Inside the Bro-Choice Campaign: Giving Men the Green Light to Step Up for Reproductive Justice


It’s no secret that reproductive rights are often coded as “women’s issues,” and the face of advocacy tends to be feminine. However, since reproductive oppression affects both women and men, and is experienced by women and men, it has been routinely argued that advocates need to do a better job integrating men into the movement. Recently, youth-centered reproductive rights organization Choice USA launched a campaign called Bro-Choice to do just that.

RH Reality Check spoke with Choice USA Executive Director Kierra Johnson to learn more about the campaign.

RH Reality Check: When I hear Bro-Choice, I think: The more men working for abortion rights and healthy sexuality, the better. But not everyone might get that. Why is it important to draw in and lift up young men in the reproductive justice movement?

Kierra Johnson: No one can win alone. We strongly believe that the more people (including men) working for reproductive justice, the better. Without substantively and authentically incorporating men of color, low-income men, young men, gay men, transgender men, and, yes, white straight men, how can we expect to shift a paradigm toward true gender justice? When we don’t engage men in strategic ways, we miss out on opportunities for new ideas and perhaps new solutions to old problems.

Reproductive oppression affects everyone. Men can serve our movement in better ways than as pantomime allies. Men are directly impacted by sexual and reproductive health policies set at the local, state, and national level. Men and boys are survivors of sexual assault. There should be a bigger spotlight on men who are already doing cutting-edge work to interrupt the cycle of violence and misogyny in their communities so that we can learn from and replicate what is working.

We all stand to gain a lot by together redefining and embracing healthy visions of masculinity. But that can only begin to happen when men have the space to discuss, unpack, and grapple with how they benefit and are hurt by traditional stereotypes, expectations, and cultural norms associated with modern-day concepts of masculinity.

We all deserve a new frame where we get to see men as a part of the solution and not just the problem. And so many of them want to be a part of the solution; young men are pro-choice and they care about ending violence. There are so many young men who right now who are passive supporters of reproductive justice simply because they aren’t sure how they can be active.

RHRC: So what is the long-term vision for the Bro-Choice campaign?

KJ: We hope that this program can catalyze the men who aren’t yet, but want to be, speaking out on sexism and rape culture. We want to inspire them to become active stakeholders in the fight against sexual assault. We also want to work with them to figure out the appropriate roles to play in fighting for abortion rights, contraceptive access, and the right to strong families. It is true that more men are interviewed about abortion than women. As long as that’s the case, the short-term goal is to get more pro-choice men in front of the camera and legislators. The long-term vision is cultural revolution! We want to do our part to support women and men working to prepare young people of all genders to be ambassadors for sexual health, reproductive rights, and communities free of sexual violence.

RHRC: Let’s back up to the beginning of this campaign. Last year you hosted a Bro-Choice panel discussion that led to the creation of a more formal campaign. Tell me about the themes that came up in that first discussion, and how you knew there was more to explore.

KJ: This idea came out of two separate conversations students were having with us simultaneously. Women in our chapters were looking for ways to authentically engage men on campus, and men were looking for opportunities to work on issues that impact their friends, partners, classmates, and selves. So the original panel, named by students, was held more than a year ago to talk about engaging men in reproductive rights and the challenges of that. After that conversation we knew that there were a lot of people thirsty to talk about these subjects, so the one discussion turned into a series of panels. Then, after so many horrendous episodes of sexual assault drew national attention, it’s evolved into a broader conversation about masculinity and sexual assault.

The national conversations that have happened in the wake of Steubenville are so important, but we’re not sure they are reaching the people that need to hear it most.

Men and gender non-conforming people are affected by these issues and care about these issues. We want to see changes on campuses and in the culture that embrace many ways to “be a man.” We want to see colleges and universities taking sexual assault seriously and eradicating rape culture and victim blaming. We want to see all types of gender identities and expressions respected. Obviously these are very big goals, but we hope that by starting these conversations with Bro-Choice we can be one small part of making them a reality.

RHRC: Choice USA works with a lot of students. What kind of issues do you see resonating with young men on campus, and why?

KJ: Students everywhere are taking action against epidemic levels of sexual assault on campuses and the perceived indifference of administrations and law enforcement. Young people are fired up about this. And we talk to many young men who recognize the sexism and rape culture operating on their campus and in their social circles—even if they wouldn’t use those terms.

Environmental rights, the school-to-prison pipeline, voter disenfranchisement, racial profiling, LGBTQ rights, and education access are also all issues that young progressive men are talking about on college campuses. While Bro-Choice is a relatively new campaign, we are excited at the possibility of working with men and women who are passionate about all of these issues to find some new, creative work at the intersections.brochoiceevent2

RHRC: So is this any different from young women’s activism against sexual oppression? Are there differences in approaches or issues that we should be aware of as we work to build a more inclusive movement for reproductive justice?

