This book was written by Bella Abzug's husband (1947):
Posted on 10/23/2015 12:59:00 PM PDT by Kaslin
Today is the first time I’ve read/heard the origin of the “Undeniable Truths” as newspaper column.
The very fact that she sits around thinking about how old her child would have been had she not killed it is strong evidence that she *does* feel guilty about it (whatever she might try to claim).
No woman, ever, has sat around thinking, "Gee, if only I had not been taking the pill that month, my kid would be x years old now." That's because she chose not to get pregnant--and that is truly a guilt-free choice.
I think the person who said: ‘Honey, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament’ was right.
Nope. The fact that a majority of women are pro-life puts the lie to that claim.
Speaking for myself, I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life...But still, I didn’t tell anyone. Because I knew that out there it wasn’t [positive].”
She didn't tell anyone, because she had to struggle with the same issue that women who kill their babies today have to struggle with: people stigmatize murderers. Especially since abortion is the antithesis of taking responsibility--nothing is more irresponsible than choosing to get pregnant because abortion is available and more convenient than being responsible.
She also said, “In later years, if I’m remembered at all it will be for inventing a phrase like ‘reproductive freedom’ ... as a phrase it includes the freedom to have children or not to.
Abortion is not, and has never been, about the freedom whether or not to have children. A big reason for abortion is so that "feminists" can "prove" how "liberated" they are. Pro-life women who would never consider killing their unborn kids can, and do, exercise their right to not have children all the time.
Does she realize that she just stuck a huge feather in el Rushbo’s cap?
Feminism was invented by a man.
Pray America wakes
HA! HA HA!
I have never heard that feminism was invented by a man.
However, I often point out that I am not a feminist. Young men ask me for relationship advice (because they think I am motherly, I guess), and I tell them to stay away from feminists.
Unbelievable!!!....the idea that men looked at young, nubile women in a sexual way was thought by many (in the liberal camp) to be a discovery ranking with finding King Tut's tomb. But that's libs.
Don’t blame Rush, blame the anti-woman Marxist cultural revolution that Kate Millet and other feminazis are engaging in:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200158/posts
Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 9-2-2014 | Mallory Millett
...During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”
What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.
Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”
I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.
And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.
How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.
How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?
I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.
Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”
Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love. Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.
By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.
The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.
Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant! (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told. You’re either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being “just like men” or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is “empowering” or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of “the oppressor.” All wives are just “one-man whores.”
She is to be heartless in this. No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby. She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way. And if the boy or man doesn’t “get it” then no sex for him; “making love” becomes “having sex.” “I’m not ‘having sex’ with any jerk who doesn’t believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim. He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)
There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow. “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!” In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals. (“Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!”) She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids. They’re such a bother and only get in the way.” They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”
Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, “Wow, man, I’ve gotta get laid and she won’t do it if I don’t agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it’s in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. As Mae West said, “When women go wrong men go right after them!”
I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me...
It was founded in the 1960s to "smash the patriarchy" and to take away men's "power". It wasn't about equality.
They were also silent when Sarah Palin was called the b-word, the c-word, and victim (along with her daughter) to being the subjects of rape jokes on television (from David Letterman, Sandra Bernard and others). A lot of vicious misogyny was on display in 2008 that women were supposed to ignore.
Wasn't Oprah already quite visible and powerful in the media (and rich) at that point?
When Bill Clinton was facing investigation over workplace sexual harassment (with multiple claims of rape, intimidation, payoffs, and threats), we were told that the first grope is 'free' and that his adulterous affair with Monica was "consensual". Yet, once upon a time, feminists insisted that it was wrong for 'the boss' to hire a sexy secretary and engage on overnight trips/trysts with her even if she was willing to be playfully chased around the office.
This book was written by Bella Abzug's husband (1947):
Lewinsky’s job at Revlon was a payoff to lie under oath in the Paula Jones case.
The business model may have been there in OTHER hush-ups of the Clinton administration.
She's a woman in hysterics.
GW Bush was NOT antagonistic towards AIDS relief in Africa.
No does NOT always mean NO to liberal feminazis. Planned Parenthood was busted encouraging minor girls bored by sex to engage in rough BSDM with their boyfriends and to learn about 'safe words' since in rape fantasy and abusive play, 'no' doesn't really mean 'NO'.
This used to be called corrupting a minor and was criminal activity.
You can be damn well sure that if only men could get pregnant, feminists WOULD be against abortion as a violent, misanthropic, selfish act.
Margaret Sanger was not for reproductive freedom. She was for eugenics and after WWII was demanding NO MORE BABIES for at least 10 years in Western Europe. She was not open to "choice".
Phil Donahue had a TV talk show (70’s ?) and when a stay at home mom would call in and admit this to his audience of “liberated” women, they would hiss with hatred and Donahue would ask the mom in the most contemptuous tone he could, “What did you do today?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.