Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 10 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 99

Thread: The Real Pro-abortion Agenda

  1. #1
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Actually, I read a LOT of columnists.

    Here is another one that struck me, as it shows, pretty definitively, what goes on behind the frontlines of the abortion issue.

    The author is a lady by the name of Maggie Gallagher.

    The campaign against children
    Maggie Gallagher (archive)

    December 25, 2003

    The package came to Austin Ruse's office in Washington, D.C., about a month ago, anonymously. Austin runs a small think tank, The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, whose mission, he says, is to be "a U.N. watchdog on social policy." No doubt that is why the document ended up on his desk. The thing sat on his desk for several days before he realized what a time-bomb someone had sent to him: a secret plan to create an international right to abortion.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights apparently realized how damaging the memo is, too. I have in my hand a copy of the letter CRR sent to Austin Ruse, in which CRR (a group of "brilliant, focused, sophisticated lawyers who can fight and win," according to the document) "demands" that he "immediately cease and desist from copying, describing, disseminating, quoting, or in any way using or conveying the information contained in those documents." CRR's hotshot lawyers seem to be under the delusion they can rewrite not only international law, but the First Amendment too. Disclosure of their "proprietary information and trade secrets," the bullies acknowledge, will cause "CRR irreparable harm."

    One certainly hopes so.

    The document is dripping with contempt for democracy and decency. For example, speaking of the recently enacted partial-birth abortion ban (which passed both the House and Senate with strong majorities), CRR ponders: "What good is all our work if the Bush administration can simply take it all away with the stroke of a pen?"

    Deceit is a core part of their strategy. They acknowledge there is no international norm that regards abortion as a basic human right. Even in this country, there is no such social consensus, and the document acknowledges that a growing number of young people appear to reject the idea of abortion as a right.

    But who cares about truth or what the signers meant? The goal is to quietly get quasi-judicial tribunals, aka human rights commissions, to start to create an international right to abortion that can then be imposed on vulnerable poor countries dependent on international aid.

    You doubt me? Read it for yourself: Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., introduced the entire document into the Dec. 8 Congressional Record (which you can access at www.c-fam.org). He called the plan a "Trojan Horse of deceit," demonstrating "how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definition." CRR's document itself concedes, "There is a stealth quality to the work" of creating new international legal norms "without a huge amount of scrutiny ..."

    And abortion is just the beginning of CRR's expansive version of "reproductive rights." The CRR's hit list includes schools that do not hand out condoms, and abstinence education programs. They are committed to "staving off efforts to require parental involvement" in abortion. Most hideous of all (and I do not use the word lightly), CRR aims to undo "child abuse reporting requirements" with respect to what it calls "nonabusive" sexual relations with minors. An international right to have sex with young people? No doubt CRR is reacting to the public embarrassment Planned Parenthood faced when journalists discovered that many of its personnel were unwilling to abide by child sex abuse reporting requirements.

    The document notes that such sex rights for minors have "always been one of our priority areas," and that "this is a topic about which we can coordinate efforts with our international program." Downsides include: "We will likely have to confront the politically difficult issue of whether minors have a right to have sex."

    No wonder so many people around the world hate us. No wonder so many Americans have protested the Supreme Court's recent unconstitutional efforts to base its decisions for us Americans in part on "international law and norms" -- laws and norms that are created by the good folks at places like CRR. Coming soon to a school, home and community near you.



    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Arm's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a well
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,461
    Yeah the Pro-lifers claim to be pro-life until the child is born then he(or she, whatever) can face heavy poverty, lousy education and be killed in one of their countries illegal wars. What hypocrites. Push abortion to the whole world. Why not? It's existed in ancient India and Egypt so why not make it worldwide?

    Not everyone can raise kids or wants kids and if they cant raise them or don't want to raise them it's better to not ever have the kid alive because then the kids life is screwed up and so is the parent.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Originally posted by Arm@6 January 2004 - 02:00
    Yeah the Pro-lifers claim to be pro-life until the child is born then he(or she, whatever) can face heavy poverty, lousy education and be killed in one of their countries illegal wars. What hypocrites. Push abortion to the whole world. Why not? It's existed in ancient India and Egypt so why not make it worldwide?

    Not everyone can raise kids or wants kids and if they cant raise them or don't want to raise them it's better to not ever have the kid alive because then the kids life is screwed up and so is the parent.
    One could drown in the profundity of your insight, Arm.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    Oh please, j2.