KJ: Reproductive justice isn’t just a women’s issue; it’s a people issue. And organizing and advocacy is about meeting people where they are. To do that, you cannot make any part of a person’s identity invisible. You have to be willing to see them, hear them. Even when it is hard and painful, and especially when you disagree or when you are uncomfortable.

Organizing with men is no different.

But that doesn’t mean that male-identified folks joining the Bro-Choice campaign will always find this advocacy easy. Examining gender roles in pursuit of reproductive justice challenges ideas so deeply ingrained in our culture that they are invisible to most. Those who choose to do so may find that they need to step back and listen at times. It won’t always be comfortable, but that’s really true of all social justice work when it’s done right.

Women have been the champions of issues that affect both men and women for decades: sex education, family leave policies, sexual assault, and more. Women are uniquely impacted by these issues, and they should continue to be advocates. It will always be appropriate and necessary for women to be visible and vocal leaders in this work. Women will always need to be true mentors and guides of new activists and leaders entering into this work. But we hope Bro-Choice will offer a new point of entry that gives men the green light to engage more actively with us in the fight for justice for all.

RHRC: It was recently Bro-Choice Week, and eight of your student chapters took action. What are some examples of what they did?

KJ: Our students did organizing at eight schools in four states (the University of Kansas, Ohio State, Georgia Southern University, Sacramento State, Cal State Long Beach, Cal Poly, Colorado College, and Stanford). Each of them did different things, mostly discussion events, panels, and tabling. Most of them did events where they could talk honestly about issues facing men who want to get involved with reproductive justice and sexual assault prevention. They also collected Bro-Choice pledges, and throughout the week we had almost 500 people sign the Bro-Choice Pledge.

RHRC: How were these actions received on campus? What can we all learn from these experiences?

KJ: Our students had great reactions to these events on campus. At Georgia Southern University we have a new chapter that has been having some trouble getting traction on campus. They teamed up with their Gay Straight Alliance and held a discussion event, which had a huge turnout—they got 75 new members in one day! Our chapter at Cal Poly also held a discussion event, and they intentionally reached out to groups that were not the usual targets to attend: the Greek community, sports teams, and the gym. They had about 50 people show up and were able to have a very honest, open conversation with these young men. Our chapter leader there described the way that many of the men seemed to be expressing out loud for the first time the pressures they felt and the discomfort they sometimes have in their social circles.

I think the real lesson here is that there are so many young men who are hungry to have the conversations and have a safe place to talk openly about masculinity, sexuality, and violence; even those who seem like the most unlikely suspects for this campaign are finding value in it.

RHRC: Tell us about the other actions Choice USA led online during Bro-Choice Week. What kind of reactions have you been getting to the campaign online?

KJ: Online we held a blog series and some social media elements, including a Twitterstorm and Facebook images. We saw huge numbers of people engaged with us through these avenues, and tons of great discussions were sparked. We saw some of the same discourse that played out in micro settings also play out as the week of action rolled out last month. Some people are excited to see the campaign and are eager to participate; others are triggered at the suggestion that men take on active visible roles in fighting for contraceptive access, abortion policy, and for better responses to violence on and off campuses. Generally, people seem comfortable coming to the table with their passion and having real conversations.

RHRC: So what’s the next step, if you’re ready to tell us?

This summer we’ll be hosting our national membership conference, and chapter leaders from all over the country will come to D.C. to plan this and other campaigns for the 2013-14 academic year. We plan to roll out a public education campaign in the fall that we hope will be fun and impactful in changing attitudes and campus policies regarding sexual assault.

We will also be reaching out to people who signed the Bro-Choice Pledge as we roll out that phase with ways to get involved.

RHRC: What should readers do if they want to get involved? Anything else we should know?

KJ: The best way to get involved is to sign the Bro-Choice Pledge and declare that you want to be part of the solution to work toward reproductive justice and ending sexual violence.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Erin Matson on twitter: @erintothemax

  • cjvg

    The majority of people do not have sex alone (at least not all the time, and if they do reproductive choice is not an issue at that point)
    So it stand to reason that those who have sex with a (opposite gender) partner, at the very least should and must have some interest at least in anything affecting the availability and safety of that sex

    • Jonathan Kuperberg

      Abortion isn’t about sex. Far-left lies 101

      • Jennifer Starr

        Oh I’m going to love hearing the convoluted ‘reasoning’ that brought you to this little gem.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          For the vast majority of people I have read on the subject or have spoken to on both sides face to face or online, the abortion issue is about 1)whether or not you believe the unborn child is a moral person or not and 2)whether that supersedes the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. If you say yes to both, you will believe that abortion is, in the moral (and spiritual) sense, murder and pro-choice/pro-abortion laws are unjust and should be overturned.

