Here are the NOW founders at their forming in 1965, that was the year when boomers ranged in age from 1 to 19, no one in this photo is that young.
Posted on 12/01/2009 12:25:56 PM PST by rhema
The die-hard days of radical pro-abortion feminism are disappearing. The era of "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "women's rights," are fading as the most adamant pro-abortion activists age.
Sheryl Stolberg writes in her new piece at the New York Times of a "generational divide" among those in the pro-abortion camp:
“The language and values, if you are older, [are] around the right to control your own body, reproductive freedom, sexual liberation as empowerment,” said Anna Greenberg [a Democratic pollster who studies attitudes toward abortion]. “That is a baby-boom generation way of thinking. If you look at people under 30, that is not their touchstone, it is not wrapped up around feminism and women’s rights.”
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida and chief deputy whip of the House,[said that if] she had to round up her own friends “to go down to the courthouse steps and rally for choice,” she is not certain she could. When older women have warned that reproductive rights are being eroded, she said, “basically my generation and younger have looked at them as crying wolf.”
Stolberg's theory seems like a good one at face value. She constructs that argument that younger generations aren't as rabidly pro-abortion as older generations because they never grew up in a world where abortion was illegal. But a key component in the ideological shift is missing.
The abortion debate has not continued in a vacuum since Roe v. Wade. We've seen major technological advancements in the way of sonograms and embryoscopies. If you haven't seen video obtained through an embryoscopy, you're missing out. A small camera inserted into the womb captures video images like an unborn child's beating heart, fully developed fingers, toes, and more. (Watch a video here).
The article makes one mention of this notion before quickly moving on:
“Not only is this the post-Roe generation, I’d also call it the post-sonogram generation,” said Charmaine Yoest of American United for Life.
As the radical feminists of yesteryear grow older, new generations are replacing them in politics. And each new generation is becoming more and more pro-life! It's not a matter of apathy for “women’s rights,” it's a matter of a changing world where we now know and can see the humanity of the unborn child.
What thou do unto the least of my bretheren thou doest unto me’’.
That’s why they urge liberals to get into the education field,
so that they can indoctrinate the children of the “breeders”.
im not gonna miss those fat, abrasive, misanthropic, dysfunctional modern women, that’s for sure.
This thread ends up bashing women, albeit femminist women.
You make it sound like the men they were with had nothing to do with abortions, or still don’t. And femminists , while vocal, were but a small minority of the women who get abortions. And most of the women were married women whose husbands went along with the idea, or just ‘didnt’ want to know”. Do you really all think that thousands of women get all these abortions without the knowledge and financial help from their men?
The right always has been rather hypocritical on the abortion issue. They only blame two groups: femminists and the doctors who actually perform the abortions.
In all the attempts to make abortion illegal, there has never been ONE law that would include the doctor, the nurses, the woman having the abortion and her husband and/or boyfriend, the parents if they allowed it. At least THAT law then would follow through and not be hypocritical.
The significance of my point is that IF such a law ( to include everyone involved) were suggested....the discussion would involve the men, the families, etc. the result would be Less abortions because the reality would set in and everyone would be —including society, which includes men—more supportive of NOT having abortions.
the irony is that when science showed the unborn and the whole family saw that..there were less abortions.
Here are the NOW founders at their forming in 1965, that was the year when boomers ranged in age from 1 to 19, no one in this photo is that young.
In the public school setting (Minnesota) in which I worked for a lot of years, I heard many more pro-life sentiments from students than I did pro-choice.
Polls like these are deservedly worrisome to the aging zealots of NARAL:
A 2003 Gallup poll compared the abortion views of 517 teens, aged 13 to 17, with those of more than 1,000 adults. When asked whether abortion should be allowed under "any" circumstance, adults were more likely to say yes than teens (26 percent to 21 percent). More stunningly, when asked whether abortion should be allowed under "no" circumstances - i.e., be outlawed - 33 percent of teens said yes, compared with only 17 percent of adults.
