Pro-Life Group Obtains Internal Documents Showing Pro-Abortion Strategy

LifeNews.com ^ | December 6, 2003 | Paul Nowak

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

Unless the U.S. public begins to rise up and fight this current holocaust, the "right" to kill unborn human beings will become cemented into law around the world.

About 3500 pre-born human beings die each day in the United States. The "right" to childless unprotected sex is extremely costly for those aborted and our society. Now is the time to get involved.

[The_Eaglet]

Bump for later review

[Jaysun]

I recently saw a document on National Organization for Women's (NOW) website in which they were discussing a way to get Federal funding for abortions. Their idea involved calling the baby a "parasite". They said that a person has the right to be protected by a police officer if someone is attacking them, and that the police officer is government funded. Likewise, they said that they must make the case that the unborn baby is "attacking" the Mother's body - and must also be protected via government funds. Sick.

[G.Mason]

As usual, the UN v/s the right of nations sovereignty are the issues here.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

I will always wonder how so many can maintain the absurdly hypocritical position of the pro-abortion crowd. They, as a matter of fact, hold the following view. "Now that I have lived through the pregnancy that gave me life and I support a woman's "right" to kill pre-born children just like me."

[Jaysun]

I agree. I maintain that there position is in fact so absurd that reason points to their having another motive besides "choice".

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

Yes, the one-worlders are busy making law for people they do not represent, whittling away at national sovereignty in relative secrecy. It is made more serious because our judges, who have sworn to uphold our constitution, are increasingly siting international law in their decisions.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

another motive besides "choice".

I agree that there must be some reason(s) that motivates them beyond common understanding.

1. The promise of truly "free sex" can only be realized when procreation can be positively short circuited, i.e. through baby killing.

2. Money is a big motivator for the baby killing industry, but the numbers of those who owe their income to this grizzly practice does not explain the level of political influence.

3. Those in the population control circles in world politics probably fantasize about unspoiled by so many human beings. Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.

4. Macro economic issues tie into the motivations for abortion in some ways I don't fully understand. In the short term, you can get a bump in productivity if less of it is spent on raising children. Any fool can see the down side of the policy long term. The department of labor has forecast major labor shortfalls in a couple of decades. I contend that a main brake on our economic growth is our low birth rate. I also believe that most of the social security shortage can largely be explained by a womans "right" to kill.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

3. Those in the population control circles in world politics probably fantasize about [a world] unspoiled by so many human beings. Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.

[philman_36]

A ping for ya'll for once and a BUMP!

[Aquinasfan]

If presented and repeated enough, such laws may become hard norms

They are masters of propaganda. Nothing here we didn't know already, but it's good to have confirmation.

[Aquinasfan]

Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.

There's a perverse logic to this that has its origins in hell.

[mware]

Could you give me a link to that comment regarding "parasite?"

I have a friend who has a radio talk show that would find that very interesting.

[Jaysun]

Those are all real reasons as to why the nuts support abortion. I think that the large thing that holds them all together is the fact that they see abortion as a way of making things equal between women and men. They see it as a way to further erode the family and a way to help them to their socialist goals. This is not only true for abortion (of course) but for other things that they're in support of such as homosexual marriage. Here's a quote from the goals of a 2000 workshop put on by the abortion loving NOW. It was entitled:

"Engaging the Political with the Personal: Domestic Partnership, Civil Unions and Marriage"

"Domestic partnership and same-sex marriage legislation and litigation may provide a vehicle for challenging some of our most oppressive social structures as they connect the profoundly personal with the political. What has been left out in recent domestic partnership and civil unions efforts? How can they serve to challenge the patriarchal foundations of our society?"

Other quotes from that workshop include:
"In this workshop participants can strategize for further media activism to change the face and body of the media"

"In this workshop activists will discuss what to do about affirmative action in this era of conservatism and complacency."

"Join a discussion on ways to achieve quality health care for all women."

"Make the media work for you!"

"Sowing the Seeds of Discontent in Conservative Areas"

"A panel of women who have achieved power in mainstream institutions —law, medicine, politics — discuss making change from the inside. Can you do the job you're expected to do and still carry out your commitment to equality? How do you advance feminism and not reverse your career? What can you bring to the movement, and what do you need from movement activists? Gain new insight into how we can strengthen each other's hands by playing an inside/outside strategy."

"Constitutional and Legal Strategies:"

http://www.now.org/organization/conference/2000/workshops.html

"We envision a world where patriarchal culture and male dominance no longer oppress us or our earth."

http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1998/vision98.html

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

[Jaysun]

Could you give me a link to that comment regarding "parasite?"
I have a friend who has a radio talk show that would find that very interesting.

__________________________________
I think this is it. It's interesting. It talks about how to get the state to pay for abortions, how to refer to abortions in legal terms in order to win, and hot to start thinking about how the unborn "invades the woman against her will" as if the baby is some kind of criminal. It'll make you sick - but it's a good read.

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/mcdonagh.html

[WaterDragon]

....international establishment of the "inalienable nature" of "sexual rights," including "sexual autonomy" for girls..

Somebody wants to make it legal to get very young girls into prostitution, eh? Hillary attended an international women's conference in Vienna while her husband was in the White House, and advocated lowering the 'age of consent' for girls to 12 years, also legalizing prostitution! And this, during the time that she and her husband were photographed smiling in the White House with the biggest, most notorious pimp (of women and children) in Asia! (and receiving illegal money from him, no doubt)

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...if they used ‘abortion’ they'd likely lose...."

The term "abortion" is too vague for legal processes and encompasses
too broad a spectrum both legally and medically.

The propaganda of both sides of this issue has always been the 
far side of preposterous; this entire scenario is a great example.

[and now we have "pre-born human beings"?]

 

[wjcsux]

The only comfort that Planned Parenthood gives me is knowing that Margret Sanger is being tormented for eternity in Hell.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Ababy is now a parasite? Oh dear God! Who is having sex with these "women"?