Log in

View Full Version : Pro-Life lobby finally admits true agenda



TC
13th May 2008, 02:15
Yes, as I and all other feminists and real leftists have been saying all along, the pro-life lobby (and the 'abortion debate' as a whole) has never been about saving the lives of precious little unborn babies (aww) but exclusively aimed at controlling women for the sake of social repression and the preservation and expansion of the patriarchal family, by denying women the right have sex without having children. The whole fetus worship is just a ruse; no one really gives a damn about fetuses, they care about making sure women can't opt out of having children effectively so they can preserve oppressive, unequal gender relations.

The American Life League, a major US pro-life lobby has as much as come out and admitted this by launching an explicit anti-contraceptive campaign culminating with a mass protest on June 7:

http://www.all.org/images/uploads/Image/PillKills2.jpg

And no, they're not talking about people allergic to birth control, they're talking about blastocysts, less then embryos.

http://feministing.com/pill-kills-banner.gif As babies!



Not enough people talk about the dangerous effects of the birth control pill. Many women do not realize what is really going on in their bodies when they use the pill, patch, IUD or other birth control products.

On top of that, the birth control pill is not 100% effective in preventing ovulation!

That means it does not always prevent the sperm from meeting the ovum; thus the pill works as an abortifacient. That’s right; the pill will irritate the lining of the uterus so that the newly formed human being (http://thepillkills.com/how.html) cannot attach to his/her mother’s womb and dies. This is called a chemical abortion.

One cannot forget about all of the other horrible side effects (http://thepillkills.com/effects.html) such as breast and cervical cancer, blood clots, infertility and weakened immune systems – so a woman is more susceptible to the AIDS virus.

The pill kills! It is so not worth putting into your body.

We are all called to different vocations in our lives. Some are called to be married. Married couples should be open to God’s amazing gift of life. By contracepting, you are saying "no" to God’s plan by selfishly taking part in sexual relations without fulfilling the entire act or the purpose of the act. The reason God designed sex was for a married man and woman to become one and to procreate.

Contraception opens the door for marital infidelity because when spouses get used to contraceptive methods, they tend to forget the reverence due to a woman’s body, her cycle and to God’s ultimate plan for marriage and the family. Contraceptives also offer an incredible temptation for youth and singles. If you’re single, participating in premarital sexual activity is giving into sins of the flesh and can ultimately affect your salvation.

What can you do?

On June 7 join American Life League, along with our Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International associate groups, and participate in Protest the Pill Day ’08: The Pill Kills Babies (http://thepillkills.com/index.html). Join pro-lifers across the country and protest the birth control pill by standing outside of clinics and facilities – especially Planned Parenthood clinics (http://thepillkills.com/maps.html) – that distribute this deadly poison.


http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11373


June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html) case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice. This meant that Connecticut and the rest of the United States could not stop a married woman from obtaining birth control pills. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, the constitutional right to privacy has nothing to do with birth control.


The plaintiff was Estelle Griswold, then executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic. They were arrested and fined for selling birth control pills, which was illegal in Connecticut. The case was pushed all the way to the Supreme Court. In other words, Planned Parenthood was breaking the law; yet it turned this case into a legal precedent for selling contraception. Because of the Griswold case and others that followed, unmarried women and teenagers were later permitted to obtain birth control pills.The main website: http://thepillkills.com/index.html promoting a protest on the day the US supreme court recognised "right to privacy in matters of sexual practice". Thats how they put it. Read that again "This meant that Connecticut and the rest of the United States could not stop a married woman from obtaining birth control pills" and they think thats a bad thing!They know their real agenda and they aren't ashamed of it anymore, their message is that your sexuality belongs to them!


Anyone in the US should counter-protest...possibly a parody counter-protest of "Real American Life League": 'Porn, Lube and Kleenex Kill!' since funnily enough they're only concerned with protecting the life of clusters of cells when they're in women and not men.

Kami
13th May 2008, 02:18
Dear God -.-
Will their be some sort of counter protest happening?

redSHARP
13th May 2008, 02:35
i would go. where is it?

this piece a shit is just what the right is trying to do; get kids active in being right wing neo-cons. we need to stop this shit cold! this is about liberation of women, for men, and one more battle ground against the right wingers!

i got an idea! we can see what clinics are to be subjected to this opression, and organize groups to protect it. We would not dress or act as radicals, we would act like just a group of people trying to protect our sexual rights. this would bring more liberals and moderates on our side. Who looks better? a bunch of religous fanatics or a bunch of cool headed people counter protesting and being civlized? and just in case some fanatic decides to bomb it (or otherwise), we send in some hard core leftist and boot them off our streets. or we can do the latter first, what ever works for you.

Sam_b
13th May 2008, 02:42
I never did like calling them the 'pro-life' lobby, as it has connotations that everyone opposed is some sort of baby-killing monster. If anything they should be exposed as 'anti-choice'.

This reminds me that we really need to kick-start our Abortion Rights group at the uni soon.

Invader Zim
13th May 2008, 02:42
Or maybe that actually believe it....

I think you credit them too much intellect; I find it doubtful that they are actually smart enough to note the stupidity of that argument.

