September 30, 2008
More false fears from retro feminists on inaccessible abortion
They see the writing on the wall. The chill wind blows. And in a desperate attempt to turn back the clock (so abortion on demand remains around as along as possible) retro feminists are spewing more false fears and lies about the horrible world it will be when abortion is inaccessable. (They love 1973 - they love 1973 science, they love 1973 ignorance about the effects of abortion on women.) Laws resting on a faulty foundation do not stand forever and Roe is about to go down - retro feminists know it and thus the panic - they are trying everything, saying anything hoping to delay the inevitable. It's kind of sad actually that a good movement (feminism) got hijacked by those who think it's only about killing our offspring.
The latest comes in the form of a Washington Post article this past Sunday called If Roe Goes, Our State Will Be Worse Than You Think.
Family Research Council addressed a couple of the false claims in yesterday's Action Update;
Linda Hirshman, a radical feminist best known for her condemnation of stay-at-home mothers, speculated on what will happen if Roe v. Wade is corrected. First, she falsely charged that women would be prosecuted for having abortions. In fact, pro-lifers are united in seeking sanctions only against doctors who perform abortions, not women who seek them. But Hirshman went further, making the absurd claim that a state could ban a pregnant adult woman from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion. She cited as precedent a case-from 1792!-involving horse theft. Can Hirshman point to one American law on abortion-past, present, or proposed-that includes such a provision? Can she offer even a single quote from a pro-life leader calling for such laws? The answer is no, and it was irresponsible for the Post to run such a complete fabrication.
If you are curious about my use of the term "retro feminists" and, some of my comments in the first paragraph, you can read more on that here. The link will take you to an interesting article that talks about "the final nail in the coffin of the toxic feminism and abortion-on-demand fanaticism that has plagued our country for the last half century."
Comments on More false fears from retro feminists on inaccessible abortion »
Amy @ 10:58 am
In Christ there is neither male no female, slave nor free. Sarah Palin is the true feminist here, the main difference being that she does not try to shed her femininity like a coat at the door, and she embraces all that is true feminism (i.e, bearing and raising children, being a help mate to her spouse, all the cool stuff in Prov 31).
We are not less than men - but we ARE NOT men. An empowered Christian woman is something the devil and his followers fear. You can see the result of that fear and its accompanying lying rhetoric spread far and wide in the media today.
People, please pray for Governor Palin. She is not a Washington politician - thanks be to God! She is daughter of the Most High. We need her like Israel needed Deborah. Please pray that her true self would be what the world sees at the debate on Thursday night. God, bind Sarah Palin up in Your will.
Jared @ 2:03 pm
"such as the clause saying that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
This is part of the article from our friend at the Washington Post. Notice the words of life. Speaking for the unborn life is what we are calling for. Where is the rights of the life that is conceived in the mothers womb. It is a life and it deserves rights and to be spoken for under our constitution. The constitution does speak for the unborn child and it is time that the world stops using abortion for birth control. Maybe they should use birth control before conception takes place.
Stop being worried whether you can have an abortion in what state and start being more concerned about the child that has life and deserves life.
Kathy Smith @ 1:54 pm
Jared writes, "Maybe they should use birth control before conception takes place."
Leslee Unruh is against birth control, as is Dr. Glenn Ridder. Planned Parenthood dispenses birth control for little to no cost for the women who can not afford it, thus preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortion. If we want to prevent abortions, shouldn't we also support Planned Parenthood in preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions?
Amy @ 3:35 pm
Perhaps Kathy Smith should get up to speed with the most recent Guttmacher (Planned Parenthood research) report which CONCLUSIVELY shows that the women in the age group most educated about birth control and most likely to use Planned Parenthood to obtain free/cheap birth control, i.e., those in their 20's, are also the women who have the HIGHEST ABORTION PERCENTAGE. Access to birth control DOES NOT reduce abortion. It does increase promiscuity and unplanned pregnancy as well as the astronomical rise in dread sexually transmitted diseases that we see today.
Prove me wrong Kathy Smith.
Kathy Smith @ 3:58 pm
Amy,
Thank you for your insight. I'm having a problem figuring out where you stand on birth control, do you think there should be more birth control? Because if abortion is being used as birth control, the best way to prevent that would be to use birth control in the first place, before the pregnancy. More birth contol equals less abortions. Please link your Guttmacher report so I may become more educated on this.
Amy @ 8:00 am
Kathy:
Apparently you are new here. I DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Get off your smarmy high horse and look up facts for yourself. If facts are what you are interested in.
Vacuous (empty) arguments have no place in this important debate. If you are too lazy to do your own research, then quit using up valuable bandwidth and stay out of the way. The type of sophomoric attempts at diversion you are using are all too familiar in this arena. If you have something useful to say, then say it. If you don't have anything sincere to contribute why don't you go see if your elderly neighbor's yard needs raking, or house needs painting, and make yourself useful. I am not being sarcastic, BTW.
Steve: perhaps you could institute a "no empty-headed response" rule.
