Skip to comments.The Aging Generation of "Choice"
Posted on 12/01/2009 12:25:56 PM PST by rhema
The die-hard days of radical pro-abortion feminism are disappearing. The era of "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "women's rights," are fading as the most adamant pro-abortion activists age.
Sheryl Stolberg writes in her new piece at the New York Times of a "generational divide" among those in the pro-abortion camp:
The language and values, if you are older, [are] around the right to control your own body, reproductive freedom, sexual liberation as empowerment, said Anna Greenberg [a Democratic pollster who studies attitudes toward abortion]. That is a baby-boom generation way of thinking. If you look at people under 30, that is not their touchstone, it is not wrapped up around feminism and womens rights.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida and chief deputy whip of the House,[said that if] she had to round up her own friends to go down to the courthouse steps and rally for choice, she is not certain she could. When older women have warned that reproductive rights are being eroded, she said, basically my generation and younger have looked at them as crying wolf.
Stolberg's theory seems like a good one at face value. She constructs that argument that younger generations aren't as rabidly pro-abortion as older generations because they never grew up in a world where abortion was illegal. But a key component in the ideological shift is missing.
The abortion debate has not continued in a vacuum since Roe v. Wade. We've seen major technological advancements in the way of sonograms and embryoscopies. If you haven't seen video obtained through an embryoscopy, you're missing out. A small camera inserted into the womb captures video images like an unborn child's beating heart, fully developed fingers, toes, and more. (Watch a video here).
The article makes one mention of this notion before quickly moving on:
Not only is this the post-Roe generation, Id also call it the post-sonogram generation, said Charmaine Yoest of American United for Life.
As the radical feminists of yesteryear grow older, new generations are replacing them in politics. And each new generation is becoming more and more pro-life! It's not a matter of apathy for womens rights, it's a matter of a changing world where we now know and can see the humanity of the unborn child.
No offense to 60s era freepers, but a lot of things will get better when the liberal ones fade off the scene.
The “Women’s Movement” was exposed by Frontline as being the Lesbian Movement. In 1990, NOW reported that 80% of its membership was Lesbian. Remember when NOW President Kathy Ireland said that “three out of four ain’t bad” when Oral Roberts said NOW wanted women to “leave their husbands, become Lesbians, kill their babies and become witches”? That doesn’t attract main stream women.
” The Aging Generation of “Choice” ... the generation that wondered in the wilderness for 40 years and never saw the promised land...
Rather because of their actions and choices. They worshiped the Golden Calf of greed, ‘choice’ divorced from responsiblity and consequences, and failed time and time again to rise to the occasion and follow through on the many opportunities they had to do the right thing and take the right, hard road of sacrifice.
I remember that the people Moses freed, right after freedom, engaged in full blown hedonism and then were told that until they died off, the people would never see the promised land. They blew it for themselves.
Dang straight!! I grew to adulthood in the 60s, and it was the worst time in American history. My generation, at least the section of it that got the publicity, was the worst in history, except maybe for some of the old Israelites who kept worshiping Baal and Astorah, or whatever their names were.
I'll never understand what they were hoping to find.
Murdering innocents and destroying the sanctity of marriage were never worthy goals.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
“Stolberg’s theory seems like a good one at face value. She constructs that argument that younger generations aren’t as rabidly pro-abortion as older generations because they never grew up in a world where abortion was illegal..”
Maybe because we were able to grow up PERIOD.
Life is a bit sweeter, and valued more, when you realize that we could have been snuffed out thanks to the boomers need for “choice”.
Feminists never stood for equal rights. They are a branch of Utopians who hold amongst other things that our reproductive organs should be viewed pleasure organs.
That is, rather than pleasure being a means to foster reproduction, fleeting pleasure becomes an end in itself and reproduction is something to be combated like a sexually-transmitted disease.
And look at the result: STDs are increasingly virulent and intractable. Women making babies with multiple men are increasingly commonplace and they audition for marriage in mens’ beds.
So the Islamists point to how we merchandise our women and offer their way of life as a more respectable alternative: being held as chattel for breeding.
Spoiled middle-class baby boomers were all about rejecting authority in any form. Abortions of convenience were available, the issue has always been a red herring. Abortion was also a pre-emptive aggressive strike against husbands and boyfriends, taking the war between the sexes to a new level. The 60s and 70s saw a huge wave of resentment against male “oppressors” generated by the lesbians who felt forced into unwanted marriages. Now that lesbianism is tolerated and women don’t need men for economic support, abortion is a symbolic issue, not a real issue. Abortions of convenience are readily available.
“The die-hard days of radical pro-abortion feminism are disappearing. The era of “choice,” “reproductive freedom,” and “women’s rights,” are fading as the most adamant pro-abortion activists age. “
I’m afraid I don’t see this. Lots of youthful hate filled radicals out there unfortunately.
Science is often thought a friend to Libs; in this case it is a dreaded foe. Science will soon end most of the debate about “choice”. In coming years, much will be known about the unborn; they will be treated by physicians to an extent unimaginable today. Just as we look back at Libs who once argued that African Slaves were only one-half human, so too will today’s Libs be proved fools on “choice”.
a close family member of mine knows a guy who used to be married to a former NOW president, and yes, she left the marriage to go Lesbo
Part of me is slightly curious as to whether part of this decline in their numbers is due to the fact that liberals, in aborting their children, have been basically killing the very people who would have otherwise been raised to espouse their values and ultimately take their place.
I don't know of one "'60s era freeper" who has been holding down the conservative fort since Goldwater, who like other "johnny-come-lately's" isn't reveling in the demise of the liberal bloodsuckers we've been fighting for the last 45 years. And especially so, where the abortion battle has been one that we "'60s era freepers" have been involved with for so long.
We remember January, 1973 all too well and how our hearts sank as we realized what the battle ahead had in store, including what was known then as the "Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution.
Abortion enshrinement, like in Obama-care, and "gay rights" could have been constitutionally protected way back then, but it died finally during Reagan's first term -- and not a moment too soon. It was only one or two states away from enactment when the time on it ran out. Now that was a bullit dodged, but long forgot!
What makes you think any one of us "'60s era freepers" would miss any one of those dying libs? Just curious... were you even alive back then?
Ted Kennedy's gone finally, and the Catholic Church in RI looks like it's finally growing a pair, and is willing to stand up against a Kennedy. Who knows maybe Pelosi will get excomm'd before too much longer. And I'm a Protestant!
I for one look forward to the demise of other such living abortafacients.
And the day will come when these women who so stridently advocated the killing of the unborn and aborted their own children will have to stand before God and answer for what they have done. May HE have mercy on their souls ‘cuz I sure don’t. I don’t have children of my own regreatably but I’m grateful to God my late mother and my sisters, my sisters-in-law and my daughter-in-law didn’t excerise their ‘’choice’’ becuase they’ve all made me a son, an uncle and a grandfather.
What thou do unto the least of my bretheren thou doest unto me’’.
That’s why they urge liberals to get into the education field,
so that they can indoctrinate the children of the “breeders”.
im not gonna miss those fat, abrasive, misanthropic, dysfunctional modern women, that’s for sure.
This thread ends up bashing women, albeit femminist women.
You make it sound like the men they were with had nothing to do with abortions, or still don’t. And femminists , while vocal, were but a small minority of the women who get abortions. And most of the women were married women whose husbands went along with the idea, or just ‘didnt’ want to know”. Do you really all think that thousands of women get all these abortions without the knowledge and financial help from their men?
The right always has been rather hypocritical on the abortion issue. They only blame two groups: femminists and the doctors who actually perform the abortions.
In all the attempts to make abortion illegal, there has never been ONE law that would include the doctor, the nurses, the woman having the abortion and her husband and/or boyfriend, the parents if they allowed it. At least THAT law then would follow through and not be hypocritical.
The significance of my point is that IF such a law ( to include everyone involved) were suggested....the discussion would involve the men, the families, etc. the result would be Less abortions because the reality would set in and everyone would be —including society, which includes men—more supportive of NOT having abortions.
the irony is that when science showed the unborn and the whole family saw that..there were less abortions.
Here are the NOW founders at their forming in 1965, that was the year when boomers ranged in age from 1 to 19, no one in this photo is that young.
In the public school setting (Minnesota) in which I worked for a lot of years, I heard many more pro-life sentiments from students than I did pro-choice.
Polls like these are deservedly worrisome to the aging zealots of NARAL:
A 2003 Gallup poll compared the abortion views of 517 teens, aged 13 to 17, with those of more than 1,000 adults. When asked whether abortion should be allowed under "any" circumstance, adults were more likely to say yes than teens (26 percent to 21 percent). More stunningly, when asked whether abortion should be allowed under "no" circumstances - i.e., be outlawed - 33 percent of teens said yes, compared with only 17 percent of adults.
Another poll, released in January 2006 by Hamilton College and Zogby International, asked 1,000 high-school seniors about the morality of abortion. Two-thirds said it was immoral, with 23 percent saying it was "always" morally wrong and 44 percent saying it was "usually" morally wrong.
“She constructs that argument that younger generations aren’t as rabidly pro-abortion as older generations because they never grew up in a world where abortion was illegal.”
They are all abortion survivors.
I hope you’re right.
The ever-declining ranks of pro-choicers will never admit it, though. Whenever I debate on abortion-related Internet forums, pro-lifers are always posting poll results, links to sites that show intrauterine/ultrasound pictures of the unborn, stories of women whose lives have been devastated by abortion, etc. Pro-choicers answer with . . . pitiful, hackneyed slogans from the 1970s.
1) NARAL president Nancy Keenan speaking to the Democratic Party Platform Committee, August 2008: "Roe v. Wade is a shell of its former self. Since 1995, American politicians have passed more than 550 laws limiting womens reproductive freedom. In nearly 90 percent of counties across America, there is no access to abortion because there is no abortion provider."
2 "In an email [Sept. 30] to her group's supporters, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards complained that pro-life groups are doing more to generate calls and emails to Congress than her group. . . .
"Make no mistake -- Planned Parenthood has been working with legislators day and night," she continues. "But when it comes to hearing from regular people, the contact with voters that matters most to members of Congress, we're getting out-hustled, outnumbered, and just plain drowned out."
I agree... although the younger generation is more likely to approve of adultery and homosexuality.
They do seem to be more pro-life though, which is a great step forward.
A tale of two January 22 gatherings.
About 18-20 times in the past 35 years, I've attended the January 22 March for Life at the Minnesota State Capitol. Even in sub-zero wind chills, I've never seen fewer than 3,000-4,000 pro-lifers there. In some years, especially when January 22 falls on a weekend, I've seen as many as 12,000. All ages are there: grandpas and grandmas, moms and dads, teenagers, toddlers, babes in arms. Christians, Jews, and atheists are there. Republicans and Democrats are there (I often see the latter clustered around their Democrats for Life banner). Thousands of pro-lifers, every year for 35 years. There's absolutely no diminution in the zeal to fight for the cause of life.
What do pro-choicers do on January 22, you ask? Oh, about a couple hundred of them gather in some warm hotel meeting room in St. Paul and wring their hands about the "assaults" on poor, beleaguered Roe v Wade.
Thousands, rallying for life, outside in the cold. A few hundred, rallying for death, inside a warm hotel room.
I think that's good news.
I remember showing a liberal employee at work a 4D UltraSound of my daughter 3 and a half months in the womb.
He said “Wow! How far along is it?”
“Three and a half months” I replied
It clearly really surprised him and he seemed to even get a little comforbable at that time.
Many women are crediting ultrasounds for saving babies they'd otherwise have aborted.
I agree with you. As a boomer who was exactly 4 yo when NOW was formed I had zero to do with the femnist movement or legalizing abortion. IMHO it is the silent generation who did this those born during WWII which was the generation before the boomers.They would’ve been in their late 20’s and thirties in 1973.
All of that and the immutable truth that abortion is indeed murder.
The self-loathing and fear of the abortion mafia shows most deeply in the histrionics of their rhetoric.
These “women” have to look in a mirror every morning when they are at an age when looking into a mirror shows more of a soul than a face, and they hate what they see.
A life barren of family and contentment. A life of wasted anger. A future without a husband to snuggle with, without children to be proud of, without grandchildren to spoil rotten...
All, basically, because they thought that their selfish politics and indulgent demands for instant gratification could somehow overthrow and replace thousands of years of successful human civilization and Divine planning.
I almost want to pity them. Whatever brave face they show the rest of the world, they must be empty inside.
The silent generation ranged in age from 15 to 35 in 1960, so they were the dominate 1960s generation as far as youth and youth leaders go in music and drug dealers and such, their parents were the government and the institutions etc, and boomers like Sarah Palin had not even been born yet.
Blessings on them.
Abortion has been around since Ancient Egyptian times. Even before. The difference now is that it’s considered all right and something viably alternative to having children.
Of course, it didn't occur to me that someone might think that I was saying that abortion itself was literally invented during the 1960s in America or any where else, merely that wholesale legal abortion as we know it was created during the 60s and 70s by the pre-boomer generations, primarily by the WWII generation and their parents.
I see now. I’m absolutely amazed at how many have died since then. Is it just me, or has the twentieth century been among the bloodiest in terms of mass murder?
Being more pro-abortion then not back in the day, my eyes were opened when I saw an ultrasound.
Doesn’t say too much for the guy either.
No, it's not just you. History shows that each century has been bloodier than the preceding, largely because our capabilities for waging war have "evolved" in each century, at rates that are almost exponential. This has been coupled with an attitude which inures us to the carnage, as a whole.
The results are not a pretty picture...
True, but I mean in terms of ideology. WWII was the first in that sense. Admittedly it’s easier to commit bloodshed, but I also meant in terms of the systematic genocide. It’s like some demon got loose and really did a lot of damage; I have no other explanation for it.
Nothing like the Holocaust has happened before. Each and every since decade during this century has had one madman after another do one heinous thing after another. Mao, Stalin, Lenin even, Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Manson, decade by decade. Then Rwanda, the Kurds, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe, all these lunatics. During WWII it was also the Rape of Nanking, Bataan, the cruelty in Manchuria, the Imperial Japanese, everyone.
This has to be the only century that has had so many crazies and two world wars no less. Wholesale industrial destruction that included rape, torture, and who knows what else, science experiments on innocents, that was during the Holocaust alone. All of it systematic and then carefully carried out methodically. All this destruction and while stuff like, as you have said, has progressed, I would have to say that on the whole, the twentieth century will stand out as one of the worst in mankind’s history.
All other wars and slaughters have been war related and war was usually over territory, not over the worship of a particular doctrine that deliberately killed innocent people as part of something enforced by the state. We’re not really becoming inured, as we simply expect stuff like this to happen. I really don’t know how the world is going to keep this up, mainly because I couldn’t imagine it getting worse.
No one saw any of it coming as the new century dawned. Monarchies fell, so much death, and now we have a new century to expect who knows what.
I say they’ve managed to live a life of choice without personal consequnces. Now we are paying for it in full.
WWII was the culmination of several "tipping points" which reached back through the preceding centuries. The first of which was circa 1462, when the first crude man-portable gunpowder weapons were deployed. The next several centuries, up until 1805 were in perfecting the basic concept of the rifle. That year saw the invention of the fulminate of mercury percussion cap which made repeating firearms viable.This fundamentally altered the nature of warfare from close up and personal hand to hand fighting, to a more stand off mode.
The next "tipping points" were not so much technological, but psychological, and strategic. Belligerents would fight locally, but the concept of a conflict with a truly global dimension would not occur until the Napoleonic wars of 1805-1815. Prior, the colonies and interests of an adversary would be attacked, but more as targets of opportunity, rather than as a strategic concept. Napoleon changed that. Another concept which surfaced in the late 18th, early 19th century was the "Enlightenment" which proffered no higher power than Man and his Reason, which sad to say, is often faulty. An adversary would soon ceased to be seen as a fellow "child of God", and more of a Nietchzean "untermenschen".
This led to the idea of "total war" (pioneered right here in the US, in the Civil War), and the "internment", or "concentration camp". The expression here were "Indian Reservations", and in the Boer War of the end of the 19th century as "concentration camp". These were deliberately waging war on civilian non-combatants. While they reached full expression in the 20th century, the seeds were planted beforehand, until technology could catch up to the implementation.
In a sense you're right a demon, or several, did get loose, but that loosing was not in the 20th century, but beforehand. They could only do their evil through the hands of men, and so had to wait, and teach man the technology which supported the evil, before it could be unleashed...
BTW: Prior to Roe V. Wade, many of the illegal abortion clinics in the northeast were owned by La Cosa Nostra, so your use of the term "mafia" is appropriate.