But beyond that point, that they have the intellectual capacity for clandestine motives, I completely agree with you.



This reminds me that we really need to kick-start our Abortion Rights group at the uni soon.

I have entirely lost faith in the entire notion of student politics and did so back in the AUT actions a couple of years back. I haven't got the patience for any of the bullshit involved with creating SU affiliated political societies. But maybe I'm being to harsh and maybe its just my uni.

EscapeFromSF
13th May 2008, 03:20
I've been arguing for a while now that the anti-abortion movement isn't just anti-woman, but historically racist.

Evangelical Protestantism has been around for a long time, but it really took off during the Industrial Revolution when increased mobility made it easier for men to abandon the women they'd impregnated. But other things were happening about this time as well that are difficult to exclude from the picture.

This was also the time of a second great wave of immigration in the 19th Century. Unlike the first, this brought in more darker-skinned, Catholic, and non-English speaking people. This was also a time when the most fun a lot of white men knew to have with a black man was to lynch him. Finally, it was a time when middle- and upper-class white women were exercising greater control over their fertility.

To put it bluntly, some whites were afraid they'd be out-reproduced.

Sam_b
13th May 2008, 03:42
I have entirely lost faith in the entire notion of student politics and did so back in the AUT actions a couple of years back. I haven't got the patience for any of the bullshit involved with creating SU affiliated political societies. But maybe I'm being to harsh and maybe its just my uni.

Aye I know what you mean. The upper levels of student politics completely sucks - from the massive new-labour faction of the NUS to our non-NUS Students Representative council who "don't think its appropriate to be political".

However, some gains have been made at Glasgow Uni. We have a large and vibrant SWSS branch as well as Stop The War. Recently our rectoral challenge to Charles Kennedy, civil liberties lawyer Aamer Anwar, came a credible second despite both student unions and a tonne of money being behind Kennedy. We also joined up with Strathclyde Uni for the student day of action against Attacking Iran. Some videos of us closing down the Queen St Army recruitment centre are here, as well as our protest against US Ambassador Robert Tuttle at uni (2 comrades were arrested that day, and I was 'fortunate' enough to get into the meeting and denounce him as a war criminal):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KapUZK0cSQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE2iX40RTe4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlXBNzMiHxo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEQGcdDB68

redSHARP
13th May 2008, 08:19
shit those anti-lifers want to start shit at universities? i am at a catholic college (it was that or community college, i choise they less boring evil)! i will do everything in my power to make sure those pricks dont get an inch here!

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders
13th May 2008, 08:41
Married couples should be open to God’s amazing gift of life. By contracepting, you are saying "no" to God’s plan by selfishly taking part in sexual relations without fulfilling the entire act or the purpose of the act. The reason God designed sex was for a married man and woman to become one and to procreate.So...the only time we should have sex is (1) when your're married and (2) without contraception (i.e. something which prevents the fulfilment of the entirety of "God's purpose.")...which means that the only time one could morally have sex is in marriage and for the purpose of getting pregnant. How depressing.

But of course...we shouldn't attack religion because that would "isolate" the worshippers (as opposed to effectively isolating half the population: females, and a vast majority of people who have "illegitimate" sex and use contraceptives). <_<

BobKKKindle$
13th May 2008, 08:50
Further evidence of the lack of real concern for human life is the fact that the same people who call for legislation to protect the "rights" of the "unborn" also support the use of the death penalty as a punishment for violent crimes and the use of military force to ensure that overseas interests are protected - this lack of consistency suggests that the struggle prevent the widespread use of abortion is motivated by a desire to ensure that women are unable to assume an independent role or enjoy free sexual relationships, not, as these groups have often argued, because they care about the welfare of embryos.

The language used in this group's article also shows how religion is used as a justification for conservative views in human sexuality, and so affirms the need to challenge religious ideas and encourage people to question faith in favor of a more rational worldview.

Jazzratt
13th May 2008, 09:37
The anti-choice movement has never been about life. They shoot medical professionals, for a start.

This anti-pill crap is insane. It's about one step removed from "every sperm is sacred" an dall the sexual conservatism that surrounds that. I wonder where they'll go next? Every time you mensturate you're killing a child?

Peacekeeper
13th May 2008, 19:03
So...the only time we should have sex is (1) when your're married and (2) without contraception (i.e. something which prevents the fulfilment of the entirety of "God's purpose.")...which means that the only time one could morally have sex is in marriage and for the purpose of getting pregnant. How depressing.

But of course...we shouldn't attack religion because that would "isolate" the worshippers (as opposed to effectively isolating half the population: females, and a vast majority of people who have "illegitimate" sex and use contraceptives). <_<

Hey - there are religious Leftists who support abortion rights. Myself, for example.

Schrödinger's Cat
15th May 2008, 04:30
I don't think most adherents to the anti-choice movement (98%) realize conception is a process, not a moment.

BobKKKindle$
15th May 2008, 06:58
Hey - there are religious Leftists who support abortion rights. Myself, for example.

How can you reconcile your religious beliefs with a socialist approach to women, given that the Koran and other religious texts contain passages which indicate a reactionary view of women? For example:


"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34

This passage suggests that women should conform to how men want them to behave, and should not try and adopt a more independent social role.