Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

i'd bet that most people who support roe v. wade are against abortion. let the hypocrites factor that!

KEvron
 

Even more, get this: not one pro-life group in the U.S. supports birth control.

Not one.

Best way not to need an abortion? Don't get pregnant. Best way not to get pregnant? Use birth control.

I don't think pro-life organizations that don't support birth control can reasonably be said to care about reducing abortion.
 

Nice to hear somebody say it out loud.
Yeah: they don't care at all about human life. They want to score easy political victories with emotional hot button issues, while ignoring anything in the way of viable or even sane solutions.
If they cared about human life, they'd care what happened to those that have been born, to put it all too simplistically.
And good on the Sioux for this one. As my pal the Tulsa Kid put it the other day, it'll probably turn into something along the lines of a religious expression debate.
Even more simply put: someone's gonna try to make abortion a sacrament (and it sounds like the Unitarians are already considering this), and then it Really gets nasty.
Not by necessity, either. The bedwetters on the right had this issue as their plaything for too long, and now it gets real. Thanks as usual, psychos.
 

It's especially ironic considering the state of affairs at many Indian reservations, including those of the Oglalla Sioux. If the folks behind the SD abortion ban were really the "culture of life" they claim to be, there'd be a helluva lot more attention paid to those livs already in existence instead of this preoccupation with lives that may never come to be.

PS to Bitch re: the birth control issue, according to these awful people, the best way not to get pregnant is, you know, not to have sex, Their position is that unless you are ready for more PKs running around, your lot in life is to never have sexual pleasure again. And, you're a slut and ho even to want to have sex for pleasure. What piched, mean lives those people lead.
 

Yeah, I know that we're not supposed to have sex. But the expectation, even by their standards, that a married couple will have a couple of kids and then never have sex again strikes me as one none of them are actually going to defend.
 

Two thoughts:
First about SEX as a NASTY: As was recently pointed out in the book "The Da Vinci Code" and soon to be movie that all the droolers love to hate having not read the book or yet seen the movie, all SEX, independent of a Man making a child is wrong in the Christian tradition (the jews however are required to have sex).
The suppression of the previous 10,000 years of the sacred feminine and the devine female goddess of fertility and birth, has resulted in really f.....d up chrisitan church. (Peter won, Mary lost)

The abortion issue is more about the continued suppression of the female side of the yin/yang as it is about life. In this context, Pro-Choice means that the sacred femine is in control, and Pro-Life becomes pro-male and the male side is in control.
I will submit that the pro-life movement is having an unintended consequence in that they have forced their opponents back to the basic principle that women are the major source of spiritual enlightenment in All religions.
They have inadverdently given strength to the esoteric christian movement around the world.

Second point: Oklahoma has 34 tribal entities that own several hundred parcels of "Soveriegn Indian Land" scattered around the State. Each and every parcel could house an abortion clinic and no-one could do a damn thing about it.
Big money could be made here. Every Casino could have an abortion clinic attached. Every Smoke Shop could have one in the back. Talk about unintended consquenses.
 

Sorry I just had an Epiphamy:
I saw lines of charterd buses from Texas roaring up I-35 in abortion convoys from Dallas and Austin etc.. They were headed to Oklahoma and the Indian Lands. In that Texas officially expelled all of their tribes in 1852, there are very few tribal lands there. So Oklahoma here they come.
 

Don't you think most of the tribes in Oklahoma, culturally, are thoroughly conservative-fundamentalist-Christian?

There are notable exceptions, such as Wilma Mankiller. But if an Indian in Oklahoma is a Christian, he-she's probably a fundy.

Maybe not. The modern incarnations -- so to speak -- of the churches that "civilized" the tribes in the first place are among the most liberal denominations.

Except for the Baptists. Always, always, whatever the topic, "except for the Baptists."
 

What'm I saying? If the tribes were *that* culturally conservative, they wouldn't be runnin' casinos. Doh!

And the first generations of Christian Indians, for good or ill, are spinning in their graves. I'll bet John Jumper hit warp speed a long time ago ...
 

Yes, Women have the choice to decide what to do with their own bodies. They do not have the right to take innocent life.

But by making that choice, they kill babies. Split hairs all you want. At the end of the day, an innocent life is snuffed out. Call it a choice. Call it freedom of expression. Call it the sexual revolution. Call it women's rights. Call it civil rights. Call it whatever you want. A baby still ends up dead. And you can't take that back. Dead. Dead. Dead. Say it to yourself. Dead. Abortion is killing. A choice to kill babies still makes a baby dead. It is not a question of semantics. It is killing.

How can people who claim to be compassionate have absolutely no copmpassion for innocent babies? Pro-choice is pro death. However you sanitize the phrase. babies still die.

There is no moral argument in favor of abortion. No. Nay, Never.
 

