Posted on 11/04/2005 3:57:52 AM PST by Diago
Hubby is not Jewish. And you haven't read any of my posts have you? *sighs*
I have to be brutally honest - that's just double speak. You cannot be 'pro-life' and be in favor of laws which say it is perfectly okay to kill innocent babies in the womb. That's like saying the Germans who supported keeping Hitler's laws relating to Jews were 'pro-Jew'.
No. I don't. That was uncalled for. Kind of like the person who asked if I was married, because they thought I wasn't. Or the guy in line when I went to vote who berated me for wearing a nose ring -- said he "knew" I was voting for Kerry because "you look like one of them." Apparently really long, curly, red hair, black/funky clothes, and a nose ring declared my political intent. *rolls her eyes*
I suppose I could ask people on here if they are male and allow their wives to: Cut their hair? Wear make up? Leave the house without permission? Have multiple wives and rule them all?
But no, I wouldn't do that, and wouldn't presume that of any of you? To presume that I am a lesbian, divorced, a liberal, a moron (yes one post said that), evil, immoral, a satan worshiper or a stockholder is reading far more into anything I wrote than what I wrote.
Let's stop the attacking, please? PLEASE? I beg, BEG. . . reasonable debate is fine, but I would no sooner accuse any of you of anything like that and I don't understand resorting to petty nastiness and snide comments. Well I do understand it, but let's not go there, please?
I wonder how many Condi Rices and wonderful girls like yours and mine were in the 20,000,000 girls killed by abortions?
Instead of "I Can", these girls "Can't"
Well said.
Why don't people launch protests against tv shows like 'Sex in the City" and "Housewives"------instead of worry about overturning Roe-Wade, Sexy T-shirts for teens and now DOLLS-----start at the beginning and preach morality. Quit watching these shows!!!
One more post on here. I called AG and talked to a very nice operator today. Apparently a lot of right wing has been calling and yelling and yes they are listening. They are taking callers zip codes and their stance on the issue.
BUT, here is what I did find out. The money that AG donates specifically goes to three programs within Girls Inc.
1 -- Operation Smart. Focusing on Math, Science and Technology
2 -- Discovering Leadership. Comminity Awareness.
and
3 -- Sporting Chance -- a program that encourages girls to try and experience different sports. Encourages physical fitness.
That is the AG stance on it. She said they do realize that some people say that that frees up money to other allocated things. But also realize it may just enhance those particular programs.
I'm placing a call to Girls Inc in a bit as well to inquire about resources becoming available for other opinions on issues. If they have more thorough printed lists and the like.
"Here you have a company that actually created dolls that look like little girls instead of hookers"
According to the founder of the company (pre-Mattel) this was indeed her intent. Part of the marketing strategy behind these dolls was that they were AGE-APPROPRIATE and a wholesome alternative to Barbie the bimbo. I still suspect Mattel is behind this.
I think the point is that people are looking at TOYS as TOYS, not something agendized...
Wouldn't it be nice, fair, respectful to at least offer options and not simply plug one program?
Is it honestly too much to ask to simply keep the agendas out of it altogether??? No one is asking to attach Bibles to Molly's hand or demand that Samantha shun a lesbian classmate...
And FYI friend, it isn't just the "religious right" as you seem to dismissively imply...this is something that my group of friends has discussed and not all of them fit into any one narrow box....
Lots of things exist, but it isn't quite that simple is it? Does the existence of something make it right? Does the legality of something make it right?
Abortion is legal, so was slavery....so was the denial of a woman's right to vote.
And General Motors, FYI, is not geared toward a target audience of 7-12 year olds....I am going to assume that you were just being dramatic without the real belief that a toy company and a car company market to the same folks.
No digging is necessary to find it...my 12 year old managed it in less than 5 minutes before I even knew about the controversy.....she received a band as a party favor and was seeing what the group was about.
As for it being secondary....hard to say....among the feminists I have known and been raised around, it is hardly secondary, in fact it is the raison d'etre.
It is like when I approached the NOW table at a local event to ask them if it was agroup for all women or just liberal ones...she said all women...but after being pressed on a few key issues, abortion, afirmative action etc. she had to admit there was no room for diversity of opinion.
One look at the GI website and by reviewing the organization's leaders interviews on the topic, it is clear that there is not room for diversity of opinion on the topics they present.
I don't know about you, but when that is the case I want my children to see that in black and white regardless of the topic.
You have simplified something that I think is complex, and managed to sneer at those with convictions you disagree with my dismissing them as religious fanatics. Certainly a tactic in debate, but one I hope my children do not embrace.
