Lauren Zuniga performs a poem for the Oklahoma legislators that are trying so hard to take away women's reproductive rights. The bill in question will require women to receive an ultrasound and listen to the baby's heartbeat before an abortion.
Thanks to Lemon of Choice for telling me about this video!
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Some common sense thoughts on the Bible, same-sex marriage and abortion
I found this opinion article by Michael Coogan really interesting. He nicely summarizes what I've always felt about the Bible: Take from it the valuable lessons about treating others well and being a good citizen, and leave from it the sexist, racist, out-dated and old fashioned ideas (after all, it was written thousands of years ago! Times have changed!)
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last few years, you'll know that tension is rising in America between Christians and non-Christians, and some of the big issues that cause that tension are abortion and gay marriage. Below are a few paragraphs from Coogan's article that address these issues in the way I wish all Americans could address them: with common sense. It seems to me that common sense is not all that common anymore! Anyway, enough of my ramble, here's what Coogan has to say:
When talking about so-called family values, pastors, popes, and politicians routinely quote the Bible as if it were an unassailable divine authority -- after all, they assume, God wrote the Bible, and therefore it is absolutely and literally true.
But that is a misconception. As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings, many of whom are named: David, Isaiah, Luke, and Paul. These human writers wrote over the course of more than a thousand years, and their writings reflect their own views and the values they shared with their contemporaries. So it's not surprising that inconsistencies are frequent in the Bible, both trivial and profound.
Although Jews and Christians, individually and collectively, have for the last 2,000 years accepted the Bible as authoritative in principle, in practice many of its values have been rejected. On issues such as slavery, no one today would maintain that slavery is acceptable, even though, according to the Bible, it was a divinely sanctioned institution. In the debates about slavery in the 19th century those opposed to its abolition cited the Bible in support of their position, but despite such biblical warrant, their views were renounced.
According to biblical law, a father could sell his daughter as a slave, and the last of the Ten Commandments lists as off-limits a neighbor's possessions -- his house, wife, slaves, and livestock. But the majority of modern Jews and Christians no longer accept the biblical view of women as men's property and hence subordinate to them, as they have also abandoned the biblical practice of polygamy.
In current debates about family values, most of which have to do with sex, opponents of abortion and advocates of a woman's right to choose both cite the Bible in support of their conflicting views, even though the Bible in fact says nothing specifically about the issue. And with regard to same-sex marriage, although the few biblical writers who mention same-sex relationships, especially between men, were unequivocally opposed to them, many contemporary believers would argue that, as with slavery and the status of women, it is time to recognize that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.
Opponents of same-sex marriage cite Leviticus, which says that when a man sleeps with a man as with a woman it is an abomination. They're right: It does say that. But it later calls for the death penalty for such activity, which only the most rabid opponents would insist on. The Bible also calls eating pork and a woman wearing a man's clothes abominations, yet many would no longer enforce such prohibitions.
So, I suggest, the essence of the Bible -- its ultimate authority -- is not in its individual pronouncements, but in its underlying message: equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
To read the full article, click here.
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last few years, you'll know that tension is rising in America between Christians and non-Christians, and some of the big issues that cause that tension are abortion and gay marriage. Below are a few paragraphs from Coogan's article that address these issues in the way I wish all Americans could address them: with common sense. It seems to me that common sense is not all that common anymore! Anyway, enough of my ramble, here's what Coogan has to say:
When talking about so-called family values, pastors, popes, and politicians routinely quote the Bible as if it were an unassailable divine authority -- after all, they assume, God wrote the Bible, and therefore it is absolutely and literally true.
But that is a misconception. As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings, many of whom are named: David, Isaiah, Luke, and Paul. These human writers wrote over the course of more than a thousand years, and their writings reflect their own views and the values they shared with their contemporaries. So it's not surprising that inconsistencies are frequent in the Bible, both trivial and profound.
