the most tightly wrapped package, in the first place. He sounded like a floppy ows-type, except catholic. Like, he’d been a day-laborer at a commune. He hadn’t dated, hadn’t married, had no clues about children, marriage, jobs, desperation. He seemed very, well, from outer-space.
The owner of RHS had started up in that field- desperation, pain and panic. She’d thought she’d found a solution. He thought he’d force people into his ideal world.
I don’t think we can put that genie back in the bottle. There are two or three ways to perform an abortion. I’m kind of skeeved that the late- term abortionist profiled in the NYTimes is praised as this highly-skilled practitioner. He’s using the midwife technique. In history books- that’s women who have midwive and maybe palm-reading services, former slaves, things like that. How is he highly skilled for doing what midwives did, and doctors were barred from doing, until RvW? That’s like getting excited about Dr Weil recommending St Johns’ Wort for something, or Deepak Chopra. He’s not a highly skilled doctor- he’s a midwife with an extra set of papers up on the wall, and a Mr. Dr. in front of his name.
Likewise, other nations have methods for performing abortions. The big advance in safety came from the Russian ambassadors’ wife’s doctor visiting during some embassy thing or another. He was surprised at how backwards our doctors were.
What can change is people. It takes a lot of women’s magazine issues framing the problem as “too many unplanned pregnancies” rather than ” too many women not being honest and insisting on marrying their boyfriends.” I was married and had 3 unplanned pregnancies. I’m still kind of weirded out that the dr was trying to push pills on me while I was married. I’m not her, and I’m not likely to have her career path.
Glamour lined up a shot of all these pregnant women in jeans and white shirts, their bellies bared, white shirts above, jeans below. They titled it “too many unplanned pregnancies.” Why couldn’t they sign it ” So many beautiful pregnant women”? Or, ” Our bright shining future, already in stylish jeans!” That was, quite literally, the last time I picked up that magazine. Specks, fine, but entire 2*4s? That’s a LOT of astigmatism. To see flourishing, 8 months along, healthy, full pregnant bodies as a mistake. I felt like I’d been targeted, and that my kids were unsafe.
The case you’re misremembering is Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
What other “facts” did you get wrong?
Catholics have been operating so-called “pregnancy crisis centers” since before Roe v. Wade and aiding adoptions since the days of the Roman Empire when the Empire persecuted the Church. (Get a history book, you can look it up.)
I look forward to seeing your corrected post.
I disagree with (Bill) Clinton on a lot of things, but I think he expressed the American consensus – that abortion should be “legal, safe and rare”. Conservatives who want to make this an election about abortion (which would please liberals no end) are making a serious mistake.
Except the center has shifted. “Safe, legal, and rare” is now closer to the Republican position than the Democrats defending 3rd trimester abortions, gendercide, and opposition to born-alive bills.
I’ve observed that a staunch anti-abortion plank is a hard sell even among women who otherwise count themselves as conservative. One can complain all one wants about the moral inconsistency of this, but at this time, it is what it is. Reducing abortions is going to have to be a soft sell. The GOP could start by, say, taking a strong stance against government-paid abortions — that’s a position that social conservatives, socially moderate libertarians, and even a few liberals can agree on. Then, over the next few election cycles, use this as a way to open the greater discussion.
I have observed the curious attitude among a lot of women today, including a fair number who should know better, that pregnency is something that can just hit you while you’re walking down the street. You stop at a street crossing to wait for the light, and bam! you’re pregnant. Perhaps this is a side effect of the feminization of society and the number of men dropping out; women have to take a lot more risks in order to have a chance at a “catch” guy.
“The GOP could start by, say, taking a strong stance against government-paid abortions — that’s a position that social conservatives, socially moderate libertarians, and even a few liberals can agree on.”
Agree.
Can we substitute for the cold word “abortion,” the phrase, “flush another Negro infant?”
Why is the disproportion selection of blacks, e.g., speeding tickets on the Jersey Turnpike, incarceration, or appearances on “Cops,” for anything deemed negative an automatic subject for “diversity,” but the butchery each year of millions of black children, considered perfectly OK.
The democrats used to own you. It does not appear that they don’t care much about blacks since the can no longer sell them.
Nah. Call it “flush another dead liberal”. Pretend this is all a plot by Dick Cheney, Karl Rove AND the Koch Brothers to kill off all the liberals. (“Woohoo! Sterilized Oregonians!! Now how about some euthanasia in Vermont, pleeeeeeease? And gay marriage in Illinois?”)