Sadly, the way non-profits work (and I work for one) when money is donated to fund a specific program or element of the program, it frees up resources for other underfunded ones.
In other words, your money supports the entire mission regardless of how the money is earmarked in an annual or capital campaign.
Maybe it's a California problem but lesbians in the Girl Scouts is an issue to be concerned with, as are lesbians in girls' sports.
I have two very intelligent, strong-willed daughters (quite the contrast with my peaceful son) and I vowed to do my best to keep them away from the sites like Girls Inc. If I let them run without guidance, within a couple years they would both be environmental crusaders and spouting nonsense about women's liberation and the freedom that comes from living without a man or children.
My wife is only learning now what the extreme messages of the women's movement did to her, her sisters, and her friends, and of what they have been deprived.* Our daughters will fall for that hook, line and sinker if not shielded until they are old enough to think critically.
* One got married at 43 and really regrets the 15 years she spent thinking she didn't need a man. The other aborted a child that was conceived her first year of marriage and continues to mourn over it. Other friends are realizing that their marriages have been negatively impacted by messages -- really, lies -- they learned at college and in the media about men, marriage, sex, sexual differences between men and women, and relationships.
I have read all your posts to this thread. From what I have seen you do not have any concrete moral values. You are for laws as they stand today. How is that any different than people who lived during slavery saying we agree with the laws as they are today. What about countries that allow anti-semitism today? Is that OK, because there are already to many stupid laws on the books in those countries?
You have fallen into the trap of "Moral Relativism." At least having the character to admit that you don't care if babies are being killed or not. Just like many in the US did not can about the plight of the Jewish during the Holocost. Along those lines, don't you see the connection of Girls inc. targeting the inner city with the goals of Margaret Sanger, Hitler, and Planned Parenthood?
As for the painful lessons learned at the hands of radical feminists I say amen brother.
The old world feminists had a defined, clear mission. What Steinham, Freidan and all did to bastardize the movement will have ripples of effects for generations. At 38, between the feminists and the 3 major network news organizations, I can't help but feel like I didn't get a balanced view of the world for a very long time...add hippie parents, a progressive education, and going up in a lefty burb of Chicago and yikes! Amazing I made it through the brainwashing!
look at it this way. abortion is a privilege not a right. same with homosexuality.
that's why they can be legislated.
Actually, it's exactly like saying "Don't Like Killing Jews?/Don't Work at Auschwitz".
Gee, I wonder why?
Think about it a little more and get back to us.
Twinz, I think you need an education on a topic that many of the evangelical Christians on this board cannot articulate well. It's the parallels between slavery and abortion, which some then extend to the Holocaust and abortion.
You don't want to go to far with the details of each abhorrent act but what's relevant here is an issue that one side feels is intensely moral and worth fighting aggressively for; and the other side refuses to acknowledge its guilt (even suppresses it and punishes those who dare to speak of the guilt) and hides behind the fact that the action in question is "legal" or "constitutional."
You have to admit the parallels. Pastors all over America preached against slavery, but the slaveholders and their politicians hid behind topics like "constitutional" and "states' rights." In hindsight we see the outcome as only logical and correct, but during the 1850s the passions were as strong, if not stronger, than those for abortion today.
As for the Holocaust, which I know is sensitive to you because of your heritage, the same analysis makes some sense. Nazi law allowed the seizing of Jewish property and the herding of them to work camps -- effectively, a denial of human rights that allowed the atrocities in the camps. I've no doubt that many good Germans were horrified and appalled by the seizures and apprehensions but rationalized that they were legal and, perhaps, a government matter -- not their problem. Had enough German citizens, or German policemen, refused or resisted, perhaps Hitler would have been overthrown before the start of the war. Heaven knows that the German Generals were wishing for a good enough pretext to overthrow him as early as 1937.
So the Christians that are very vocal and strident about the issue are probably not explaining themselves very well. But I am a Christian, too, and believe abortion to be wrong. Were only a couple thousand happening a year, mostly to save a mother's life, I expect there would be no major outcry. But that's not the case. Jim Dobson once said that 28% of Americans conceived after Roe v Wade have been aborted. THAT is a huge number and is a tragedy. And I can understand the passion and even fury that some very well-intentioned Christians feel about a number that large.
I have always found it interesting that the foundational court cases that found a right to an abortion in our constition, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, were both based on lies. We are both Judeo-Christian believers; is that God talking and revealing to us his feelings on the matter?
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.