the actual title of this page: [ 4 of 6 ]
http://ChristianChoice.Org [Page D]
( for ) or ( for )
Page D) If "Pro-Lifers" are on God's side,|
what kind of God approves of the
kind of immoral tactics they employ?
It's amazing how many female pro-lifers suddenly change their tune, when they find themselves hosts to an unwanted pregnancy : www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org. And some of them actually have the hypocrisy to go back to the clinic picket lines afterwards, to deny to other women the choice that they have made for themselves!
Does anyone actually believe that many of the leading selfish, pompous Conservative Republicans would not be the first in line to have a girlfriend, a mistress, a wife, a daughter, or a sister of theirs abort an unwanted pregnancy in order to protect their reputations, or for any other convenience? How much would you be willing to risk in a wager that they have already done so, and would be no less willing to do so again?
Deep in your heart, you know full well that, while engaging in it privately when it suits them, these hypocritical politicians only oppose abortion publicly because of the political benefits which this issue has given Republicans, by driving a wedge between a vast number of poor, and middle class people (who have everything to gain by supporting the Democratic Party), and persuading them to ignore their self-interest in order to support the party that opposes just about all of their interests as poor or working class people.
Now, if serious pro-lifers are so sure that fetuses are human beings from the moment of conception, then when are they going to start acting accordingly? They don't need to wait for everybody else to agree with them before doing so. When, for example, are they going to start collecting the sanitary napkins of all the sexually active women of childbearing age, and making sure that all the tiny "babies"- as they insist on calling them - that may be hidden in those sanitary napkins as a result of spontaneous miscarriages, all get the benefit of the sacraments, if they are Catholics, or in any event a decent funeral and church burial? If they are not ready to do that, then do they really believe what they claim to believe?"
I wish I had the source for the following, but I've lost it. "One argument that Catholic thinkers offer to prove that personhood occurs at conception is because it is then that a full complement of nuclear chromosomes – half paternal, half from the mother – come together. That argument may appear sound, until you realize that practically every cell in your body at any age has a full complement of chromosomes sufficient to make another you. Does that accord a right to every cell in our body for protection under the U.S. Constitution?”
If the people engaged in "Crisis Prevention Centers" are on the side of the God, who do they think they are fooling when they ignore the ninth of his ten great commandments which proclaimed : "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" and instead
"Rolling Stone published an excellent online article by Lauren Rankin, on February 26, 2014 to debunk anti-choice misinformation about women's health, addressing the following:
Chances are, you know someone who has had an abortion. Statistically, it's a near-certainty: In the U.S., one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. But despite how incredibly common abortion is, it remains mired in stigma and misinformation. Much of what we may think we know about this subject is actually outright lies told by abortion opponents to dissuade women from seeking safe and legal abortion care.
Why do pro-lifers have to falsely accuse their opponents of being "pro-abortion", instead of "pro-choice"? I'll tell you why. It's because they have no good arguments against our arguments in favor of choice. So they accuse us instead of supporting something worse. But but this argument has no merit at all because they know full well that no "pro-choice" advocate has ever urged anyone who had no need or desire for one to have an abortion.
Since many of these same people are conservatives who support the death penalty. Now, if we liberals were as foolish as these conservatives are, we could use that as a basis for calling them "pro-death". But we don't, because we are smart enough to know that what supporters of the death-penalty support isn't death for its own sake, but only the right of the state include the penalty as one of its many choices among penalties for serious crimes.
If "pro-life" activists really believed that abortion is "murder" or "infanticide", they would support capital punishment for mothers who ask doctors to carry-out "the murdering of their children" for them. There was a video "www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw" that showed very forcefully that pro-lifers themselves don't believe their own rhetoric, but it has been taken down because of copyright issues. When President Trump made the crucial mistake of telling the truth, he had to be "corrected" because what he said is one of the most politically incorrect truths that can be uttered in the Pro-life world.
In 2005, (George W. Bush's) FDA's director of the Office of Women's Health, Susan Wood, resigned her position. She cited the agency's endless stalling and political maneuvering over emergency-contraception as the reason for her resignation. Here's an excerpt from the e-mail she wrote to colleagues announcing her decision:
"I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled. . . The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency-contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health. [Reproductive Health Technologies Project]
It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses "pro-life" people can come up with to avoid any of the burdens they are determined to impose on mothers who are faced with the challenges of an unwanted pregnancy. I saw Gary Bauer, the director of the Family Research Council and one of the nations leading pro-lifers, offer this great one on the national C-Span call in show (in March of 2003). . When asked if he was willing to adopt any unwanted children, he replied that, considering the facts that he and his wife already had two little angels and that many more deserving parents were on waiting lists to adopt, it would be "unfair" of him to do so.
As a former adoption advocate myself, I happen to know that despite the fact that a lot of people want to adopt, there are hundreds of thousands of children who are languishing in foster care or institutions because many of those in line to adopt children only want model children, not one or more of the thousands of "hard to place" children, ( i.e. older, sick, disturbed or handicapped, minority or mixed race, parts of sibling groups, etc.) But Bauer must have gotten his queue from his fellow Republican Conservative leader, Congressman Tom Delay, who explained his failure to serve in the military during the Vietnam war as the result of minorities having filled all the slots before he could get one!