Why drag eugenics into this? PP was founded on the practice of Eugenics. If that word offends, would the phrase “killing black babies” be more acceptable? Look up the published statistics on aborted babies. Notice the disproportionate number of black babies that are killed every day. These mothers would rather have free abortions on demand than use simple birth control.
”The only answer that makes sense is because a Higher Power exists, has created every human being in its image, and has called on us to marry and have children, and treat each other ethically. Otherwise, having children is a wholly irrational act, all moral judgments are relative, and we all might as well live hedonist-bohemian lives using abortion-as-contraception like Margaret Sanger wanted.”
Just so you know, it is possible to be an atheist and to believe that family is the building block of society, that morality is central to humanity and civilisation and to find ‘partial birth abortions, infanticide and gendercide’ totally horrifying.
Of course. But you don’t get your belief in the values of family, morality, and civilization from your atheism. You adapt them from Judeo-Christian values while passing on Judeo-Christian theologies.
Dub this one the KJ Jelly Convention. Between the focus on gay sex, sex, the results of sex, sex changes do these people even take their heads out of their asses or any other orifice that fascinates them? Anal, vaginal, testicular whatever. They are all fixated and obsessed. What a revolting group.
Comparison Time.
Since the Obama Party is doing comparisons of Republicans to the most vile, evil and eugenic society in history I think it fair to return the favor.
The political platform statement of the National Socialist Workers Party:
“We ask that government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within the confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education…. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents…. The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all groups concerned with the physical education of youth. [W]e combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”
Since we all belong to the government down because we are citizens and the government does not belong to us as free citizens as the Obama Party claims I got one more quote from the leader of the NSWP:
“Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?”
We have been nationalized! Welcome to the Obama Party and the NSWP!
No, wait, this is serious, not a joke. The DNC announced in the opening video we have been nationalized. We belong to the government. Time to show the Obama Party they are wrong and return the vile, evil, political platform of the DNC to the dustbin of history where it belongs after the Allies in 1945 obliterated the symbols of the NSWP.
Abortion: Because ‘hos can’t be punished by children or the responsibility of birth control.
well, you need to find a new word and use it in regular conversation and writing. There are three “waves” of femininism, with one outlier. One was an American-grown progressive, mostly northern phenomenon. That’s the group that cooked up the Seneca Falls convention. They kind of crested with voting rights for women.
The second wave was based in the university system. From the beginning it was an existentialist production. The women who had worked in factories during World War 2 sent their daughters to colleg. They were trying to make sense of their mothers lives, as much as their own.
The third wave is mostly a synthesizing and lock-down system. It’s comparable to the congregational churches that grew out of the puritan experience- if you grew up in the church, you were accepted. You didn’t need your parents’ experience of saving grace, or an experience of illumination evidenced by changed behavior. You simply had to grow up speaking the language.
The challenge to any of these systems is first off, their regionalism- coastal, likely new england, theoretical, self- consciously upper-class. The first Seneca Falls convention received a delegation of Mormon plural wives who had experience voting, running town councils and politicking. A Mormon plural wife would be the first female sent to the United States senate, for instance. The organizers at Seneca Falls had literally no idea what to make of women who actually did what they were seeking to do: vote, wield power, influence policy, without holding to tenets like, say monogamy. The Seneca Falls group really didn’t even hold to normal practice of anything in the first place. They had reps who had participated in Brooke Farm, or had been Owenites, or were trustafarians, basically, or were heretical flavors of Christian. Sojourner Truth, the famed slave guide, followed a cult leader pronounced bunkum by Joseph Smith, no stranger to being declared humbug, himself.
The current bunch might be a particularly repulsive cocktail of the usual suspects, but you need to come up with a word for women who aren’t doormats.
“Is It Time We Stopped Saying ‘Feminist’ and Started Saying ‘Eugenicist’?
NO…… because eugenics has nothing to do with it………..
It’s mere rage and frustration these women have against their very own bodies in light of their ambitions, aspirations and their quest for a fully actualised life on their own terms. I would fully support sterilisations for any woman aged thirteen and over that asks for one, paid for by the state. There…….. there’s your government subsidised birth control. Simple, effective, efficient and irreversible. Oh, now you regret doing this? Well, uhm……. that’s how these things work, can’t help that. You want more options, you have to be more responsible. That’s the price of freedom innit?………….
Good idea. I like it. And we can take this a bit farther.