Although Jews and Christians, individually and collectively, have for the last 2,000 years accepted the Bible as authoritative in principle, in practice many of its values have been rejected. On issues such as slavery, no one today would maintain that slavery is acceptable, even though, according to the Bible, it was a divinely sanctioned institution. In the debates about slavery in the 19th century those opposed to its abolition cited the Bible in support of their position, but despite such biblical warrant, their views were renounced.
According to biblical law, a father could sell his daughter as a slave, and the last of the Ten Commandments lists as off-limits a neighbor's possessions -- his house, wife, slaves, and livestock. But the majority of modern Jews and Christians no longer accept the biblical view of women as men's property and hence subordinate to them, as they have also abandoned the biblical practice of polygamy.
In current debates about family values, most of which have to do with sex, opponents of abortion and advocates of a woman's right to choose both cite the Bible in support of their conflicting views, even though the Bible in fact says nothing specifically about the issue. And with regard to same-sex marriage, although the few biblical writers who mention same-sex relationships, especially between men, were unequivocally opposed to them, many contemporary believers would argue that, as with slavery and the status of women, it is time to recognize that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.
Opponents of same-sex marriage cite Leviticus, which says that when a man sleeps with a man as with a woman it is an abomination. They're right: It does say that. But it later calls for the death penalty for such activity, which only the most rabid opponents would insist on. The Bible also calls eating pork and a woman wearing a man's clothes abominations, yet many would no longer enforce such prohibitions.
So, I suggest, the essence of the Bible -- its ultimate authority -- is not in its individual pronouncements, but in its underlying message: equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
To read the full article, click here.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
I'm Pro Choice Because...
Our friend Juliet just tweeted about this great website called Prochoice Because. People can submit a few sentences on why they're pro choice, and each time you refresh the web page a new story pops up. Responses range from the hilarious ("I'm pro choice because I don't tell you what to do with your semen") to the serious ("I am pro choice because I have seen a 12 year old incest victim deliver a child and then proceed to have a pulmonary embolism and die. She never had a choice not to have sex. She never had a choice to use birth control. She never had a choice to terminate her pregnancy. She never had a choice to live.")
I am pro choice because... since the dawn of time, women have tried to abort unwanted pregnancies. They'll use coat hangers, drink poison, or do any number of dangerous things to their bodies. Women have always tried to abort fetuses, and they always will. Make it legal, keep it safe, and we'll spare the lives of many women who die attempting to have an abortion.
Why are you pro choice?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tonight's Show: Two Discussions on Abortion
Tonight Jennie and Geea dive head first into the controversial topic of abortion. But hey, we're feminsit radio, which means we love controversial topics!
We'll begin with a discussion of abortion in Romania. In 1966 Romania's communist dictator made abortion illegal. Prior to this, Romania had one of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe - in fact, abortion was the main form of birth control with four abortions for every live birth. Then virtually overnight, abortion was forbidden. Naturally, this had a massive impact on the country, including a lot of unwanted babies and the "fad" of adopting Romanian babies.
Second, we will discuss a controversial theory from the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Levitt goes on a quest to find out why crime rates in America began to drop drastically around 1990. He believes that Roe v. Wade had a lot to do with the drop in crime. The women most likely to have an abortion were very often unmarried, in their teens, poor and uneducated. Mothers who are single, poor and uneducated are most likely to raise children who become criminals. As Levitt states in Freakonomics, "Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."
Tune in from 8:00 to 8:30 tonight on CJSW 90.9fm in Calgary, or stream us online at cjsw.com. Remember, we podcast all our shows so subscribe to our podcasts if you want to stay in the loop!
Links
I mentioned on-air that I'd provide some links to articles that challenge Levitt's theory about crime and abortion. Here they are:
- Where Freakonomics Errs by Steven Malanga
- The Freakonomics Fiasco in Perspective by Steve Sailer
We'll begin with a discussion of abortion in Romania. In 1966 Romania's communist dictator made abortion illegal. Prior to this, Romania had one of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe - in fact, abortion was the main form of birth control with four abortions for every live birth. Then virtually overnight, abortion was forbidden. Naturally, this had a massive impact on the country, including a lot of unwanted babies and the "fad" of adopting Romanian babies.