In response to my question: "What are you prepared to do once those unwanted babies are born? Will you adopt them all? Will you pay for someone else to adopt and raise them? Or will you go your merry way and wash you hands of both the mothers and the children?" I got this response from someone I'll call LDP (short for the way he describes himself "Liberal Democratic pro-lifer"
In response to a challenge I gave him and which I reprint below, LDP wrote to me :
"I am truly shocked, (Ray), that you would suggest that any other person – especially a person whom you have never met and whose temperament and life situation you really have no clue about – should adopt even one child. Your earlier comments told me that you had a real concern for children, but I have to say that this suggestion – that I should adopt a child or some children – simply because I am on the pro-life side of the abortion debate – is truly shocking. For all you know, I may be a person who would not take parenting seriously and who would severely neglect any child I would adopt. Would you advocate placing children in the homes of people simply because those people are pro-life? Or are you making the assumption that all pro-life people must be good parent material?"
My response was: "Your excuse is really creative, namely I am at fault, for suggesting that you adopt, without knowing in advance if you were fully qualified. That's a hoot. You already know that I have adopted 5 children, so why wouldn't I know what you would have to go through to succeed in adopting children. My question wasn't about how many you were qualified to adopt, but how many you desired to adopt.
Now, you ignored the fact that I gave you three choices. Given the fact that you ruled out the first, and didn't volunteer the second, my guess is that your choice is the one that most pro-lifers make, i.e. # 3: "go your merry way and wash your hands of both the mothers and the children." (but only after making sure that those mothers are not allowed the option of escaping the multitude of consequences of their unwanted pregnancy)." Rev. R. D.
But how many of those pro-lifers are waiting in line to adopt and care for life any far-from-perfect children that no one else will take? My wife was so active in the adoption of the handicapped in 1982 that the "Up to the Minute" team at CBS television featured our family for this nation-wide program that year.
Incidentally, we had informally adopted another baby girl before Janine, who was so severely damaged at birth that she didn't even make it to her 6th birthday, and we then went on to adopt a boy with severe mental issues, who was still living with us when my wife died at age 85.
Beginning in 1995, the anti-choice team claimed that Norma McCorvey, the woman of Roe v. Wade fame had become a convert to the pro-life cause and then opposed abortion for the next 22 years. They viewed her as a great saint and gave her a powerful platform for promoting her new-found faith. In mid 2020 however, a documentary called ” A.K.A. Jane Roe” revealed, shortly before her death in 2017, that her “conversion” had less to do with the power of the “pro-life“ message than with the half million or so dollars that she was paid by the leaders of the pro-life cause for her help in promoting their cause. [ See this online article]
The following is a picture of one of the organization’s IRS forms:
One pro-life response to McCorvey's 'deathbed confession' about the half-million dollar payments is that "this was a pittance when compared to speaking fees for nationally known figures, even at the time". Anyone who has watched the documentary, much of which is about Norma McCorvey's entire life, would know that this woman had lived in utter destitution up to that point, earning her living mostly by cleaning homes, and clerking at an abortion clinic for a while.
Whatever opponents of choice may try to do to undermine the power of this documentary, I predict that they will be powerless to answer the arguments made in this documentary by Rev. Rob Schenck, a long-time leader of the “pro life” movement in America. Here are some of those arguments in his own voice:
That is the title of chapter 9 in the 2017 book "Life's Work" A Moral Argument for Choice" (pp. 161-166). As a Christian and an African-American doctor who has dedicated his life to providing reproductive services to those women who have the most difficulty in obtaining them, Dr. Willie Parker is particularly offended by this deceitful claim promoted by some people calling themselves "Christians".
When parents refer to their youngest child (of any age) as their "baby", they don't expect anyone to take them literally!
The same goes for men referring to their girlfriend as "babe" or "baby"!
But when pro-lifers insist on calling a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a "baby", that is just plain language abuse; and it is done for the sole purpose of confusing people about the morality of abortion. If they were really as sure as they pretend to be that the termination of the life of an embryo or fetus in a woman's womb is just as immoral as terminating the life of a baby in a carriage, then why couldn't they simply argue that "killing a "fetus" is as immoral as killing a baby"?
In Nov. of 2020, organisers of a "Santa Parade" in Southland, New Zealand had to apologise to the public after an “anti-choice” float prompted complaints.
Chief organiser for the parade, Alice Pottinger, said the apology was made after several people complained that such a float wasn't appropriate for a Santa Parade.
She agreed with their sentiments.
"We were quite disappointed. They came in as a Christian group. But once they got past the start line, members of their floats then brought out some placards that read “Stand for life,” “Life is valuable” and “Life is worth it”.
Parade organisers posted to social media after the parade saying: "We apologise to everyone for the anti-choice float, we were unaware until the end."
The float was organised by Fiona Meyer, as part of the group "Voice for Life", who objected that "There was nothing wrong with our messaging during the parade". . . . "The messages weren't “anti-choice”, since none of the slogans on the placards used the word “choice”, The messages were promoting life."