Another poll, released in January 2006 by Hamilton College and Zogby International, asked 1,000 high-school seniors about the morality of abortion. Two-thirds said it was immoral, with 23 percent saying it was "always" morally wrong and 44 percent saying it was "usually" morally wrong.
“She constructs that argument that younger generations aren’t as rabidly pro-abortion as older generations because they never grew up in a world where abortion was illegal.”
They are all abortion survivors.
I hope you’re right.
The ever-declining ranks of pro-choicers will never admit it, though. Whenever I debate on abortion-related Internet forums, pro-lifers are always posting poll results, links to sites that show intrauterine/ultrasound pictures of the unborn, stories of women whose lives have been devastated by abortion, etc. Pro-choicers answer with . . . pitiful, hackneyed slogans from the 1970s.
1) NARAL president Nancy Keenan speaking to the Democratic Party Platform Committee, August 2008: "Roe v. Wade is a shell of its former self. Since 1995, American politicians have passed more than 550 laws limiting women’s reproductive freedom. In nearly 90 percent of counties across America, there is no access to abortion because there is no abortion provider."
2 "In an email [Sept. 30] to her group's supporters, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards complained that pro-life groups are doing more to generate calls and emails to Congress than her group. . . .
"Make no mistake -- Planned Parenthood has been working with legislators day and night," she continues. "But when it comes to hearing from regular people, the contact with voters that matters most to members of Congress, we're getting out-hustled, outnumbered, and just plain drowned out."
I agree... although the younger generation is more likely to approve of adultery and homosexuality.
They do seem to be more pro-life though, which is a great step forward.
A tale of two January 22 gatherings.
About 18-20 times in the past 35 years, I've attended the January 22 March for Life at the Minnesota State Capitol. Even in sub-zero wind chills, I've never seen fewer than 3,000-4,000 pro-lifers there. In some years, especially when January 22 falls on a weekend, I've seen as many as 12,000. All ages are there: grandpas and grandmas, moms and dads, teenagers, toddlers, babes in arms. Christians, Jews, and atheists are there. Republicans and Democrats are there (I often see the latter clustered around their Democrats for Life banner). Thousands of pro-lifers, every year for 35 years. There's absolutely no diminution in the zeal to fight for the cause of life.
What do pro-choicers do on January 22, you ask? Oh, about a couple hundred of them gather in some warm hotel meeting room in St. Paul and wring their hands about the "assaults" on poor, beleaguered Roe v Wade.
Thousands, rallying for life, outside in the cold. A few hundred, rallying for death, inside a warm hotel room.
I think that's good news.
I remember showing a liberal employee at work a 4D UltraSound of my daughter 3 and a half months in the womb.
He said “Wow! How far along is it?”
“Three and a half months” I replied
“Really???”
It clearly really surprised him and he seemed to even get a little comforbable at that time.
Many women are crediting ultrasounds for saving babies they'd otherwise have aborted.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I agree with you. As a boomer who was exactly 4 yo when NOW was formed I had zero to do with the femnist movement or legalizing abortion. IMHO it is the silent generation who did this those born during WWII which was the generation before the boomers.They would’ve been in their late 20’s and thirties in 1973.
All of that and the immutable truth that abortion is indeed murder.
The self-loathing and fear of the abortion mafia shows most deeply in the histrionics of their rhetoric.
These “women” have to look in a mirror every morning when they are at an age when looking into a mirror shows more of a soul than a face, and they hate what they see.
A life barren of family and contentment. A life of wasted anger. A future without a husband to snuggle with, without children to be proud of, without grandchildren to spoil rotten...
All, basically, because they thought that their selfish politics and indulgent demands for instant gratification could somehow overthrow and replace thousands of years of successful human civilization and Divine planning.
I almost want to pity them. Whatever brave face they show the rest of the world, they must be empty inside.
The silent generation ranged in age from 15 to 35 in 1960, so they were the dominate 1960s generation as far as youth and youth leaders go in music and drug dealers and such, their parents were the government and the institutions etc, and boomers like Sarah Palin had not even been born yet.
Blessings on them.
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.