Second, we will discuss a controversial theory from the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Levitt goes on a quest to find out why crime rates in America began to drop drastically around 1990. He believes that Roe v. Wade had a lot to do with the drop in crime. The women most likely to have an abortion were very often unmarried, in their teens, poor and uneducated. Mothers who are single, poor and uneducated are most likely to raise children who become criminals. As Levitt states in Freakonomics, "Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."
Tune in from 8:00 to 8:30 tonight on CJSW 90.9fm in Calgary, or stream us online at cjsw.com. Remember, we podcast all our shows so subscribe to our podcasts if you want to stay in the loop!
Links
I mentioned on-air that I'd provide some links to articles that challenge Levitt's theory about crime and abortion. Here they are:
- Where Freakonomics Errs by Steven Malanga
- The Freakonomics Fiasco in Perspective by Steve Sailer
Monday, February 1, 2010
Tonight's Show: The Abortion Monologues
Tonight we interview Jane Cawthorne, a women's studies professor at Mount Royal University and authour of The Abortion Monologues.
The Abortion Monologues is a play that will be showing in Calgary on Thursday February 4th. This show has already sold out - sorry, no more tickets available!
About the play: In these dramatic monologues, twenty-three women reveal the details of their lives, families and relationships as they tell the stories of their abortions. Sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking, but always thought provoking, The Abortion Monologues exist in stark contrast to the real world in which women seldom publicly discuss this choice. The characters in this play face everyday hardship, financial crisis, relationship break down, illness, death, radical shifts in expectations and the truth about themselves and their own deepest desires. The characters in this play will challenge you to think again about what you believe and why you believe it.
The Abortion Monologues is a play that will be showing in Calgary on Thursday February 4th. This show has already sold out - sorry, no more tickets available!
About the play: In these dramatic monologues, twenty-three women reveal the details of their lives, families and relationships as they tell the stories of their abortions. Sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking, but always thought provoking, The Abortion Monologues exist in stark contrast to the real world in which women seldom publicly discuss this choice. The characters in this play face everyday hardship, financial crisis, relationship break down, illness, death, radical shifts in expectations and the truth about themselves and their own deepest desires. The characters in this play will challenge you to think again about what you believe and why you believe it.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Abortion Monologues
In these dramatic monologues, twenty-three women reveal the details of their lives, families and relationships as they tell the stories of their abortions. Sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking, but always thought provoking, The Abortion Monologues exist in stark contrast to the real world in which women seldom publicly discuss this choice.
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010
Time: 7:30pm - 10:00pm
Location: The Leacock Theatre, Mount Royal University (4825 Mount Royal Gate SW)
Tickets at Mount Royal Conservatory Box Office
403.440.7770
General $25
Students $15
For more information visit abortionmonologues.com
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010
Time: 7:30pm - 10:00pm
Location: The Leacock Theatre, Mount Royal University (4825 Mount Royal Gate SW)
Tickets at Mount Royal Conservatory Box Office
403.440.7770
General $25
Students $15
For more information visit abortionmonologues.com
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Lila Rose vs. Planned Parenthood
Now, here's some tricky shit:
Lila Rose (UCLA student and president of pro-life action group Live Action) , has been receiving tons of media clamor following her series of undercover investigations into the apparent corruption within the Planned Parenthood organization. For those who don't know, PP is a publically funded American reproductive health and abortion services provider.