Mark, I realize you're on a mission. You've oversimplified it, of course, as usual, but you're on a mission. That's OK.
 

But, Mark, you're wrong again, as usual.

There are moral arguments for abortion -- you just don't buy them. And that's fine. But you're wroing to insist that there is no moral argument.

Here's one:

"When a woman is able to make decisions about when and under what circumstances she will have children, those children have a better chance of survival. That in turn helps them carry on and have their own children, carrying on the human race. 'In order to be biologically pro-life, you have to be politically pro-choice ...'

"This argument becomes clearer when you look at reproductive rights in a global context. 'Around the world, and in the Third World, reproduction is a matter of life and death and often that's simultaneous.' ... In Mali there's an expression: 'A woman who gives birth opens her own coffin.' Half a million women die every year from pregnancy-related causes. And when women die in childbirth, the children they've already given birth to often meet the same fate, because there's no one there to care for them."

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.indyweek.com
/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A22852

So, take it or leave. Make an argument, or respond to this one. But you do yourself no favors when you pretend that there is never a moral basis for abortion.
 

ER, yes, I do think every tribe would consider a clinic, and many will create them if need be at least for their own people.

I can't help but wonder how far will the pro-life movement take the crusade? Down to the contraception level? Should the egg in the slough-off from a woman's period be retained for its life potential? Does mastrabation count as murder(see Leviticus), or only if you don't save the seamen for future use?
Where is the line drawn in the 21st century?

What Pro-lifers want to do is control. Not save lives, but control. Pro-lifers are anti-death penalty? Pro-lifers support early childhood health and development programs? Pro-lifers involve their families in the adoption of thousands of hard to place multi-race disabled babies annually? Pro-lifers support programs that would allow women to afford to support children they would abort otherwise? When the answer is "yes" to all of these then pro-lifers will have the high moral ground and will win.
 

Ok, Mark. If your goal is to avoid killing babies, why don't pro-lifers support birth control and sex ed?
 

Here I am. I'm a pro-lifer. I also support birth control and sex education. (BTW, I'm also against the death penalty. I don't know how those two issues became linked, but somehow they are.) Yeah, I'd like people -- particularly teens -- to be wiser in their sexual choices, but let's be realistic. Some teens are going to have sex. So they need access to condoms, other birth devices and birth control pills. They need to understand what STDs are. They need help. They need support. They need wisdom and compassion instead of judgment. Heck, we all do.

Now, I'm a man, so maybe I think abortion is wrong because of my gender. That's possible. Having always been a man, it's impossible for me to know otherwise -- at least not without some drastic surgery. However, I know a lot of women who believe abortion is wrong and think birth control is okay. My sisters, my cousins, most of the women who comment on my blog. I know because we've talked about it.

Let's go a bit deeper. Abortion is a failure of our culture. It's a combination of a media that promotes irresponsible sexual behavior, a backward mindset that thinks giving out condoms promotes sex, an economy that discriminates against the poor and disadvantaged, a religious viewpoint that condemns abortion but doesn't put that money into orphanages and family crisis centers, and so on, so on.

Here's one final truth. I don't usually comment about these things because I think this talk is useless. None of you are going to change your minds due to this talk. Instead it's babble. Interesting babble, but does it change the world? Does it matter?

No. It doesn't. That's why you can find links on my site to various charities and organizations that are trying to make the world a better place. Why not try putting your money and your time where your mouth is?

How many orphanages and family crisis centers do you volunteer at? If you don't have the time, how much money do you give? Five dollars isn't much. Can you afford five dollars? Your internet connection probably costs that. How about your cable TV? Or your cigarettes? Your beer? Your candy? Couldn't you at least throw a link up on your site so that other people can give?

Faith without works is dead. How dead are you?

... Walks away from his pulpit and goes and gets a drink ...
 

Well, but abortion isn't a fault in our culture. Abortion has been around forever, and it occurs in a lot of cultures--although I suspect you're right in that it is more likely in cultures where women are economically disadvantaged and having children is both stigmatized and makes one economically vulnerable.
 

Thanks for weighing in, Tech. I know it must have hit you in a thoughtful place for you to do so.

But note: I have, indeed, changed my mind as these debates and arguments and cussings and discussions have progressed in this space -- a fact to which mi amiga, B, can attest.

Not saying the blog alone changed my mind -- but it definitely is a process of thinking, for those who think -- and thinking means changing your mind sometimes.
 

Tech already knows that for the die-hard pro-lifers what has been said is true. Just as the stereotype of die-hard pro-choicers is often true. Personally I am against abortion. I would get down on my knees and beg my children not to do it, if I thought they were considering such. But I can NOT advocate or support governmental intervention that would keep them from it. Government needs to stay the hell out of our morals, our souls, our bodies, and our minds.

Pro-life and pro-choice are false dichotomies. If we follow either to their extremes we are damn to a civil war that can not have a viable outcome.
 