If abortion can be discouraged then there might be a supply of unwanted babies up for adoption. All the repentant and regretful recipients of permanent birth control can then change their minds and adopt one. Supply and demand.
Everybody wins!
No, it’s time we started saying “witch.”
They often say “if it was men who got pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament.” Well, abortion IS a sacrament. Don’t believe me? Check out “The Sacrament of Abortion” by Ginette Paris, a witch who believes that it’s quite necessary.
I think there’s a HUGE segment of the population that doesn’t see abortion as a way to clean up after an accident, but something that we need to have happen in and of itself.
They are witches even if they don’t know it.
Sure, but one can be an anti-abortion, pro-life, conservative, Tea Party witch too.
It is not just minorities, they were trying to shove pills down my throat since my teenage years to make sure this white trash girl didn’t reproduce. I am now married with three sweet miracles, but I am still scarred and do not trust doctors because of my experience. Deep down I have ALWAYS wanted to be a mom, but I have had to fight the procreative guilt that was brainwashed into me starting in my public school days and following me even into my married life. I recently read the textbook “Ecoscience” written by science czar John Holdren, and everything suddenly made sense. None of it was an accident, the coercive population control was indeed premeditated and malicious. These busybody thugs layed out their intent to infiltrate and change our cultural and religious institutions from within and institutionalize population control. They have succeeded. Now these people are in the highest levels of our government, standing on the brink of absolute power over our health care. I find this absolutely frightening. I realize this sounds like conspiracy theory, but all it takes to see that this is real is to crack open the book “Ecoscience” to see the dark intentions of these people. I suggest the paragraph titled “Individual Rights” as a great place to start. In this paragraph they make the case for forced abortions. I repeat, forced abortions, and this is the man Obama chose to give power to as our science czar.
(Warning! It’s time for that “Jeannette’s broken record” thang)
Paul VI predicted this in Humanae Vitae, Section 17, in 1968.
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Misconception-Struggle-Control-Population/dp/0674024230
read it and scream. You’re not just an American science project. It’s worldwide.
I wanted to know why people were less pleased each time I had a child, and why some people were positively gleeful when I had a miscarriage. Who hates babies that much? Healthy, lovely, smart, loved, legitimately born within a strong marriage, to religious parents, babies? Why would a grandmother scream when she hears she will finally have a grand-daughter? It was like a scream from hell. I’ve never heard anything like it before.
If you can wade through eco-science, you’ll be enthralled by this book.
This is why the government has such strong hatred towards Catholics, Mormons, other Christians, even family centered atheists/agnostics, and homeschoolers. They want to teach their children the family building procreactive vision of marriage vs. the concubine chained to a perpetual f@#k buddy vision of marriage.
“Is this really about “empowering women,” or is it about making sure fewer poor minority women are born in the first place?”
Partially, but also look at the following quote: “. . . connected to Sanger’s desire . . . is a believe that every woman ought to make the same reproductive choices she herself had made.”
Here is a secret, so don’t tell anyone: women are inclined to conformity. Women who live outside the normal consensus of their times don’t want to be thought of as doing something morally or socially wrong so they try to change the consensus to something closer to the way they live their lives.
I have to wholeheartedly agree on the second point, although it’s a sword that cuts both ways. When in a liberal environment, the peer pressure for the conservative woman to conform is unbelievable. There are certain lines people won’t cross in mixed company, but I have to say that in women-only gatherings, it can’t get really ugly, especially regarding lifestyle choices which shouldn’t be anyone’s business. I think that’s why many women start going to regular religious services (separate from their family, if necessary) in high school and college – it’s a way to voluntarily associate with like-minded women, and is part of the reason liberal women are so anti-religious. I suspect the dynamics of men-only gatherings to be different, but have no way to really tell, not being one.
And of course, this tendency can be about all sort of things, not just political. Why do you think female-on-female bullying is so prevalent in K-12 education?
Abortion is the great evil of our generation. As I’m fond of saying; in 100 years they will be reading in textbooks about how we slaughtered 100 million or more babies for no good reason. It will be mentioned in the same paragraphs and chapters as the Holocaust, slavery, the Roman Colosseum, the Mongols and many other atrocities. It’s only a matter of time until people wake up and reject the same argument that was used in order to justify so many of those other crimes.That argument is that slavery was OK because blacks were beasts instead of people, the Holocaust was OK because Jews were vermin instead of people, and Abortion is OK because babies are seen as parasites instead of people. This argument has been defeated many times before and will be defeated again.