Last year, Lila Rose posed as a 14 year old trying to obtain a waiver from a judge which would give the 'girl' permission to carry out an abortion. Claiming that she had a 31 year old boyfriend, Rose (posing as the 14 year old) was advised by a Planned Parenthood employee to tell the court that her boyfriend was, "17 years old, whatever..." so as not to get the alleged boyfriend into any trouble. Her debate is that Planned Parenthood is operating under poor ethics and defying compliance with the law, therefore, endangering young girls in search of abortion services. The hidden-camera footage we see is out of context and, thus, likely missing some important content. We, the viewers, do not know what is said by either party before or after the clip. The employee could have retracted her suggestion some time after the camera stopped rolling. She may also have known facts about the girls said situation before making the suggestion to obscure the boyfriend's age.
I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what Lila's beef is. Her Live Action organization's project called the Mona Lisa Project accuses Planned Parenthood of contributing to the abuse of young girls by rushing them into abortions under any circumstances and often thrusting them back into the volatile and abusive environments from which they came seeking help. Not once does Lila or Live Action use its investigation to prove that being pro-choice is dangerous in itself. Are Lila Rose's motives political? Self-interested? The stories don't cut to the chase in terms of convincing me that abortion itself is criminal. The videos on the Live Action website tell very little of pro-life values and spend more time attacking corruption within this particular organization, making it difficult to determine where the catch is.
I may be playing the devil's advocate by pointing out that, in the video of Lila's encounter with the Planned Parenthood employee in Memphis, the employee does retract to say that [she] doesn't know whether the girl's boyfriend would get in trouble if the girl were or were not to tell the courts his "true" age. After all, I doubt that she is legally bound to tell the young girl what may possibly happen if the boyfriend's age were concealed. Although unsettling, it's possible the employee [her]self did not know what repercussions would ensue if the girl chose to take her advice. I would imagine that if it were eventually uncovered that the advice given to the "young girl" was to lie about her boyfriend's age, it would be somewhat difficult to criminally prosecute and subsequently charge Planned Parenthood for any illegal activity.
Who knows, maybe the employee did alert authorities once the girl left. Maybe the employee was poorly trained or not properly equipped with information on how to handle such a report. On the other hand, I imagine that without detailed information about this boyfriend, it would be a complex case to report anyway.
As discussed on the most recent episode of Yeah, What She Said, it's worrisome to think that people can be so devoted to bringing down organizations that deal with social issues most others prefer to avoid.
I must admit, I don't understand why the PP employee would encourage the girl to lie unless she was personally determined to see the girl wind up back in a relationship that was potentially unsafe; I won't deny that the video is disturbing in that sense. Live Action's reports on the Mona Lisa Project leave me questioning whether these reports are factual and if any crucial details have been omitted and, if these reports are legit, is PP as an organization behaving this way strictly out of carelessness? Seriously? The fact that Live Action will pursue their efforts to 'expose' corruptness in abortion service centers like Planned Parenthood bothers me. Is it abortion they are fighting against or is it crime? And is The Mona Lisa Project merely attempting to affect the generalized notion that abortion is crime? If so, it's a cheap tactic and it's unfortunate that Lila Rose and Live Action don't think the majority of us will be able see through it.
Among other notoriously right wing networks, Lila appears on Fox TV's Glenn Beck program (where Glenn ends up referring to her as "Twila"), for crying out loud...
Thoughts, please.
*Be sure to check out the Association for Women's Rights In Development's article for more on this.
Lila Rose (UCLA student and president of pro-life action group Live Action) , has been receiving tons of media clamor following her series of undercover investigations into the apparent corruption within the Planned Parenthood organization. For those who don't know, PP is a publically funded American reproductive health and abortion services provider.
Last year, Lila Rose posed as a 14 year old trying to obtain a waiver from a judge which would give the 'girl' permission to carry out an abortion. Claiming that she had a 31 year old boyfriend, Rose (posing as the 14 year old) was advised by a Planned Parenthood employee to tell the court that her boyfriend was, "17 years old, whatever..." so as not to get the alleged boyfriend into any trouble. Her debate is that Planned Parenthood is operating under poor ethics and defying compliance with the law, therefore, endangering young girls in search of abortion services. The hidden-camera footage we see is out of context and, thus, likely missing some important content. We, the viewers, do not know what is said by either party before or after the clip. The employee could have retracted her suggestion some time after the camera stopped rolling. She may also have known facts about the girls said situation before making the suggestion to obscure the boyfriend's age.
