Texas GOP Representative Declares ‘War On Birth Control’

Wayne Christian - TEXASThe Texas Republican Party is engaged in a far-reaching and sustained “war on birth control”. No, that’s not the teaser from a Planned Parenthood press release — it’s the  pronouncement of (aptly named) state legislator Wayne Christian. Creepiest war ever. Via Think Progress:

When The Texas Tribune asked state Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches), a supporter of the family planning cuts, if this was a war on birth control, he said “yes.”

“Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything, that’s what family planning is supposed to be about,” Christian said.

While disturbing, Christian’s honesty is a refreshing change from Republicans’ more common defense that cuts to women’s health care will save money. As NPR notes, the state estimates that 300,000 women will lose access to family planning services because of these cuts, resulting in roughly 20,000 additional unplanned births. “Texas already spends $1.3 billion on teen pregnancies — more than any other state.”

151 Comments on "Texas GOP Representative Declares ‘War On Birth Control’"

  1. Yeah, all we need is more people on this planet. The flies are outfucking us.

  2. Yeah, all we need is more people on this planet. The flies are outfucking us.

    • Butter Knife | Sep 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

      I look forward to the day when Earth becomes primarily a writhing mass of fucking human flesh, the new offspring expanding our planet at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

      So what if it’s apocalyptic and creepy? That’s a badass way way to go.

  3. I really wish Jesus would rapture these assholes already, WE DON’T ALL SHARE YOUR VALUES DOUCHEBAG! STOP TRYING TO FORCE EVERYONE TO LIVE BY YOUR MORAL CODE! NOT EVERYONE WORSHIPS YOUR GOD.

  4. I really wish Jesus would rapture these assholes already, WE DON’T ALL SHARE YOUR VALUES DOUCHEBAG! STOP TRYING TO FORCE EVERYONE TO LIVE BY YOUR MORAL CODE! NOT EVERYONE WORSHIPS YOUR GOD.

  5. Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

    I really wish Jesus would rapture these assholes already, WE DON’T ALL SHARE YOUR VALUES DOUCHEBAG! STOP TRYING TO FORCE EVERYONE TO LIVE BY YOUR MORAL CODE! NOT EVERYONE WORSHIPS YOUR GOD.

  6. Anonymous | Sep 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

    Let’s make sure as many people as possible are around to die of starvation whenever Nature decides to get all Malthusian on us.

  7. Let’s make sure as many people as possible are around to die of starvation whenever Nature decides to get all Malthusian on us.

  8. Mr Willow | Sep 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm |

    Gotta love conservatives: Championing individual liberty!. . . except women.

  9. Mr Willow | Sep 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

    Gotta love conservatives: Championing individual liberty!. . . except for women.

  10. She’s winding up as we speak… type.

  11. Butter Knife | Sep 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

    I look forward to the day when Earth becomes primarily a writhing mass of fucking human flesh, the new offspring expanding our planet at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    So what if it’s apocalyptic and creepy? That’s a badass way way to go.

  12. Butter Knife | Sep 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

    I look forward to the day when Earth becomes primarily a writhing mass of fucking human flesh, the new offspring expanding our planet at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    So what if it’s apocalyptic and creepy? That’s a badass way way to go.

  13. DeepCough | Sep 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

    I don’t think it helps that his last name is literally “Christian.”

  14. That it does not.

  15. Anonymous | Sep 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm |

    I feel that there is a deep undercurrent of racism in this line of rhetoric. More than feel, i know there is, since attacks on Planned Parenthood are rife with it as well.

    It is about breeding the PoCs out of existence (or at least maintaining/expanding a white majority), and growing a white efree army to spread american hegemony and imperialism- alongside evan. religious values of course.

    Any and All politco-speak of libertarianism and liberty is sheer NONEsense of the highest order. They want totalitarian white right-wing protestant america NOW.

  16. Jin The Ninja | Sep 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

    I feel that there is a deep undercurrent of racism in this line of rhetoric. More than feel, i know there is, since attacks on Planned Parenthood are rife with it as well.

    It is about breeding the PoCs out of existence (or at least maintaining/expanding a white majority), and growing a white efree army to spread american hegemony and imperialism- alongside evan. religious values of course.

    Any and All politco-speak of libertarianism and liberty is sheer NONEsense of the highest order. They want totalitarian white right-wing protestant america NOW.

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

      Except for the dumb footsoldiers who seem to think that it’ll become the agricultural minarchist state as envisioned by Jefferson.

  17. Blueoktober | Sep 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    I saw a great bumper sticker this week – “The last time Republicans cared about my rights, I was a fetus”. 

  18. Blueoktober | Sep 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

    I saw a great bumper sticker this week – “The last time Republicans cared about my rights, I was a fetus”. 

  19. “When the benefits of large-scale teamwork are unknown, it is better to serve the inefficient whims of a clan patriarch (the instinctive basis of nationalism and the belief in a god) then to live autonomously.”

    PLEASE LET THIS BE TRUE … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr-gkMxCrF8

  20. jasonpaulhayes | Sep 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    “When the benefits of large-scale teamwork are unknown, it is better to serve the inefficient whims of a clan patriarch (the instinctive basis of nationalism and the belief in a god) then to live autonomously.”