    The document is dripping with contempt for democracy and decency. For example, speaking of the recently enacted partial-birth abortion ban (which passed both the House and Senate with strong majorities), CRR ponders: "What good is all our work if the Bush administration can simply take it all away with the stroke of a pen?"
    "Dripping with contempt"?
    This screed is a florid, overblown piece of trash.
    it shows, pretty definitively, what goes on behind the frontlines of the abortion issue.

    The author is a lady by the name of Maggie Gallagher.
    The only thing that this shows "definitively" is what goes on in the mind of Maggie Gallagher.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Clocker-

    CRR's document itself concedes, "There is a stealth quality to the work" of creating new international legal norms "without a huge amount of scrutiny ..."


    What, specifically, do you make of this?

    Why would any "stealth quality" be required to enact something everyone in every country agrees upon?

    And this:

    And abortion is just the beginning of CRR's expansive version of "reproductive rights." The CRR's hit list includes schools that do not hand out condoms, and abstinence education programs. They are committed to "staving off efforts to require parental involvement" in abortion. Most hideous of all (and I do not use the word lightly), CRR aims to undo "child abuse reporting requirements" with respect to what it calls "nonabusive" sexual relations with minors. An international right to have sex with young people? No doubt CRR is reacting to the public embarrassment Planned Parenthood faced when journalists discovered that many of its personnel were unwilling to abide by child sex abuse reporting requirements.


    Odd.

    No mention of an intent to define "nonabusive".

    This would seem to go hand-in-hand with the ACLU's penchant for defending NAMBLA.

    BTW-Why is such effort expended to preclude parental input?

    Is it necessary to "throw the baby out with the bath-water" (sorry) in every case, even if the parents don't pose a difficulty?

    This smacks of laziness on the part of the C.R.R.; to say, in effect, "the majority of parents, who are good, shall be lumped in with the abusive ones, for convenience' sake, and because their involvement could interfere with the advance of our agenda"?

    To paint everyone with the same brush is an incredible injustice, Clocker, and I can't believe you would condone this.

    Do you also condone the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Originally posted by j2k4@5 January 2004 - 21:48
    You doubt me? Read it for yourself: Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., introduced the entire document into the Dec. 8 Congressional Record (which you can access at www.c-fam.org). He called the plan a "Trojan Horse of deceit," demonstrating "how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definition."
    i'm not particularly interested in the abortion controversy, but this made me chuckle anyway. a person who holds an elected office (it ranks, what, somewhere near "test tube full of AIDS mixed with ebola and pubic lice" on the list of vile, tainted things that someone could choose to hold?) accusing others of deceit and the twisting of words. of all the cynical, hypocritical... may as well have ted kennedy accuse people of being big fat drunks... have stephen ambrose accuse people of plagiarism... have the lunatics run the asylum, have the pot call the kettle black...

    it's the duty of every politician and political columnist to be a clever propagandist and to twist words. one man's liberation of WMDs from a real evil baddie is another man's war of aggression. one man's american is another man's unamerican. one man's pro-choice is another man's pro-abortion. one man's definitive columnist is another man's zealous crackpot. nobody is completely innocent of twisting words in even the most dreary, mundane pronouncements, you know?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    MagicNakor's Avatar On the Peripheral
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,401
    Having just spent half an hour reading that congress document, I feel confident in saying that it is not "...dripping with contempt for democracy and decency." Ms. Gallagher is simply being sensational, a "quality" which is further enhanced by the ludicrous comment that "a growing number of young people appear to reject the idea of abortion as a right." That opinion was based on the observation that a "national pro-life campaign aimed at teens [is] garnering more public attention."

    There's also quite a large section on HIV/AIDS in those memos, which has apparently been ignored.


    ...As interpretations of norms acknowledging reproductive rights are repeated in international bodies, the legitimacy of these rights is reinforced. In addition, the gradual nature of this approach ensures that we are never in an ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ situation, where we may risk a major setback. Further, it is a strategy that does not require a major, concentrated investment of resources, but rather it can be achieved over time with regular use of staff time and funds. Finally, there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values
    without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition. These lower profile victories will gradually put us in a strong position to assert a broad consensus around our assertions...
    (Italics mine.) Maggie Gallagher is pretty selective of what she chooses to comment on.