I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what Lila's beef is. Her Live Action organization's project called the Mona Lisa Project accuses Planned Parenthood of contributing to the abuse of young girls by rushing them into abortions under any circumstances and often thrusting them back into the volatile and abusive environments from which they came seeking help. Not once does Lila or Live Action use its investigation to prove that being pro-choice is dangerous in itself. Are Lila Rose's motives political? Self-interested? The stories don't cut to the chase in terms of convincing me that abortion itself is criminal. The videos on the Live Action website tell very little of pro-life values and spend more time attacking corruption within this particular organization, making it difficult to determine where the catch is.
I may be playing the devil's advocate by pointing out that, in the video of Lila's encounter with the Planned Parenthood employee in Memphis, the employee does retract to say that [she] doesn't know whether the girl's boyfriend would get in trouble if the girl were or were not to tell the courts his "true" age. After all, I doubt that she is legally bound to tell the young girl what may possibly happen if the boyfriend's age were concealed. Although unsettling, it's possible the employee [her]self did not know what repercussions would ensue if the girl chose to take her advice. I would imagine that if it were eventually uncovered that the advice given to the "young girl" was to lie about her boyfriend's age, it would be somewhat difficult to criminally prosecute and subsequently charge Planned Parenthood for any illegal activity.
Who knows, maybe the employee did alert authorities once the girl left. Maybe the employee was poorly trained or not properly equipped with information on how to handle such a report. On the other hand, I imagine that without detailed information about this boyfriend, it would be a complex case to report anyway.
As discussed on the most recent episode of Yeah, What She Said, it's worrisome to think that people can be so devoted to bringing down organizations that deal with social issues most others prefer to avoid.
I must admit, I don't understand why the PP employee would encourage the girl to lie unless she was personally determined to see the girl wind up back in a relationship that was potentially unsafe; I won't deny that the video is disturbing in that sense. Live Action's reports on the Mona Lisa Project leave me questioning whether these reports are factual and if any crucial details have been omitted and, if these reports are legit, is PP as an organization behaving this way strictly out of carelessness? Seriously? The fact that Live Action will pursue their efforts to 'expose' corruptness in abortion service centers like Planned Parenthood bothers me. Is it abortion they are fighting against or is it crime? And is The Mona Lisa Project merely attempting to affect the generalized notion that abortion is crime? If so, it's a cheap tactic and it's unfortunate that Lila Rose and Live Action don't think the majority of us will be able see through it.
Among other notoriously right wing networks, Lila appears on Fox TV's Glenn Beck program (where Glenn ends up referring to her as "Twila"), for crying out loud...
Thoughts, please.
Watch more Glenn Beck videos on AOL Video
*Be sure to check out the Association for Women's Rights In Development's article for more on this.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Kansas Abortion Doctor Murdered at Church
George Tiller, a doctor who performed late-term abortions, was murdered while attending church on Sunday morning.
Tiller has been targeted by anti-abortion activists many times before: he was shot in 1993 and his clinic was bombed in 1986.
President Obama has spoken out about this situation, saying "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."
Tiller has been targeted by anti-abortion activists many times before: he was shot in 1993 and his clinic was bombed in 1986.
President Obama has spoken out about this situation, saying "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
While Economy Slumps, Birth Control Increases
ACCESS, an Oakland-based women’s health organization, says 72% of women who call want information on abortion, which is up from 60% last year. A Chicago adoption agency has seen a 30% increase in pregnant women asking about adoption. Furthermore, a recent survey conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that one in five women is more conscientious about using birth control, and one in ten married women say the economy is a factor in their decision to postpone a planned pregnancy.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Campus Pro-Life to Support a Student Single Mom
Unless you've been living in a cave (or you live outside of Calgary) you've probably heard about the dispute between the University of Calgary and the student club Campus Pro-Life (CPL). If you haven't heard, check out this article for an overview.