    PLEASE LET THIS BE TRUE … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr-gkMxCrF8

  21. I my logic serves me right birth control helps “family planning” by keep unplanned families from forming. Def some weird hidden agenda. Older people should enjoy the rest of their lives instead of meddling in the affairs of the youth. And im sure they would advocate birth control to the mexicans.

  22. I my logic serves me right birth control helps “family planning” by keep unplanned families from forming. Def some weird hidden agenda. Older people should enjoy the rest of their lives instead of meddling in the affairs of the youth. And im sure they would advocate birth control to the mexicans.

  23. Jizz In My Pants | Sep 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

    Now, lets see what happens when someone from the GOP stands up and says “We need to ban condoms as well, for they are also a form of birth control and offensive in the eye of god. Since God “invented” sex for the sole purpose of procreation, why even have condoms, because all they do is encourage sin. Plus they encourage the death of sperm, which qualify as people. We as a nation need to realize that condoms are murder just as much as abortion and birth control meds.” See how well that goes over with the dudes. Of course some will bow their heads, say “That’s right, I need to go to the local drug store and rip all of their condoms off the shelf in the name of Jesus.” Others,  including fellow right-wingers, may likely pelt the guy with their own USED condoms. What a photo-op!

  24. Jizz In My Pants | Sep 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

    Now, lets see what happens when someone from the GOP stands up and says “We need to ban condoms as well, for they are also a form of birth control and offensive in the eye of god. Since God “invented” sex for the sole purpose of procreation, why even have condoms, because all they do is encourage sin. Plus they encourage the death of sperm, which qualify as people. We as a nation need to realize that condoms are murder just as much as abortion and birth control meds.” See how well that goes over with the dudes. Of course some will bow their heads, say “That’s right, I need to go to the local drug store and rip all of their condoms off the shelf in the name of Jesus.” Others,  including fellow right-wingers, may likely pelt the guy with their own USED condoms. What a photo-op!

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

      If every sperm was sacred, hundreds of millions are still lost even if conception is achieved, it’s so asinine. 

      Despite what Monty Python says, every sperm is likely not sacred.

      • I guess you’re supposed to hold it in. Ot seems that hese “nut case” Republicans need more soldiers to be born so that they can kill more brown skinned (Non Christians) around the world. They only seem to care about human life “before” it begins!  “Crimes against Humanity”….A.K.A.  the “Republican Party”.

        • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm |

          You’d be surprised at how many of them actually think along those lines.

  25. Except for the dumb footsoldiers who seem to think that it’ll become the agricultural minarchist state as envisioned by Jefferson.

  26. Word Eater | Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 pm |

    Duggar be praised.

  27. Word Eater | Sep 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

    Duggar be praised.

  28. If every sperm was sacred, hundreds of millions are still lost even if conception is achieved, it’s so asinine. 

    Despite what Monty Python says, every sperm is likely not sacred.

  29. E.B. Wolf | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm |

    (fingers crossed in gleeful anticipation)

  30. E.B. Wolf | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

    No surprises here. More teen pregnancy – abortion rights = more dumb ignorant voters for Mr. Christian and his ilk. Winning!

  31. E.B. Wolf | Sep 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm |

    No surprises here. More teen pregnancy – abortion rights = more dumb ignorant voters for Mr. Christian and his ilk. Winning!

    • lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

      Actually that point has been made how Bush won the second election.  More babies born to conservative parents after 1973.

  32. When will “Religion” be treated as a mental illness, as it should be. It is an embarrassment to live in a country that is being run (into the ground) by people with I.Q.’s below 80 and fantasies of Gods and Demons.! 

  33. When will “Religion” be treated as a mental illness, as it should be. It is an embarrassment to live in a country that is being run (into the ground) by people with I.Q.’s below 80 and fantasies of Gods and Demons.! 

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

      That is a bit harsh, not all religions are as harmful as some others.

      • Perhaps not, but any belief in a supernatural entity is delusional and ignores reality.

        • Tuna Ghost | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:15 am |

          Depends on how one conceptualizes a larger, far more powerful intellect.  To insects, we aren’t separate from the rest of the environment.  Their intelligence isn’t capable of distinguishing us from anything else in the universe.   

        • Jin The Ninja | Sep 22, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

          I have a similar view of materialists. broad strokes…

    • Jin The Ninja | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm |

      what you are referring to is dominionist protestantism derived from nationalist and evangelical movements originating in America.

      That is ONE kind of religion, there are many.

      Broad strokes…

    • Stop being such an Atheist.

  34. You too? 

  35. I guess you’re supposed to hold it in. Ot seems that hese “nut case” Republicans need more soldiers to be born so that they can kill more brown skinned (Non Christians) around the world. They only seem to care about human life “before” it begins!  “Crimes against Humanity”….A.K.A.  the “Republican Party”.

  36. without birth control this is gonna be out of control

  37. without birth control this is gonna be out of control

  38. without birth control this is gonna be out of control

  39. That is a bit harsh, not all religions are as harmful as some others.

  40. You’d be surprised at how many of them actually think along those lines.

  41. After reading all these comments I am surprised at how limited critical thinking is on both sides.  Being Pro-Life has nothing to do with religion.  A fetus is a living thing.  It’s Illegal to kill humans.  Therefore abortion is legally sanctioned murder.  No doctors refute the viability of the fetus.  The real issue is whether the fetus has personhood (constituional rights) or not.

    In fact if a pregnant woman is killed, it is considered a double homicide.

