| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2005 12:07:24 AM |
| Object: |
Concerned Women for America |
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
27 Nov 2005 02:11:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500,
"Jon Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality
and decency, in government and society at large, are strictly the
domain of conservative males. Both mother and child are held in
the highest esteem; this is what a true pro-woman organization
should be.
LOL!!!! Yeah. Right.
The very name of the organization is a lying oxymoron.
That hate-group, which is one of the groups comprising the
loathsome RRR Cult, headed by a couple of the cult's oligarchical
False Teachers (the La Hayes), has (as does all of the RRR Cult)
as its primary agenda item, one that blatantly seeks to impose
IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS
of women by FORCING childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to
second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to
mere, NON-sentient, Stage 2, 3, and 4 reproductive-process entities
which are, in all important ways, equivalent to the Stage 1 entities
that you so *hypocritically* do NOT "defend"-- which *also* are
human, unique, alive, and comprise a stage of development without
which NO births would occur. UNwanted entities which the WOMEN
very sensibly, under their circumstances, often regard to be parasitic.
Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION
of their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades
or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their oppor-
tunities.
Thus, and **honest** title for that organization would be DDWAA:
"Demented & Dimwitted Women AGAINST America."
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryos &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 05:45:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in news message <K6ydncLqRr-XUOfeRVn-sw@giganews.com> wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
What strange phrasing! I wonder why the 'highest esteem' isn't for
'both woman and child' if it is a pro-woman organization. It looks
like they have just excluded any woman who hasn't become a mother.
Motherhood isn't mandatory, nor should it be used to determine the
worth of a woman.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 12:00:28 PM |
|
|
In article <ae6mn1hlnu679ci30q053oaskhbb7clg25@4ax.com>, ehuth1
@donotspam.com says...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in news message <K6ydncLqRr-XUOfeRVn-sw@giganews.com> wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
What strange phrasing! I wonder why the 'highest esteem' isn't for
'both woman and child' if it is a pro-woman organization. It looks
like they have just excluded any woman who hasn't become a mother.
Motherhood isn't mandatory, nor should it be used to determine the
worth of a woman.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
LOL, I have dealt with quite a few CWA members over the last couple of
years and they are *all* kooks of various degrees. One complained about
having a link to "communist CNN" on our website. When I replied that
some people don't like CNN, and others don't like FOX, so not everyone
will be happy anyway.
She wrote back that only communist atheists would want CNN on there. I
couldn't resist and wrote her back that most atheists are not
communists, actually most of the ones I know voted republican (this is
getting more and more unlikely to continue though) most of the time.
She wrote back that all theists are democrats, "everyone knows that!".
I never replied back to the dimbulb...
BDK
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 10:15:36 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1de53dc4a243abe1989bf0@news.buckeye-express.com>,
kingratay@buckeye-express.com says...
In article <ae6mn1hlnu679ci30q053oaskhbb7clg25@4ax.com>, ehuth1
@donotspam.com says...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in news message <K6ydncLqRr-XUOfeRVn-sw@giganews.com> wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
What strange phrasing! I wonder why the 'highest esteem' isn't for
'both woman and child' if it is a pro-woman organization. It looks
like they have just excluded any woman who hasn't become a mother.
Motherhood isn't mandatory, nor should it be used to determine the
worth of a woman.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
LOL, I have dealt with quite a few CWA members over the last couple of
years and they are *all* kooks of various degrees. One complained about
having a link to "communist CNN" on our website. When I replied that
some people don't like CNN, and others don't like FOX, so not everyone
will be happy anyway.
She wrote back that only communist atheists would want CNN on there. I
couldn't resist and wrote her back that most atheists are not
communists, actually most of the ones I know voted republican (this is
getting more and more unlikely to continue though) most of the time.
She wrote back that all theists are democrats, "everyone knows that!".
I never replied back to the dimbulb...
BDK
LOL, I was sure out of it when I typed the above.
It was supposed to be:
She wrote back that all atheists are democrats, "everyone knows that!".
Sheesh..
BDK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
17 Nov 2005 03:15:58 PM |
|
|
BDK wrote:
In article <MPG.1de53dc4a243abe1989bf0@news.buckeye-express.com>,
kingratay@buckeye-express.com says...
In article <ae6mn1hlnu679ci30q053oaskhbb7clg25@4ax.com>, ehuth1
@donotspam.com says...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in news message <K6ydncLqRr-XUOfeRVn-sw@giganews.com> wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
What strange phrasing! I wonder why the 'highest esteem' isn't for
'both woman and child' if it is a pro-woman organization. It looks
like they have just excluded any woman who hasn't become a mother.
Motherhood isn't mandatory, nor should it be used to determine the
worth of a woman.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
LOL, I have dealt with quite a few CWA members over the last couple of
years and they are *all* kooks of various degrees. One complained about
having a link to "communist CNN" on our website. When I replied that
some people don't like CNN, and others don't like FOX, so not everyone
will be happy anyway.
She wrote back that only communist atheists would want CNN on there. I
couldn't resist and wrote her back that most atheists are not
communists, actually most of the ones I know voted republican (this is
getting more and more unlikely to continue though) most of the time.
She wrote back that all theists are democrats, "everyone knows that!".
I never replied back to the dimbulb...
BDK
LOL, I was sure out of it when I typed the above.
It was supposed to be:
She wrote back that all atheists are democrats, "everyone knows that!".
Sheesh..
BDK
Maybe Fred Stone would like to talk some sense into her.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 06:00:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:45:57 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in news message <K6ydncLqRr-XUOfeRVn-sw@giganews.com> wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
What strange phrasing! I wonder why the 'highest esteem' isn't for
'both woman and child' if it is a pro-woman organization. It looks
like they have just excluded any woman who hasn't become a mother.
Motherhood isn't mandatory, nor should it be used to determine the
worth of a woman.
Precisely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 02:01:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
You prefer girls.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 09:55:17 AM |
|
|
Gaia wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
You prefer girls.
Did you notice how *HE* wants to define what women are?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 02:48:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:55:17 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net>
wrote:
Gaia wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
You prefer girls.
Did you notice how *HE* wants to define what women are?
Yes.
But he is such a slimy pervert--and he knows it--that he has to mess
with little girls.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 07:32:31 PM |
|
|
Gaia wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:55:17 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net>
wrote:
Gaia wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
You prefer girls.
Did you notice how *HE* wants to define what women are?
Yes.
But he is such a slimy pervert--and he knows it--that he has to mess
with little girls.
:(
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 02:55:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:24 -0500, J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
Who, outside the Xtian fundie circles, would presume that "morality and
decency.....are strictly the domain of conservative males?"
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Concerned Women for America |
16 Nov 2005 09:47:22 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Wed, 16 Nov 2005
01:07:24 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
'Concerned Women for America' dispells the myth that morality and decency,
in government and society at large, are strictly the domain of conservative
males. Both mother and child are held in the highest esteem; this is what a
true pro-woman organization should be.
From their website:
"We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a
rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring
Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This is an anti-American group, obviously, since they are trying to
establish a single faith's views as public policy. To Gitmo with the
lot of them!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