Well, as I was walking through the University today I was stopped by a member of Campus Pro-Life and asked if I would like to donate to a bursary to support single mothers. Because I am always suspicious of CPL I asked the guy to explain this to me further. He said that the club is trying to raise at least $250 to give to a student single mother. He also mentioned that although people differ in their opinions about abortion, one thing we can all agree on is that single mom's could use some help.
So, I decided to donate to the cause, and I hope Campus Pro-Life are successful in their plan for this bursary. Although many things that CPL does really upsets me - their Genocide Awareness display is offensive and the club distributes inaccurate information about abortion - I am pleased to see CPL doing something constructive with their time and effort.
As the guy from CPL said, we're never going to agree on the issue of abortion - I won't change my mind and they won't change theirs - but maybe, just maybe, we can start focusing on the things we do agree on. And support for single mom's is definitely a cause I can get on board with.
Well, as I was walking through the University today I was stopped by a member of Campus Pro-Life and asked if I would like to donate to a bursary to support single mothers. Because I am always suspicious of CPL I asked the guy to explain this to me further. He said that the club is trying to raise at least $250 to give to a student single mother. He also mentioned that although people differ in their opinions about abortion, one thing we can all agree on is that single mom's could use some help.
So, I decided to donate to the cause, and I hope Campus Pro-Life are successful in their plan for this bursary. Although many things that CPL does really upsets me - their Genocide Awareness display is offensive and the club distributes inaccurate information about abortion - I am pleased to see CPL doing something constructive with their time and effort.
As the guy from CPL said, we're never going to agree on the issue of abortion - I won't change my mind and they won't change theirs - but maybe, just maybe, we can start focusing on the things we do agree on. And support for single mom's is definitely a cause I can get on board with.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tonight's Show - Current Events Mash-up
Tonight's show will be a general overview of some current happenings on the feminist circuit. I'll be talking a little bit about the situation surrounding the young girl who was recently raped and impregnated by her stepfather. I'll also be touching on Campus Pro Life Club's Genocide Awareness Project display that went up last week on the U of C campus. You can read an article about it from the U of C's news magazine, The Gauntlet. Finally, I'll be updating you on several events happening around town that are totally worth checking out.
Here are some helpful links related to some of the topics and events that will be featured on tonight's show.
Events Listings
Story Circle Woman Song presented with Sexual Health Access Alberta
Upcoming Events at the Women's Resource Centre
WAM! Women, Action and The Media
*This event took place over the weekend in the States but you can register for next year by visiting the site.
On another note, The Yeah, What She Said dynamic is about to change! Jennie Thunder and I will have a special show planned for April 20th to inaugurate the changes, so mark your calendars and be sure to tune in for more details!
Tune in tonight at 8:30pm MST to hear the full run-down on CJSW 90.9 FM or stream it live from CJSW.com.
Here are some helpful links related to some of the topics and events that will be featured on tonight's show.
Events Listings
Story Circle Woman Song presented with Sexual Health Access Alberta
Upcoming Events at the Women's Resource Centre
WAM! Women, Action and The Media
*This event took place over the weekend in the States but you can register for next year by visiting the site.
On another note, The Yeah, What She Said dynamic is about to change! Jennie Thunder and I will have a special show planned for April 20th to inaugurate the changes, so mark your calendars and be sure to tune in for more details!
Tune in tonight at 8:30pm MST to hear the full run-down on CJSW 90.9 FM or stream it live from CJSW.com.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Women Deserve Better - Women Deserve Choice
I discovered this talented slam poet a couple of years ago. In this spine-chilling performance she outlines the reasons why women desperately need reproductive choice. This video is truly inspiring - if it doesn't make you feel empowered at the same it almost makes you cry, I don't know what will.