    Regarding birth-control pill, I agree, it doesn’t kill anyone and it’s the lesser of two evils.  I say this because it seems almost anti-woman to keep women in a constant state or “pregnancy” using hormones (which is what the Pill is doing).  However if it’s between treating women like cattle ( i.e. birth control pill) or abortion: I would choose the pill.

  42. After reading all these comments I am surprised at how limited critical thinking is on both sides.  Being Pro-Life has nothing to do with religion.  A fetus is a living thing.  It’s Illegal to kill humans.  Therefore abortion is legally sanctioned murder.  No doctors refute the viability of the fetus.  The real issue is whether the fetus has personhood (constituional rights) or not.

    In fact if a pregnant woman is killed, it is considered a double homicide.

    Regarding birth-control pill, I agree, it doesn’t kill anyone and it’s the lesser of two evils.  I say this because it seems almost anti-woman to keep women in a constant state or “pregnancy” using hormones (which is what the Pill is doing).  However if it’s between treating women like cattle ( i.e. birth control pill) or abortion: I would choose the pill.

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

      No, being pro life is almost always about religion. The whole original pro life anti abortion stance was that it was wrong because it is the about the death of an unsaved soul, and that it is a sin to allow it to occur. They only slightly modified their argument because it failed to appeal to secularists.
      I do believe regular birth control would be preferable to abortion, but it still shouldn’t be banned. 

      • lightyear | Sep 21, 2011 at 7:51 pm |

        You’re right, some religious groups have taken abortion as a cause, much like many religions “fight against poverty”; I’m sure you’ll agree helping the poor is not a religious cause either, even though many religions are involved in the issue.

        If origin defines a movement or an ideal, one could accuse the pro-choice movement of racism due to it’s origins ( I’m not making that accusation).  You get that impression reading the statements made by Margaret Sanger, that the objectives of the birth control movement was to keep non-white immigrant populations in check.  Despite these origins I doubt the average pro-choice person is racist anymore than pro-life person being religious.  Christopher Hitchens ( a staunch atheist) is Pro-life. 

        That said, I implore you to look a the secular pro-life point of view.

        • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

          I’m sorry but a fetus is not a self aware or conscious being. At last not for the early stages of development. And the means of keeping population levels within sustainable limits is more important than protecting a fetus. 
          Lowering overall population levels today is important, as we are well beyond the carrying capacity of the earth and current agricultural techniques cannot continue to deliver the high productivity they have been into the future because of the threats of climate change and peak oil(all modern agricultural techniques being dependent on oil in many many ways), so we would likely be facing epidemics of famine around the world, and all the chaos and war that are likely to follow suit. People will need all manner of birth control at their disposal. 
          This sounds rather clinical and detached and maybe it is, but it is my assessment, and there are those that would back it up. As I said before, I would prefer the regular methods of contraception, but abortion should not be banned.

        • Jin The Ninja | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:40 pm |

          Hitchens is also a raving racist and an almost hysterical materialist. Anything else he is , i would take with a grain of salt.

          Secular Pro-life arguements favour a patriarchal view of society. It seems to have an uncanny parallel to the xtian pro-life movement in this regard. It is problematic to assert a pro-life POV in a secular fashion because of religious factors that are inherently sexist and have deeply influenced western culture. Pro-life secularism seems to stem from the same cultural dysfunction that places the sexes in two distinct and unequal categories. Women’s body autonomy has been a feminist issue since suffrage.

          Racism is subtle and not usually as profound as is professed, the origins of the pro-life movement whether x’tian or secular are notably racial. I would argue that many americans are in fact racially biased, racism does not require hatred of a specific race, rather a high regard for the codified system that privileges white male hierarchy.

          I find it both amusing and disturbing you would have us disregard this origin and THEN cite hitchens as a noteworthy example of secular pro-life ideology since as i stated above he has been very vocally racist in the past.

          • lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 11:52 am |

             I used Hitchens as an example of someone who can be atheist but be pro-life; he isn’t a spokesperson for a secular pro-life movement.  He has nothing to do with the origins of the Pro-life movement.

            You’re right abortion is an issue regarding women’s bodies, however it is also an issue regarding their child’s body as well.  They are viable after 24 weeks and as medical science advances their viability will become earlier.  Before 24 weeks I suppose you could make the argument they’re not alive; however before the 24 weeks when given an option to kill something that might be alive, or not, I would chose the more prudent one.

            It seems like this issue pits mother against child (or neonate, fetus).  I do realize there are rare cases when the fetus does threaten the mother’s life; in that case I do favor abortion.  At that point it becomes an issue of defending the mother’s life.

          • Jin The Ninja | Sep 22, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

            And let me ask you,who is self-admittedly “pro life”, are you also pro-social justice and helping to alleviate poverty and promote education in america? Are you promoting sex education and handing out free condoms?
            What are you doing to contribute to community building that will reduce unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion?

            My contention is that if one is to hold an irresponsible position as “pro-life” then one should engage themselves in grounded activities that attack the systemic problems of poverty, education, and lack of resources
            so that those children born into this society will be supported and not marred by the same institutional marginalisation of their parents.

            I still am not quite sure how a secular pro-life arguement works- it seems to medicalise a women’s body and problematise culture and society.

          • lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

            I believe simply:  The Fetus is alive.  Don’t kill it, unless it endangers the life of a woman.

            Condoms are fine.
            Birth control pill is fine, although I don’t know how good it really is for women.