    ...We have been leaders in bringing arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion within the rubric of international human rights...Bolstered by numerous soft norms, the assertion with widest international acceptance is that a woman’s right to be free from unsafe abortion is grounded in her rights to life
    and health.
    ...The Center’s commitment to reproductive rights includes a woman’s right
    to control if and when she becomes pregnant. We considered possible ways that we may be able to expand our work in the area of contraception, including potentially focusing on: (a) funding restrictions (e.g., restrictions in Medicaid, Title X, and in abstinence-only programs); (B) government restrictions, both on a macro and micro level (e.g., statutes and or regulations; police harassment of sex
    workers by destroying condoms; school policies that prohibit condom distribution);
    ...
    ...III. Misleading Information
    Articulation: This area includes the following issues, which we believe contain misleading information by definition, or often incorporate misleading information: (1) abstinence-only education; (2) abortion/breast cancer link; (3) crisis pregnancy centers (‘‘CPC’s’’); and projects by anti organizations such as Life Dynamics Inc. (‘‘LDI’’) that distribute misleading information. The most noteworthy project by LDI was their campaign to public schools indicating that a school, or school employee, could be legally liable for distributing reproductive health
    information to students...
    Just a few more excerpts from the memo. While I don't think the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute is a stellar choice for unbiased information, most of the memos appear to be there.

    Maggie Gallagher's stance appears to be "information and education is bad" as well as "abortion is bad." Considering her affiliations, this isn't unexpected, but to condone abstinence-only education programs (a very poor idea if there ever was one) and the inability for people to have access to contraception isn't going to help society out at all, and with reference to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa, it could be devastating, as there is so much misinformation about the disease.

    Likely more later, but I think one of those rolling blackouts is coming soon. Stupid cold making everyone use all the electricity... :

    things are quiet until hitler decides he'd like to invade russia
    so, he does
    the russians are like "OMG WTF D00DZ, STOP TKING"
    and the germans are still like "omg ph34r n00bz"
    the russians fall back, all the way to moscow
    and then they all begin h4xing, which brings on the russian winter
    the germans are like "wtf, h4x"
    -- WW2 for the l33t

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    What, specifically, do you make of this?

    Why would any "stealth quality" be required to enact something everyone in every country agrees upon?
    Gee, I dunno.
    Maybe to escape the attention of well-funded fundamantalist Christian/politically conservative groups who's mission is to force their agenda on the world?
    Obviously, "everybody" in "every country" doesn't agree on any issue. Can you think of a single universally accepted doctrine?
    Odd.

    No mention of an intent to define "nonabusive".

    This would seem to go hand-in-hand with the ACLU's penchant for defending NAMBLA.

    BTW-Why is such effort expended to preclude parental input?

    Is it necessary to "throw the baby out with the bath-water" (sorry) in every case, even if the parents don't pose a difficulty?
    Actually, what's odd is your attempt to link one group with another ( presumably more dispicable one) by random association. Even Ms. Gallagher couldn't strain the issue far enough to link abortion rights and Nambla.
    "Such effort" has to be expended specifically to include the children of abusive parents.
    No where does it say that parents must be excluded from the process.
    Do you also condone the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA?
    A red herring thrown into the debating ring, j2.
    One issue is completely irrelevant to the other.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    uNdEaD$$$
    Guest
    Abortions should be legal. Don't get me wrong I love life but lot's of people live impossibly miserable lives and their parents should have the choice to abort them.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Well then, let's continue:

    For what reason(s) would the C.R.R. cop this attitude?

    The Center for Reproductive Rights apparently realized how damaging the memo is, too. I have in my hand a copy of the letter CRR sent to Austin Ruse, in which CRR (a group of "brilliant, focused, sophisticated lawyers who can fight and win," according to the document) "demands" that he "immediately cease and desist from copying, describing, disseminating, quoting, or in any way using or conveying the information contained in those documents." CRR's hotshot lawyers seem to be under the delusion they can rewrite not only international law, but the First Amendment too. Disclosure of their "proprietary information and trade secrets," the bullies acknowledge, will cause "CRR irreparable harm."


    A pro-abortion organization has "proprietary information and trade secrets"? What could they possibly be?

    It sounds like they want a unilateral shut-down of opposing views, as you accuse the pro-life side of doing.

    As far as your objection to my strategic linkage of intent/agenda between the C.R.R. and the ACLU, why not?

    If the shoe fits......

    If you can throw the "fundamentalist Christian" blanket over what you see as the "opposition", how can you deny them the same right?

    Both sides can shop at the "Broad Brush" store.

    What we have here is another example of extreme rhetoric (on both sides) depriving the argument of a "middle ground".

    I don't think anyone could accuse me of being "fundamantalist" in any way, but do I need to suffer the accusation merely to make the point?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

Page 1 of 10 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •