How did these GOP right-wingers get into so many American women's wombs? With a lot of help from conservative clergymen, beginning with the Roman Catholic pope, bishops and priests, but more recently including many protestant clergy as well.
But ladies, "you ainít seen nothing yet!" With six such conservative Republican judges now in firm control of the US Supreme Court, the other three liberal members might as well be wallpaper there, until at least two conservative vacancies develop under a liberal administration.
Abortion is just one of the many fronts in the war of the celibate male Catholic hierarchy against the rest of us.
As I explain more thoroughly at the_RCC_vs_SEX, once the all male Roman Catholic hierarchy had set themselves apart from the rest of the world in the 12th century, by requiring that their clergy all be celibate forever after, they couldn't let everybody else continue to enjoy what they themselves would no longer be able to enjoy. Although they might not be able to prevent everybody else from having sex, they could at least take as much of the fun out of it as possible . Which is what they proceeded to do, when it came to any number of sexual issues over which they could grab some control, such as divorce and remarriage, masturbation, birth or pregnancy-control, abortion, condum usage, artificial insemination, and stem-cell research.
the R.C. church roots
of the pro-life movement:
Most of the moral objections to abortion have been developed over the years by male celibate priests, bishops and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. Those Protestants who don't know that need to read pages 283 thru 287 of the book "Crazy for God" by Frank Schaeffer. Frank and his famous father, Francis, were the ones most instrumental in making the pro-life cause the powerful movement it has become in the U.S.A. and in other parts of the world in the last generation. The following mid-1970's quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen sums up that chapter perfectly, "The problem is that abortion is perceived as a Catholic issue. I want you to help me change that. The unborn need more friends." (Bishop Sheen was one of the country's most influential Catholic clergymen at the time)
Many people mistakenly believe that the pompous bishops and popes of the R.C. Church are entitled to respect and obedience because
they are so much smarter and better than the rest of us, "moral giants" so to speak.
But let the record show that what they have more often proven themselves to be
in real life is not moral giants, but moral pygmies.
Here is just one illustration of my reason for saying that.
Did you know that one of the things that most of the top Nazi leadership had in
common was that they all shared a Roman Catholic upbringing, and they never
publicly repudiated that faith? [ click here for much more at the-RCC's-Nazi-leadership. ]
What is it about this church that it has produced so many vicious dictators - not
just in Germany, or in the many other Catholic countries that made up the Axis coalition -
but all over the world? The list would need to include Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines,
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his successor "Baby Doc" Duvalier of Haiti,
and a whole panoply of Catholic dictators in the many countries of what is commonly called "Latin" America",
but could just as well be called "Roman Catholic America",
[ click HERE for much more Catholic/the-mother-of-dictators. ]
Despite the fact that the Jewish Holocaust occurred in the most Christian part
of the whole world, and was conceived in and directed from a nation where 98% of the population at the time
identified themselves as Christians, the Roman Catholic Church has managed to persuade many that
it does not deserve to be blamed for that monstrous crime.
Instead of confessing its own responsibility for that monstrous crime, the church tries to project the blame onto
paganism, secular humanism, liberal atheism, socialism, or whatever, anything but the Catholic Church itself.
But the sad truth is that the Nazis came to power
by appealing to values which they and that sea of conservative Christianity had
in common, namely love of absolute power over the masses, on the one hand,
and contempt for atheists, liberals, communists and homosexuals along with Jews on the other.
Many of us Christians in America insist that we are a "Christian" nation on the basis that
some 70% of us are Christians. If that is true, then what does that make Germany,
98% of whose residents identified themselves as "Christians" at the time, just as their ancestors
have been for some sixteen centuries or so? Whatever they were in God's eyes,
throughout the Nazi period, most of the people of Germany viewed themselves as Christians,
living in a Christian nation, fighting under the leadership of Christians very much like themselves,
in the defense of "Christianity" from some of its greatest enemies : the age-old Jewish "Christ-killers"
on the one hand, and a newer, related enemy, "godless communism" on the other.
Once Adolf Hitler had set Germany on the course of conquering as much of Europe,
and of exterminating as much of Europe's Jewish population as he could in the process, he knew that he was going to need millions of helpers to actually carry out all of that dirty work. Now, where could he find so many helpers? He didn't go to the planet Mars for them. He found about 2/3rds of them in the pews of his nation's Protestant churches and the other third in Germany's Roman Catholic churches.
Now although you may not have been aware of these facts, the Roman Catholic
bishops of Germany, and their "Supreme Pontiff" in Rome were very much aware
of the Catholic roots of so many of the Nazi leadership and of the hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of the Roman Catholics who were carrying out the
monstrous plans of these leaders. Now, if there had been any moral giants among those bishops,
don't you think that they should have had the courage to stand up and shout
from the rooftops to warn the 98% of Germans who professed to be Christians
that God would certainly be displeased with them, if they played any role in "the
most atrocious sin of the century", the killing of innocent men, women, and
children by the millions, just because they were Jews, and that God might well
punish any of his followers for all eternity if they willingly played any part in that
most monstrous of crimes?
It's a sad fact that throughout that period there was hardly a peep from any but a
handful of Germany's church leaders in protest of the Jewish Holocaust. And not one
of the many Roman Catholic top Nazi leaders were able to commit any atrocity monstrous
enough to get themselves excommunicated by their church's bishops
or pope, not Adolf Hitler, not Joseph Goebbels, not Heinrich Himmler, nor any of
the many others who should have qualified for that public denunciation.
Instead, what the R.C. hierarchy waisted their imposing moral authority on
during those horrible years was threatening their flocks with hellfire for eternity,
if they committed any number of their catalogue of what they called "mortal
sins", including not just abortion, but birth-control, marriage after divorce, homosexuality,
masturbation, viewing dirty pictures or forbidden movies, and of course, missing mass on
Sundays. What a disgrace! [ click HERE for much more [ for the intro-to-the_RCC's_holocaust-scandals ] . ]
Many who are striving to deny women access to abortion these days are fond of
comparing their pro-choice rivals here in America to the Nazis, suggesting that terminating pregnancies on a large scale in
America today is just like the Jewish Holocaust in the 1940s. This argument is a
perfect illustration of how ignorant and / or dishonest the pro-life crusaders are,
because the very same Nazi leaders who were doing their best to exterminate the entire
Jewish people were not atheists or liberals, as conservatives would have people believe, but conservative Christian pro-life champions, like themselves.
Yes, you heard that right. Despite the fact that the Nazis were "pro-death", at all
ages, when it came to the 1% or so of Germans who were Jewish, they were
even more "pro-life" than American pro-lifers, when it came to the vast majority of
Germany's women, who were Aryan, and Christian. Those leaders knew that they
were going to need to keep their birthrate as high as possible in order to keep up with the
high death rate their warmongering was going to be costing them. So they did what
American pro-lifers haven't yet even dreamed of doing here in America. They made the
aborting of a pregnancy by the average German mother punishable by death, [ as I show at
This would not be the last time when it would be obvious how silly it is to call
people "pro-life", just because they oppose the termination of the life of any
human fetus, when those same people show little concern for fellow
human beings, once they have exited the birth canal.
Preliminary clarifications :
- First, why have clergymen been so obsessed Catholic this issue of mostly female morality for thousands of years? Can you think of an issue that pertains especially to men that has held clergymen anywhere near this spellbound? And it's not because there haven't been more important and more pressing issues of that kind. As a male myself, I submit that we male clergy, judges, pundits and legislators, etc. ought to "mind our own business" and devote ourselves to improving the morals of the world's men. On the one hand, there's little evidence to support the idea that we are superior to women when it comes to morality, and on the other, there are plenty of issues of male immorality that need our attention, such as the way men abuse those who are physically inferior: women, children, minorities, and the entire populations of weaker nations. While males have been obsessing about the population in women's wombs, European Christian men ravaged the native populations of North, Central and South America. When they ran out of native-Americans to abuse, these same European Christian men and their descendants imported millions of other innocent human beings from Africa to enslave.
- Both sides of the abortion debate are pro choice:
The difference between the two sides is what choice they are for. While the "pro-choice" side believes that each pregnant woman should be the one in charge of making decisions about one pregnancy, i.e. her own, the one she's knows more about than anyone else,
the other side doesn't just oppose that choice, they are all about promoting another choice, namely their own choice. which is always the same choice, regardless of the circumstances of any particular pregnancy, i.e. the completion of every individual pregnancy.
"Pro-lifers" donít want to know about any young girl who is pregnant only because she was abused or raped by an older man in her family circle. "Pro-lifers" donít care about a woman not wanting to spend the rest of her life being reminded of her rape, every time she sees or thinks about her child. "Pro-lifers" donít care about the physiological or psychological damage that continuing a pregnancy may cause such women.
- "When does life begin?" Sounds like a simple question, doesn't it. But it's not as simple as it looks. Everybody thinks they know what the word "life" means. But do they? When people engage in a discussion of "when life begins", do they understand that "life" doesn't actually "begin" at any stage of pregnancy, because life exists in the parents prior to conception, and "procreation" is simply the extension of that pre-existing life to new individuals. What is new is not "human life" but new hosts of human life, i.e. new "persons".
Without having to repeat it every time the word is used, therefore, it should always be understood that in the context of the abortion debate, the word "life" is a misnomer. So long as people speak of "life" when what they really mean is "person", no wonder they can't understand each other. People need to stop debating "When does a life begin?" and instead try to resolve the question, " When does a new person start his or her life as distinct from its mother?"
- Another ambiguous expression that needs to be avoided in this debate is "human being". While it is obvious that there is a "being" from the moment of conception, and the entity in question is "human" (as opposed to some other species), rather than move the ball forward, arguing whether the embryo or the fetus is a "human being", only confuses the issue, as I believe the following illustration makes clear:
Although a human breast is both a "being" and "human", it would obviously be foolish for anyone to argue that because this human part is a "human being", terminating its connection with its human host and causing it's death would be tantamount to murder. This, therefore, is yet another reason to consistently use the precise terminology of "human person" in this debate.