            I believe abortion is wrong.  I have friends who have had abortions, I know it’s not an easy decision.  Nevertheless, it’s the wrong decision.  And women should at least be given informed consent before having the procedure (which is not done).

          • Jin The Ninja | Sep 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

            There is an intersection between society and well-being, culture and medicine, morality and ethics that make is so much more complicated than being “wrong.” Why is it “wrong”? how do you define wrong? Is your moral system codified? Or is it a feeling, that life is worth-preserving? and if that is true- do we as culture value life? What happens to that person once born outside the womb? Are they then left to their own? or is there a state or societal solution to support them?

          • lightyear | Sep 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

            Whether a person is “valued” doesn’t make their life worth killing.  It’s illegal to kill homeless people, whether there is a societal solution to support them or not.

            My point is simple.  Killing human adults, children and babies is illegal and deemed wrong.  The fetus is not some other type of species. The fetus is human.  It’s illegal and wrong to kill other humans (unless in self-defense).  I will admit, when the mother’s life is in danger by being pregnant with her fetus or baby, it becomes an issue of self-defense; in this one situation abortion isn’t murder, it’s self-defense.  In other situations, no matter how poor the mother is, it doesn’t justify killing her baby, simply because it’s attached to her.

          • What if a person doesn’t value themselves?

          • Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 2:51 am |

            How about this scenario:  so most people agree that, if one was put in a situation where you could save the life of either a child or an adult, that saving the child’s life is the more “moral” thing to do.  Sounds normal, right?  Then why, in your view, is saving the mother’s life more important than the fetus?  Shouldn’t the same moral code apply in that scenario?  

          • Oh, I completely agree that if one has to choose between an adult’s life and the life of a fetus, the life of the adult should be considered more.  But that’s choosing between life and life – to say that the vast majority of abortion decisions are made between life and life is a gross falsehood.

            When one has to resort to extreme incidents or exceptions to a rule in order to argue against a rule, then that position is generally not strong…the Republicans’ position is against abortion on demand – the notion that when the right to life intersects with the right to choose, that the right to life has a higher priority – after all, what is your right to choose if you don’t have a right to life?  If you’re already dead, freedom has no meaning.

          • Tuna Ghost | Oct 14, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

            But that’s choosing between life and life – to say that the vast majority of abortion decisions are made between life and life is a gross falsehood.

            I can’t figure out what you mean by this.

            When one has to resort to extreme incidents or exceptions to a rule in order to argue against a rule, then that position is generally not strong…

            I didn’t bring up an “extreme incident”, and pointing out a blatant instance where the rule contradicts one of its premises is the exact opposite of revealing a weakness in one’s position.  That’s basically saying “well, if you have to point out flaws in my argument, then you obviously don’t have a strong argument”.  Which is, well, pretty silly.

          • Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 2:39 am |

            And women should at least be given informed consent before having the procedure (which is not done).

            What makes you think that?  Places like Planned Parenthood most certainly inform the patients about the procedure and offer alternatives before informing one where one can have an abortion performed.

    • Jin The Ninja | Sep 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm |

      Not all states regard it as double homicide.

      I wonder at your characterisation of the pill as the ‘lesser of two evils,’ how is it in any way evil? I agree that modern pharmacological methods are probably detrimental in the long run, but women should be able to have a corporeal liberty in the same way a man does.

      • Why do you believe that women “should have the same liberty as a man does?”  Did you not know that in Rome, the father of a family (paterfamilias) had the authority to kill his children (after they were born…infanticide), and that he could sell his children to slavery?  For your reference, women did not have this “right.”  Would you argue that “women’s rights” and “equality” would then be a fair basis for arguing that women should have those “rights” as well?

        I am not saying that the “man’s right to choose” in ancient Rome and the “women’s right to choose” today are equivalent beyond a thin analogy, but I am saying that to argue for gender equality on a matter, in general, is hardly a strong foundation.  That is, if something is wrong, then to argue for equality to commit that wrong with impunity on grounds that men, women, rich, poor do it too is ethically…absurd.

        • Jin The Ninja | Oct 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm |

          Your eurocentric and gender biased opinion, based on an antiquated historical comparison that has no modern context, demonstrates that critical thinking and anti choice rhetoric are in fact polar opposites.

    • Its up to an individual to chose what to do with their own body, not held upon our government to decide. Statically speaking, more and more young teen are getting impregnant…if We the People do not educate the youth in sexual responsiblity…who Will.??? Sex is a human behaivior, If we vote for cutting back spending on womens health care in general…than we are considering ourselves as second class citizens not thinking for our selves an women’ equal freedoms.

    • Tuna Ghost | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:18 am |

      A fetus is a living thing.

      It’s not that simple, I’m afraid.  A.) That’s a matter of definitions, and B.) We kill living things all the time.  It becomes “murder” when its a person.  A fetus is not a person.  

      • lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 11:59 am |

        You’re right.  I eat meat and plants, both living things; clearly I believe it’s OK to kill some living things. 

        What I am saying is: a ) it is illegal (or immoral) to kill humans,  b) the fetus is human ( yes it transforms, but so do children and adults), so I am saying it is wrong to kill a fetus. 
        The fetus doesn’t magically transform into a human after birth.  It is a human before birth.

        I realize the government doesn’t grant fetuses person-hood.  But the government didn’t grant certain races person-hood at one point in history.  That didn’t make those people not-persons.  Neither do our current laws make fetuses not-persons.

        • Tuna Ghost | Sep 23, 2011 at 4:34 am |

          What I am saying is: a ) it is illegal (or immoral) to kill humans,  b) the fetus is human ( yes it transforms, but so do children and adults), so I am saying it is wrong to kill a fetus.  
          The fetus doesn’t magically transform into a human after birth.  It is a human before birth.

          It is possible (in fact, certain) that b.) can be incorrect and your final statement still be correct.  When a fetus becomes a person is a matter of definitions, but it certainly isn’t a person at conception, or in two weeks, or in four weeks.  Some don’t consider a fetus “alive” until it takes its first breath (some religious orders, for instance, believe that since god breathed the life into Adam he does the same for each person at birth.  Not the best yardstick, in my mind, but whatever).  

          • lightyear | Sep 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

            I agree with you; at conception the fetus isn’t conscious, maybe not even 8 weeks or later.  Since we don’t have a definitive point to say when the fetus is a person or not.  It is best to take to prudent option and not kill it. 

          • Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 2:37 am |

            But why isn’t the “no third term abortions” a prudent measure?  It’s acknowledging both your points and mine.

          • All questions of whether something is a “person” ultimately are arbitrary.  So definitions that argue for whether a life form qualifies to be a person will be defined as that point of view which justifies ones’ own argument on their stance on abortion.

  43. No, being pro life is almost always about religion. The whole original pro life anti abortion stance was that it was wrong because it is the about the death of an unsaved soul, and that it is a sin to allow it to occur. They only slightly modified their argument because it failed to appeal to secularists.
    I do believe regular birth control would be preferable to abortion, but it still shouldn’t be banned. 

  44. lightyear | Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 pm |

    You’re right, some religious groups have taken abortion as a cause, much like many religions “fight against poverty”; I’m sure you’ll agree helping the poor is not a religious cause either, even though many religions are involved in the issue.

    If origin defines a movement or an ideal, one could accuse the pro-choice movement of racism due to it’s origins ( I’m not making that accusation).  You get that impression reading the statements made by Margaret Sanger, that the objectives of the birth control movement was to keep non-white immigrant populations in check.  Despite these origins I doubt the average pro-choice person is racist anymore than pro-life person being religious.  Christopher Hitchens ( a staunch atheist) is Pro-life. 

    That said, I implore you to look a the secular pro-life point of view.

  45. Its painfully obvious that the right’s War on Birth Control is a one sided war on vaginas…and the various social services that come with helping people who have one manage that vagina responsibly. Its just a war on money…on administration, on humans, on dignity, on education and on personal freedom…all things the Right unilaterally despises…and based on their behavior behind closed doors…it makes sense that they hate the vagina along with all the other things…since self hating closet fags and childmolesters are probably more terrified of healthy happy pussy than any gay person I’ve ever known.

  46. Its painfully obvious that the right’s War on Birth Control is a one sided war on vaginas…and the various social services that come with helping people who have one manage that vagina responsibly. Its just a war on money…on administration, on humans, on dignity, on education and on personal freedom…all things the Right unilaterally despises…and based on their behavior behind closed doors…it makes sense that they hate the vagina along with all the other things…since self hating closet fags and childmolesters are probably more terrified of healthy happy pussy than any gay person I’ve ever known.

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

      Any one who would wage war on vaginas should be relegated to the barren depths of Utah. 

  47. I’m sorry but a fetus is not a self aware or conscious being. At last not for the early stages of development. And the means of keeping population levels within sustainable limits is more important than protecting a fetus. 
    Lowering overall population levels today is important, as we are well beyond the carrying capacity of the earth and current agricultural techniques cannot continue to deliver the high productivity they have been into the future because of the threats of climate change and peak oil(all modern agricultural techniques being dependent on oil in many many ways), so we would likely be facing epidemics of famine around the world, and all the chaos and war that are likely to follow suit. People will need all manner of birth control at their disposal. 
    This sounds rather clinical and detached and maybe it is, but it is my assessment, and there are those that would back it up. As I said before, I would prefer the regular methods of contraception, but abortion should not be banned.

  48. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 12:40 am |

    Hitchens is also a raving racist and an almost hysterical materialist. Anything else he is , i would take with a grain of salt.

    Secular Pro-life arguements favour a patriarchal view of society. It seems to have an uncanny parallel to the xtian pro-life movement in this regard. It is problematic to assert a pro-life POV in a secular fashion because of religious factors that are inherently sexist and have deeply influenced western culture. Pro-life secularism seems to me, stemming for this same cultural dysfunction that places the sexes in two distinct and unequal categories. Women’s body autonomy has been a feminist issue since suffrage.

    Racism is subtle and not usually as profound as is professed, the origins of the pro-life movement whether x’tian or secular are notably racial. I would argue that many americans are in fact racially biased, racism does not require hatred of a specific race, rather a high regard for the codified system that privileges white male hierarchy.

    I find it both amusing and disturbing you would have us disregard this origin and THEN cite hitchens as a noteworthy example of secular pro-life ideology since as i stated above he has been very vocally racist in the past.

  49. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 12:44 am |

    Not all states regard it as double homicide.

    I wonder at your characterisation of the pill as the ‘lesser of two evils,’ how is it in any way evil? I agree that modern pharmacological methods are probably detrimental in the long run, but women should be able to have a corporeal liberty in the same way a man does.

  50. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 12:46 am |

    what you are referring to is dominionist protestantism derived from nationalist and evangelical movements originated in America.

    That is ONE kind of religion, there are many.

    Broad strokes…

  51. “war” on birthcontrol…….hhhmm lets see, the rythm method too? how about tantra and withdrawl?? anal or oral???? someone please take these people out to the pasture and feed ’em some fresh dandelions and hay…..

  52. “war” on birthcontrol…….hhhmm lets see, the rythm method too? how about tantra and withdrawl?? anal or oral???? someone please take these people out to the pasture and feed ’em some fresh dandelions and hay…..

  53. as long as i can have a go at your mom im game 

  54. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 2:01 am |

    Send all the neglected and unwanted children of the world to this senator’s home.

  55. StillAtMyMoms | Sep 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm |

    Send all the neglected and unwanted children of the world to this senator’s home.

  56. Its up to an individual to chose what to do with their own body, not held upon our government to decide. Statically speaking, more and more young teen are getting impregnant…if We the People do not educate the youth in sexual responsiblity…who Will.??? Sex is a human behaivior, If we vote for cutting back spending on womens health care in general…than we are considering ourselves as second class citizens not thinking for our selves an women’ equal freedoms.

  57. Any one who would wage war on vaginas should be relegated to the barren depths of Utah. 

  58. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:27 am |

    Perhaps not, but any belief in a supernatural entity is delusional and ignores reality.

  59. Why do people assume EVERY conservative agrees with this?! 

    I’m more and more conservative/republican each year, mostly because I find that people who tend to lean towards the liberal view believe what they’re told to believe, told how to feel. Like that girl in the youtube video for the 2008 election who was totally liberal and “didn’t care who on won as long as they were a democrat.” Really?! That’s scary to me! You don’t care for a person’s values, thoughts, beliefs, and what they stand for, as long as they have that little “D” next to their name?! What a tool.  So, I’m going to say I’m a PROUD conservative, a PROUD republican, and I don’t agree with this. This is Texas thinking.

  60. Why do people assume EVERY conservative agrees with this?! 

    I’m more and more conservative/republican each year, mostly because I find that people who tend to lean towards the liberal view believe what they’re told to believe, told how to feel. Like that girl in the youtube video for the 2008 election who was totally liberal and “didn’t care who on won as long as they were a democrat.” Really?! That’s scary to me! You don’t care for a person’s values, thoughts, beliefs, and what they stand for, as long as they have that little “D” next to their name?! What a tool.  So, I’m going to say I’m a PROUD conservative, a PROUD republican, and I don’t agree with this. This is Texas thinking.

    http://youtu.be/6g7xFRjY22s

    • I take that back. It’s not Texas thinking, or political view thinking. It’s Religious thinking. 

    • E.B. Wolf | Sep 23, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

      It’s not only Democrats; party loyalists on both sides approach politics like a sports fanatic rooting on their team. Issues are secondary as long as their guy or gal wins. 

  61. I take that back. It’s not Texas thinking, or political view thinking. It’s Religious thinking. 

  62. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:28 am |

    Stop being such an Atheist.

  63. Tuna Ghost | Sep 22, 2011 at 8:15 am |

    Depends on how one conceptualizes a larger, far more powerful intellect.  To insects, we aren’t separate from the rest of the environment.  Their intelligence isn’t capable of distinguishing us from anything else in the universe.   

  64. Tuna Ghost | Sep 22, 2011 at 8:18 am |

    A fetus is a living thing.

    It’s not that simple, I’m afraid.  A.) That’s a matter of definitions, and B.) We kill living things all the time.  It becomes “murder” when its a person.  A fetus is not a person.  

  65. E.B. Wolf | Sep 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

    As Randy “Macho Man” Savage often said, “OOOOOOOHHHHHH YEEEEAAAAA!”

  66. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

    So many hate posts… 
    How about this. Reality. We are broke. 
    Women- buy your own damn birth control or pay for your own abortions. I dont want to pay for you anymore. And if you cant afford it, there’s always abstinence!

    And for the rest of you socialist, liberal, program loving, “everyone is against me” commentors, grow up, get a job.

  67. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    So many hate posts… 
    How about this. Reality. We are broke. 
    Women- buy your own damn birth control or pay for your own abortions. I dont want to pay for you anymore. And if you cant afford it, there’s always abstinence!

    And for the rest of you socialist, liberal, program loving, “everyone is against me” commentors, grow up, get a job.

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

      That was mature.

      • L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

        It’s actually very mature. “Women’s Health”. Are you kidding me?
        I am a woman. I pay for my own health care costs, my own birth control, and the cost of raising my 4 kids.
        Because I have a job, and I dont expect someone else to take care of me.

        • Mysophobe | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

          Stop claiming four dependants as tax deductions, I’m sick of paying for your lifestyle choices. Also, pay for their K-12 educations instead of making me foot the bill. Stop being a drain on society.

          • L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

            Nice. Except I claim 1 (myself) on my taxes. And my kids dont go to public school. But I do pay for those too out of my taxes.

            Next.

          • Mysophobe | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

            So you’re a tax whiner who voluntarily and unnecessarily pays several thousand dollars a year extra in taxes? That’s truly remarkable, tell me more.

    • The USA is not even close to broke.  Money is an invention.

    • Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 2:42 am |

      A.)  The US isn’t “broke”.  