Her name is Sonya Renee and you can check out her MySpace page for more info.
Her name is Sonya Renee and you can check out her MySpace page for more info.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Our Father...
If abortion is murder but risking a nine-year-old's life so that she may deliver twins (conceived when she's raped by her step-father, nonetheless) is not only okay but also expected, then murder and, evidently, a young sexual abuse victim's right to live are in the trusty and authoritative hands of the orthodox Catholic church. Now, don't we all feel safe? A special thanks to the Archdiocese of Olinda for teaching us what morality is all about.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Spinster Aunt: Gag rule bagged for 4 years
The blogosphere's favorite Spinster Aunt and writer behind "I Blame The Patriarchy" is exercising a little dissidence and is doing it in an interesting way as she tends to. Check out what she had to say about US President Barack Obama' s recent repeal on the global abortion gag rule a.k.a "The New Mexico Policy" , initially instilled by the Reagan Administration in 1984, repealed by Clinton in 1993 and revived again by G.Dub back in 2001.
I have to say, I appreciate her ability to strip away all the glitz and get straight to the facts... as subversive and far from straight-forward as they may be. See for yourself here. Below are a couple of links to articles on the New Mexico Policy from the past and the present.
Center for Reproductive Rights:
Obama Rescinds Global Gag Rule
Archive, from The New York Times (1987):
Abortions Abroad Are New Focus of Widening Battle Over Reagan's Policy
Thoughts...?
I have to say, I appreciate her ability to strip away all the glitz and get straight to the facts... as subversive and far from straight-forward as they may be. See for yourself here. Below are a couple of links to articles on the New Mexico Policy from the past and the present.
Center for Reproductive Rights:
Obama Rescinds Global Gag Rule
Archive, from The New York Times (1987):
Abortions Abroad Are New Focus of Widening Battle Over Reagan's Policy
Thoughts...?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Finally, Harper Does Something We Agree With!
From CBC News:
Abortion Debate Will Not Be Reopened
The Prime Minister's Office has reaffirmed its position that the government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate following a Conservative MP's comments that the issue needs to be addressed.
Abortion Debate Will Not Be Reopened
The Prime Minister's Office has reaffirmed its position that the government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate following a Conservative MP's comments that the issue needs to be addressed.
"Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue," Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, told the National Post. "We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion."
Although the issue has come up during election campaigns, Harper has insisted that it will not part of a Conservative government agenda. While he has not been specific about his own views, Harper has said they fall somewhere "between the two extremes."
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Pro-abortion is a dirty word!
This is a random post, and kind of late considering it was inspired by some comments John McCain said during the final presidential debate. During this debate, McCain kept using the word "pro-abortion" instead of pro-choice.
This really pissed me off because I hate the inference that being pro-choice means being pro-abortion. I think there are very few people out there that would actually fall under the category of "pro-abortion." I don't know anybody who actually WANTS to have an abortion and thinks they're fantastic. Nobody wants to go through that, but for many women, it's a necessary procedure.
Also, a lot of people don't understand that you can actually be against abortion for your own personal self, but be pro-choice when it comes to other women's lives. That's what being pro-choice is all about - it's about respecting the choices that other women make, and not judging them for it.
Fuck the term "pro-abortion." I hope pro-life folks will stop using it because its unfair and misleading.
This really pissed me off because I hate the inference that being pro-choice means being pro-abortion. I think there are very few people out there that would actually fall under the category of "pro-abortion." I don't know anybody who actually WANTS to have an abortion and thinks they're fantastic. Nobody wants to go through that, but for many women, it's a necessary procedure.
Also, a lot of people don't understand that you can actually be against abortion for your own personal self, but be pro-choice when it comes to other women's lives. That's what being pro-choice is all about - it's about respecting the choices that other women make, and not judging them for it.
Fuck the term "pro-abortion." I hope pro-life folks will stop using it because its unfair and misleading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)