This came from the Democracy Now Friday Headlines for July, 24, 2009:
Ohio Proposal Would Bar Abortions Without Father's Consent
Meanwhile, in Ohio a Republican legislator has submitted a measure that would prevent abortions without the written consent of the biological father. If the father isn't known, the measure would force the woman to provide a list of people who could be the father in order to determine paternity. The group Feminists for Choice calls the proposal "another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex."
There's plenty about Democracy Now with which I agree; however, without knowing all the Republicans involved, I can say without hesitation that the focus is first and foremost on the child. Not acting as if fathers have no feeling about their children is also involved. I speak from personal, firsthand experience, but don't ask me to go into detail because I won't. I don't agree with coercing women into having children. However, it must be understood that the vast majority of the women in question and Amy Goodman, herself (the founder of Democracy Now), are not against coercion. Amy and those others want to be the majority power that can and will call out the police and military to enforce their rights as they see fit to define them via coercive democracy. I've never heard her say anything that would indicate otherwise, and she's had years to say it.
Therefore, it is a hypocritical position to suggest that the unborn and fathers should for some reason should be subordinated to the often mere whims of often promiscuous women. I use the term promiscuous here as a direct response to the statement of Feminists for Choice. I dare say that most of the Republican males who would support the legislation have sex with women and don't seek to demonize those women for it. I can only assume that the spokesperson for Feminists for Choice was referring to unmarried, loose women who want abortions on demand without the father having a right to say hold on, I would like my son or daughter to live and not be killed and that I will take him or her to raise up.
It doesn't sound so oppressive in that light does it. Sure, it's a strange thing to get the state to force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term. I don't think the spirit of such women would do a good job with such pregnancies. It would be better that males never have sex with such coldhearted females. Live and learn.
There are many possible scenarios. I'm not attempting to address them all here in some exhaustive list. I am though saying that putting it down as "another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex" is twisting by omission. Democracy Now did not include the reason given by the legislative sponsor or the general reasons of supporters and any co-sponsor(s). I wonder if Democracy Now would unilaterally employ the Fairness Doctrine and give equal time or space for the opposing view? She should.
"another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex." That's 68 characters with spaces. Would Amy allow the bill's sponsor to put 68 characters with spaces on her headlines page as a response? One could get carried away with that, but the general idea of stating various views so that people may make informed decisions is proper in Amy's chosen form of government, which many call the "tyranny of the majority." Don't get me wrong. I'm no Tory.
I do believe Amy believes she's educating the people against the mainstream. She is though becoming mainstream and needs to begin to think about offering both/all sides of the various major political questions of the day and to do that regardless of whether or not someone from the other side cares to be on her show.
"Modern day" eugenics is with us. Voluntary abstinence doesn't curb HIV/AID's or pregnancies say the "liberals." Well, is handing out condoms a cure for excessive lust in general? Is it good training to help to keep a check on blood lust that is warfare and money lust that is greed? These things are interconnected.
Where are the prophylactics for war and greed?
We need an unbreakable, irremovable condom for the entire Pentagon and another for the whole of Wall Street.
Let's prevent their seeds from being cast into the world with all their attendant evils.
Well, actually, people really do need to just say no to war and greed and sexual promiscuity all at the same time and in the same brain and body. Nancy Reagan had it right on one third of it. I have it right on all of it. That's because Jesus taught me about avoiding hypocrisy to the best of my ability.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)