      B.)  Things like medicare and medicaid and social security account for less than 7% of the debt each year.  Take a look at how much debt comes from the defense budget, if you want to see where the US is wasting money.  

      Unplanned pregnancies in poverty stricken areas and families can lead to problems that affect everyone, which makes it a public problem and not a private one.  Hence the public funding.

  68. lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

     I used Hitchens as an example of someone who can be atheist but be pro-life; he isn’t a spokesperson for a secular pro-life movement.  He has nothing to do with the origins of the Pro-life movement.

    You’re right abortion is an issue regarding women’s bodies, however it is also an issue regarding their child’s body as well.  They are viable after 24 weeks and as medical science advances their viability will become earlier.  Before 24 weeks I suppose you could make the argument they’re not alive; however before the 24 weeks when given an option to kill something that might be alive, or not, I would chose the more prudent one.

    It seems like this issue pits mother against child (or neonate, fetus).  I do realize there are rare cases when the fetus does threaten the mother’s life; in that case I do favor abortion.  At that point it becomes an issue of defending the mother’s life.

  69. lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

    You’re right.  I eat meat and plants, both living things; clearly I believe it’s OK to kill some living things. 

    What I am saying is: a ) it is illegal (or immoral) to kill humans,  b) the fetus is human ( yes it transforms, but so do children and adults), so I am saying it is wrong to kill a fetus. 
    The fetus doesn’t magically transform into a human after birth.  It is a human before birth.

    I realize the government doesn’t grant fetuses person-hood.  But the government didn’t grant certain races person-hood at one point in history.  That didn’t make those people not-persons.  Neither do our current laws make fetuses not-persons.

  70. lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

    You’re right.  I eat meat and plants, both living things; clearly I believe it’s OK to kill some living things. 

    What I am saying is: a ) it is illegal (or immoral) to kill humans,  b) the fetus is human ( yes it transforms, but so do children and adults), so I am saying it is wrong to kill a fetus. 
    The fetus doesn’t magically transform into a human after birth.  It is a human before birth.

    I realize the government doesn’t grant fetuses person-hood.  But the government didn’t grant certain races person-hood at one point in history.  That didn’t make those people not-persons.  Neither do our current laws make fetuses not-persons.

  71. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm |

    And let me ask you,who is self-admittedly “pro life”, are you also pro-social justice and helping to alleviate poverty and promote education in america? Are you promoting sex education and handing out free condoms?
    What are you doing to contribute to community building that will reduce unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion?

    My contention is that if one is to hold an irresponsible position as “pro-life” then one should engage themselves in grounded activities that attack the systemic problems of poverty, education, and lack of resources
    so that those children born into this society will be supported and not marred by the same institutional marginalisation of their parents.

    I still am not quite sure how a secular pro-life arguement works- it seems to medicalise a women’s body and problematise culture and society.

  72. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 4:48 pm |

    Abortion as a form of population control?! What is this… China?!

  73. That was mature.

  74. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 5:46 pm |

    It’s actually very mature. “Women’s Health”. Are you kidding me?
    I am a woman. I pay for my own health care costs, my own birth control, and the cost of raising my 4 kids.
    Because I have a job, and I dont expect someone else to take care of me.

  75. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 5:46 pm |

    It’s actually very mature. “Women’s Health”. Are you kidding me?
    I am a woman. I pay for my own health care costs, my own birth control, and the cost of raising my 4 kids.
    Because I have a job, and I dont expect someone else to take care of me.

  76. Mysophobe | Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

    Stop claiming four dependants as tax deductions, I’m sick of paying for your lifestyle choices. Also, pay for their K-12 educations instead of making me foot the bill. Stop being a drain on society.

  77. L Kelly5669 | Sep 22, 2011 at 7:58 pm |

    Nice. Except I claim 1 (myself) on my taxes. And my kids dont go to public school. But I do pay for those too out of my taxes.

    Next.

  78. Mysophobe | Sep 22, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

    So you’re a tax whiner who voluntarily and unnecessarily pays several thousand dollars a year extra in taxes? That’s truly remarkable, tell me more.

  79. Anonymous | Sep 22, 2011 at 9:21 pm |

    I have a similar view of materialists. broad strokes…

  80. lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 11:36 pm |

    I believe simply:  The Fetus is alive.  Don’t kill it, unless it endangers the life of a woman.

    Condoms are fine.
    Birth control pill is fine, although I don’t know how good it really is for women.

    I believe abortion is wrong.  I have friends who have had abortions, I know it’s not an easy decision.  Nevertheless, it’s the wrong decision.  And women should at least be given informed consent before having the procedure (which is not done).

  81. lightyear | Sep 22, 2011 at 11:39 pm |

    Actually that point has been made how Bush won the second election.  More babies born to conservative parents after 1973.

  82. Tuna Ghost | Sep 23, 2011 at 8:34 am |

    What I am saying is: a ) it is illegal (or immoral) to kill humans,  b) the fetus is human ( yes it transforms, but so do children and adults), so I am saying it is wrong to kill a fetus.  
    The fetus doesn’t magically transform into a human after birth.  It is a human before birth.

    It is possible (in fact, certain) that b.) can be incorrect and your final statement still be correct.  When a fetus becomes a person is a matter of definitions, but it certainly isn’t a person at conception, or in two weeks, or in four weeks.  Some don’t consider a fetus “alive” until it takes its first breath (some religious orders, for instance, believe that since god breathed the life into Adam he does the same for each person at birth.  Not the best yardstick, in my mind, but whatever).  