Kathy Smith @ 8:15 am
Amy and Pastor Steve,
I thought this blog was written by a man of God, so why all the negative comments? Amy, if you are going to cite sources, can't you then post them? I was recommended to this site by Travis Miller and he said that debate was encouraged. But I guess Amy and Pastor Steve have proven him wrong. Like I said in an earlier post, I truly want to vote yes on 11, but am seeing some untruthfulness by VYFL. I just just trying to clear some things up.
May God bless you and your families.
Steve @ 8:37 am
Kathy- You lost me in your sudden shift toward niceness. You start with hostility, insults and then start posting flattery. I honestly am lost as to what you want and haven't been following closely your conversation with Amy. Blessings to you also.
Amy @ 9:38 am
Kathy:
I read your quote from Travis Miller, and basically in my estimation he is not accurate in his assessment of this blog. This is a pro-life blog, and it is Steve's blog, and my understanding is that Steve has reserved the right to delete and block as he deems necessary. I acknowledge my last post to you was a tad terse, but the continuous disingenuous and deceitful tactics of people who think it is okay to kill children in the womb have just about gotten on my last nerve. I read all your comments, Kathy, and convincing me that you are pro-life on IM 11 is going to be a tough sell. It appears that you are just using a more deceptive front. Either that or there are two Kathy Smiths.
Kathy Smith @ 1:46 pm
Amy and Pastor Steve,
I've been looking for a new church home, rec'd your mailing entitled "America's Choice", read the post from Travis Miller, and thought I would check out your church, which led me to this blog. I am pro-life, but have heard some disturbing un-truths from the VYFL campaign. If I am going to vote for something as serious as abortion, I want to become as educated on the subject as I can. So I'm sorry to take up your time and wish you the best. But I'm sorry, I didn't find the answers I was looking for here, so I must go elsewhere to find the truth. I'm still undecided on how I will vote on 11, but am leaning towards "no".
Steve @ 2:57 pm
Kathy - really??? Come on. Pardon me for not believing you are now this undecided pro-life voter looking for a church home who honestly was just looking to get some questions answered. If you are pro-life you will be voting yes. If you are not pro-life you will vote no to make sure the killing continues. This is an easy bill… it has exceptions.
The not-so-friendly way you jumped on here, then the sudden shift to nice. Directly going after names, etc - pardon me for sensing a major manipulation thing here. The last comment here is loaded with a guilt-trip. Whatever - if you are now who you are saying you are my sincere apologies. But sorry, I just don't believe you are for real. Just know the disturbing untruths are not coming from Vote Yes.
I'm curious why you didn't start nice and honest… "hey, I'm pro-life but I'm curious what you think about these specific "disturbing un-truths" about the vote yes campaign that I heard from ________."
In any case, blessings to you whoever you are and whatever you are really up to.
Amy @ 3:01 pm
Kathy:
I would guess you never checked the voteyesforlife.com website then? I know Steve has referred you there at least once for your answers. Were you looking for a different answer here than what you would find there? In earlier comments posted here and under a different blog entry you were coming across as downright contentious, so you can see how your entries have been confusing. Anyway, you should be aware that many people commenting here, myself included, do not attend Steve's church, so it certainly would not be fair to take your offense with me, another commenter, out on that church don't you agree?
Travis @ 1:27 pm
Amy –
You are correct that my assessment was wrong. I had made that assertion twice once on the Dakota Women blog when they censored one of my posts. When they did that I was upset and I was reacting. The post they deleted was my response to a person that they were very fond of. She went way out into left field with things like if you eat meat you hate the planet and you don’t care for people, and that the definition of sacrifice is “War waged to advance psychotically-entitled male egos”.
Here is the post http://dakotawomen.blogspot.com/2008/08/voices-crazier-and-we-thought-it.html
You can view the post they deleted here if you are interested http://www.gscoders.com/Daisy.htm
Up to that point I didn’t see Steve delete many if any posts.
The other time I made a similar statement was on the Argus Blog. We were on the topic of Planned Parenthood being a caring organization. The posts went toward the roots of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger’s view on humanity. The people that I was arguing with (one of which is possibly Kathy Smith) was arguing that all of the writings about Sanger were incorrectly labeling her as a racist. She claimed that all of her quotes were taken out of context.
I invited her to put them into context, but she said she refused to argue the point with me because I had not read her books. That is when I directed her to a new (at that time) post about Sanger and Planned Parenthoods roots on Steve’s Blog. I told her that Steve would welcome the debate.
At that point she declined and said many bad things about Steve. We ended that portion of the argument about PP there and continued on with other subjects.
You can look that stuff up here.
The Whole Post
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/UPDATES/80910022&s=d&page=#pluckcomments
Specific Reference 1
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/UPDATES/80910022&s=d&page=27#pluckcomments
Specific Reference 2
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/UPDATES/80910022&s=d&page=26#pluckcomments
I absolutely do not think that the editing Steve has started doing or has done is wrong in any way and I commend him on his commitment to the fight for life.