Posted on 11/23/2004 1:19:13 PM PST by bushisdamanin04
Here is a list of “religious” members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The list is from their website. Some may be surprised to see that their “churches” are officially pro-abort “churches.” The list:
Conservative Judaism
Rabbinical Assembly
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church
Ethical Culture Movement
American Ethical Union
National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union
Humanist Judaism
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO)
Women’s Ministries
Washington Office
Reconstructionist Movement
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Reform Judaism
Central Conference of American Rabbis
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Union for Reform Judaism
Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women’s Rabbinic Network of Central Conference of American Rabbis
United Church of Christ
Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church
General Board of Church and Society
General Board of Global Ministries, Women’s Division
Unitarian Universalist
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation
Young Religious Unitarian Universalists
Caucuses/Organizations
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith
Catholics for a Free Choice [NOT recognized by Roman Catholic Church!!!]
Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus
Disciples for Choice
Episcopal Urban Caucus
Episcopal Women’s Caucus
Hadassah, WZOA
Jewish Women International
Lutheran Women’s Caucus
Methodist Federation for Social Action
NA’AMAT USA
National Council of Jewish Women
Women’s American ORT
YWCA of the USA
Yep...just like mushrooms....they feed us sh*t & keep us in the dark. What surprises them is the backlash when we do finally wake up to discover we've been played for fools. It's a lot harder to keep dastardly deeds under wraps now because of the Internet.
Just curious, does that include "reproductive choice" for MEN?
>>Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church should be able to get an injunction forbidding this person from using their name.<<
O come now, if they could do that, the medieval Catholics would never have let the Protestants call themselves "Christians." If she called her outfit "Roman Catholics for Free Choice," maybe they'd have a chance.
I've never seen "church discipline" in our church to the point where someone is brought before the entire congregation, but have to believe this is one issue that would be a line in the sand, at least in our SBC congregation.
From what I understand, there isn't much difference between Unitarians and the United Church of Christ. I've always thought that if you decide to put the Name of Jesus on your church, you'd better be correct.
INTREP
Men have no reproductive "rights." We're just donors.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
Agreed. Something else that the law does that may knock your socks off is where a man is paying child support and tests subsequently reveal that he is NOT the father, the law will often require him to continue to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."
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.