  83. Anonymous | Sep 23, 2011 at 4:31 pm |

    I don’t know if you are missing a specific point, or if i did not make it clearly enough, There is an intersection between society and well-being, culture and medicine, morality and ethics that make is so much complicated than being “wrong.” Why is it “wrong”? how do you define wrong? Is your moral system codified? Or is it a feeling, that life is worth-preserving? and if that is true- do we as culture value life? What happens to that person once born outside the womb? Are they then left to their own? or is there a state or societal solution to support them?

  84. E.B. Wolf | Sep 23, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

    It’s not only Democrats; party loyalists on both sides approach politics like a sports fanatic rooting on their team. Issues are secondary as long as their guy or gal wins. 

  85. lightyear | Sep 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm |

    Whether a person is “valued” doesn’t make their life worth killing.  It’s illegal to kill homeless people, whether there is a societal solution to support them or not.

    My point is simple.  Killing human adults, children and babies is illegal and deemed wrong.  The fetus is not some other type of species. The fetus is human.  It’s illegal and wrong to kill other humans (unless in self-defense).  I will admit, when the mother’s life is in danger by being pregnant with her fetus or baby, it becomes an issue of self-defense; in this one situation abortion isn’t murder, it’s self-defense.  In other situations, no matter how poor the mother is, it doesn’t justify killing her baby, simply because it’s attached to her.

  86. lightyear | Sep 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm |

    I agree with you; at conception the fetus isn’t conscious, maybe not even 8 weeks or later.  Since we don’t have a definitive point to say when the fetus is a person or not.  It is best to take to prudent option and not kill it. 

  87. The USA is not even close to broke.  Money is an invention.

  88. What if a person doesn’t value themselves?

  89. Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 6:37 am |

    But why isn’t the “no third term abortions” a prudent measure?  It’s acknowledging both your points and mine.

  90. Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 6:39 am |

    And women should at least be given informed consent before having the procedure (which is not done).

    What makes you think that?  Places like Planned Parenthood most certainly inform the patients about the procedure and offer alternatives before informing one where one can have an abortion performed.

  91. Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 6:42 am |

    A.)  The US isn’t “broke”.  

    B.)  Things like medicare and medicaid and social security account for less than 7% of the debt each year.  Take a look at how much debt comes from the defense budget, if you want to see where the US is wasting money.  

    Unplanned pregnancies in poverty stricken areas and families can lead to problems that affect everyone, which makes it a public problem and not a private one.  Hence the public funding.

  92. Tuna Ghost | Sep 25, 2011 at 6:51 am |

    How about this scenario:  so most people agree that, if one was put in a situation where you could save the life of either a child or an adult, that saving the child’s life is the more “moral” thing to do.  Sounds normal, right?  Then why, in your view, is saving the mother’s life more important than the fetus?  Shouldn’t the same moral code apply in that scenario?  

  93. Oh, I completely agree that if one has to choose between an adult’s life and the life of a fetus, the life of the adult should be considered more.  But that’s choosing between life and life – to say that the vast majority of abortion decisions are made between life and life is a gross falsehood.

    When one has to resort to extreme incidents or exceptions to a rule in order to argue against a rule, then that position is generally not strong…the Republicans’ position is against abortion on demand – the notion that when the right to life intersects with the right to choose, that the right to life has a higher priority – after all, what is your right to choose if you don’t have a right to life?  If you’re already dead, freedom has no meaning.

  94. All questions of whether something is a “person” ultimately are arbitrary.  So definitions that argue for whether a life form qualifies to be a person will be defined as that point of view which justifies ones’ own argument on their stance on abortion.

  95. Why do you believe that women “should have the same liberty as a man does?”  Did you not know that in Rome, the father of a family (paterfamilias) had the authority to kill his children (after they were born…infanticide), and that he could sell his children to slavery?  For your reference, women did not have this “right.”  Would you argue that “women’s rights” and “equality” would then be a fair basis for arguing that women should have those “rights” as well?

    I am not saying that the “man’s right to choose” in ancient Rome and the “women’s right to choose” today are equivalent beyond a thin analogy, but I am saying that to argue for gender equality on a matter, in general, is hardly a strong foundation.  That is, if something is wrong, then to argue for equality to commit that wrong with impunity on grounds that men, women, rich, poor do it too is ethically…absurd.

  96. Tuna Ghost | Oct 14, 2011 at 9:11 pm |

    But that’s choosing between life and life – to say that the vast majority of abortion decisions are made between life and life is a gross falsehood.

    I can’t figure out what you mean by this.

    When one has to resort to extreme incidents or exceptions to a rule in order to argue against a rule, then that position is generally not strong…

    I didn’t bring up an “extreme incident”, and pointing out a blatant instance where the rule contradicts one of its premises is the exact opposite of revealing a weakness in one’s position.  That’s basically saying “well, if you have to point out flaws in my argument, then you obviously don’t have a strong argument”.  Which is, well, pretty silly.

  97. Anonymous | Oct 15, 2011 at 9:41 pm |

    Your eurocentric and gender biased opinion, based on an antiquated historical comparison that has no modern context, demonstrates that critical thinking and anti choice rhetoric are in fact polar opposites.

Comments are closed.