By the way Tech I absolutely support your call to support these humanitarian interventions that can help stop abortions and support the sanctity of life. I will bet that many that read this blog do exactly that. It is on this ground that we may be able to solve this conundrum.
 

You know? I used to use that same argument. That it isn't a question of killing babies, it's a question of personal choice, but then I had to face the reality of the fact that when a woman makes that choice, it results in the death of an innocent child. That isn't as innocuous a reason as trying not to gain weight, for instance. It is a baby that is not just a part of the mother's uterus, but a living being in it's own right.

With it's own rights.

There is no moral reason to kill babies except to save the physical life of the mother. And that is extremely rare. In the case of Partial birth abortions, Former surgeon general C Everett Koop says partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother.

Never.

There is also never a reason to abort a baby because of rape or incest. Why take the life of an innocent baby because a crime was committed? It is punishing the innocent.

OK. I read the resource in the article you linked to. It seems to me the reaason for high mortality rates among women in childbirth can be lowered by education and proper nutrition. Instead of throwing up your hands and saying, "Well there is nothing that can be done to fix this problem, so just kill your babies." Why don't you intellectuals figure out a way to educate and feed these people?

Let me answer that for you. Because you really don't want to stop abortion. There is too much money in it for the "Pro-choice abortion providers and tissue sellers. (Oh, did you know there is a huge market for tissue from aborted babies?) Plus, if you didn't have the option of killing your babies, you might have to be sexually responsible, and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Survival? You aren't talking survival here. You are talking killing.

Finally, linking to a Planned Parenthood (a extremely biased organization that stands to lose millions if abortion is ever outlawed, so they definitely have a dog in this hunt) site featuring an article about a speech by Margaret Sanger's grandson isn't really credible, given that Margaret Sanger only founded the organization in an effort to eradicate all black people.

There is no moral argument for abortion, and Jesus would never condone killing babies just because having a baby is inconvienient.
 

Mark, as long as you call being pro-choice "advocating killing babies" -- you're lying. Stop it. Make your arguments. Don't lie. Very simple.

And don't talk to ME about "credible" sources, Kettle. Or are you Pot. Sheesh.
 

BTW, since you brought Him up: Jesus would never condone war. EVer. Or torture. EVer. Or lying. EVer. Or effing capitalism, for that matter. EVer. Shall I go on?
 

A View of a Contrarian Christ
Newsweek Book Review:
March 20, 2006 issue - Garry Wills's latest book, "What Jesus Meant," should affront most of his fellow Christians—right from the foreword, which argues that Christ was not one of them. The megachurch set won't care to hear that "Jesus did not come to replace the Temple with other buildings, whether huts or rich cathedrals." The Christian left, committed to good works, won't care to hear that Jesus "does not work miracles from humanitarian motives." The Christian right, cozy with secular power, won't care to hear that "if they want the state to be politically Christian, they are not following Jesus." Pope Benedict XVI really won't care to hear that he, "like his predecessors, is returning to the religion that Jesus renounced, with all its paraphernalia of priesthood." What parishioner of any denomination wants to hear that the Gospels are "a deep threat to the institutional church," since Jesus opposed "just about every form of religion we know"?

Read the whole thing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11769179/site/newsweek/
 

Mark, guess what? Liberals and feminists are working our asses off to educate and feed the poor. Isn't that one of the things conservatives hold against us? Wanting to support welfare, public education, and so on?

We don't want to stop abortion because we make money off it? Damn, no one's sending me a check. Planned Parenthood is the MOST ACTIVE organization in the entire nation at providing healthcare and education to poor women, women without insurance, and even men. I got my first birth control from them, which helped me, guess what? Not get pregnant, and therefore not need to consider abortion. My sister in law, who doesn't have health insurance, goes to PP for *her* birth control and her pap smears and her annual checkups, and even for prescriptions when she gets strep throat or whatever because they provide *all* those services for women.

Margaret Sanger, unfortunately, did make arguments in favor of birth control for eugenicist reasons (not, however, against blacks specifically; rather for poor people generally). That isn't, however, the primary reason she advocated for birth control. It was an unfortunate alliance she made, and one that I completely disagree with, but it came after many years of advocating for birth control for *all* women and it doesn't significantly change the impact of her work.

And I notice you didn't answer my question.
 

i like the way you spell "EVer"....

KEvron
 

Drlobojo, Whoa. That is my kind of Jesus. That book is on my to-buy list.
 

Careful ER youll become one of them there agonostics.
 

???

Religion is one thing.

Christianity is the bureaucracy that has grown up around the traditions of Jesus.

The Christian-industrial-media complex is quite another.

A conscious relationship with God through -- or because of, or starting with, or in association with -- Jesus is another.

It's that last thing that I hang on to. The rest of it will burn off.