In response to my article, "
The New Underground Women's Movement."
Thanks for the article. I emailed it immediately to our Pro-Life committee at St. Monica's Catholic Church on Mercer Island, WA. Even in this very liberal state the pro-life movement is very alive and well, thank God!
Great post! I have a lefty friend on Myspace that thinks she is so righteous in her radical views. I would like to post your post on Myspace to also hit my conservative friends out there in the ethers. Full props to you and Townhall.com of course. Again Great post and go get 'em.
I write to pass along an observation that I believe to be highly relevant to the women's choice, right-to-life debate. A couple of years ago, I read a
biography of a man who has supported the abortion movement from back in the 1950s/1960s in California, and was central to litigating the California Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to abortion. That case was then cited in Roe v. Wade.
What struck me in that biography was the author's inquiry to the subject why he was such a devoted advocate of abortion when he himself had eight children between himself and his second wife, and was a devoted family man. His response was that he had wrestled with that apparent paradox, but had concluded that the threat of global overpopulation was the over-riding concern that he must give precedence.
So, you see? His motivation is to persuade women to destroy their children so his can have more space in the world.
The book is "Damn Right!," a biography of Charley Munger, the billionaire business colleague of Warren Buffet.
Jennifer, what an awesome article!! Bravo! It's wonderful to hear how we REAL women are for life. Any women's magazine tells therwise, and assumes that all women are pro-abortion and liberal. God Bless you and your family!
Excellent observation. I prefer the company of pro-life people, much the same way I prefer the company of veterans versus draft-dodgers.
1 comment:
'So, you see? His motivation is to persuade women to destroy their children so his can have more space in the world.'
As a male poster I would consider a more articulate argument which is simply that certain groups of females are misled into believing that a course of action they take with culture and society is truly beneficial to females.
However, extraploating the statement above, a more sinister plot can be derived. Humor my point at this juncture, as I would suggest that simple commerce is at play, and absolute dysfunctional gullibility is present.
Males and females have always had the most tentative of relationships, each on a cultural level previously serving a natural purpose. Common to both genders is natures reward and bond, that being children. The tool for the subversion of the family for commerce is a simple equation in longterm fiscal and demographic projections and practice.
The advent of instant media visual and auditory coercion techniques resulting in the type of consumer pacification we have here, does not allow for the radical excision of surplus future human requirements. Instead we implement the use of polarizing politics. The decay among unwanted classes both male and female is a slam dunk, end of speculation.
Andrew
Post a Comment