          If you say no to either or both you’ll support abortion rights. Neither have anything to do with sex. The pregnancy may be the result of sex but that part is already over once abortion becomes an issue.

          For the extreme left wing (<10% of pro-choicers) the real issue is that free lurve is sooo groovy an' all that and we can't have none of those old-white straight woman-hating bigots who believe in god (small "g") shaming sluts by daring to make it harder for them to enjoy consequence-free sex, and who gives a fuck about any other moral or practical consideration?

          For the far right (<10% of pro-lifers, probably a lot less given 98% of women use contraception) the real issue is that women should be kept from participating in society by being barefoot and pregnant. The fact that the vast majority of anti-abortion moms do use a form of BC and aren't against women working outside the home indicates that this is a tiny fringe.See the Personhood amendment being voted down even in the pro-family heartland of Mississippi due to concerns over it affecting birth control.

          Not so convoluted… just a basic knowledge of the arguments made by moderates and extremists on either side.

          • fiona64

            1)whether or not you believe the unborn child is a moral person or not
            and 2)whether that supersedes the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. If
            you say yes to both, you will believe that abortion is, in the moral
            (and spiritual) sense, murder and pro-choice/pro-abortion laws are
            unjust and should be overturned.

            Thanks for admitting that women have less intrinsic value than a zygote, Johnny. I’ve suspected that was your position all along. Misogyny is not a pretty thing.

          • colleen2

            Then apparently the majority of people you talk to like to pretend that males aren’t responsible for any aspect of human reproduction.

      • cjvg

        Really?
        How do you believe pregnancy occurs?!

        I’m rather convinced that no abortion would ever be needed if there was no intercourse taking place

        • Jackson

          Abortions are not NEEDED.

          • cjvg

            Because you say so?
            What is your medical degree in?

  • Jonathan Kuperberg

    Nice progressive stack, Kierra Johnson, but being strongly committed to racial and economic justice and pro-life/pro-family I see this turning out as yet another excuse for straight (or queer) white male liberals to crush pro-family candidates who are women and/or of color by playing the “abortion litmus test” card. The machine did just that to Jesse Jackson, who once called abortion Black genocide and Al Sharpton, who used to call it murder, in the 80s early 90s- I suspect the extreme anti-Semitic [Hymietown, diamond merchants &c.] rhetoric both men used not long after their peaks in Democratic electoral politics may have been a message to those social-issue purists, a lot (though not all) of whom were Jewish, to stop trying to build a coalition over the ashes of dead fetuses and the grave of legally recognised monogamy and heteronomativity.

    If that is indeed the case, then congratulations pro-aborts and pro-homosexual militants who would not compromise: you messed up the Black/Jewish alliance, which was instrumental in securing justice throughout the Civil Rights movement and for at least two decades beyond it.

    Sadly, people of all colors have devolved away from God’s standards so now the same white social hardliners are still leading the campaigns, but getting far more active support from people of color in their coalitions to push their sexual experimentalist and feticidal agenda :(

    At least this person is honest about saying her long term goal is a “cultural revolution”- i.e. just what Friedan, Steinem, Ellis, Kinsey, Manichewitz, Corzine, Calderone, Hefner, Maslow/Rogers, Foucault, Fletcher, Simon et al began to impose on the West starting a good 15 years before anyone outside Virginia had heard the name “Falwell” or “Robertson”. I’m sick of liberal lies that there is a “right-wing culture war”: no, you started it, and you subversionist cosmopolitan elitists know quite well you did and knew exactly what you were doing all along..

    • John H

      I’m going to start collecting these to use as source material for some trippy beat poetry.

      • Rachel

        This guy is a ticking time bomb.

        • HeilMary1

          Jonathan should be reported to the police and FBI.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Agreed–this guy has extreme anger issues, among other things. He’s from Liverpool, apparently–probably one of those nutters who goes out of street corners to ‘preach’ (ie scream at people). Bet he’s had an ASBO.

          • HeilMary1

            Where are you finding this info? (I haven’t been very diligent in looking for his odious bio.)

          • Jennifer Starr

            I found it on Facebook.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Not only am I not a “nutter” (ableism ftw, great social justice ally) BUT I have stood *against* the local fundie street preacher because he preaches jumbled interpretations of End Times garbage, claims herbal remedies work for most illnesses and there is a “Big Pharma” conspiracy as well as the Illuminati and Judeo-Masonic/Vatican ones that fundies have touted for the past two centuries, talks about “God told me to get those disgusting rock and roll band pictures off my wall and put the lager and the lottery tickets down”, screams at girls for having tattoos as they are supposedly banned (like he’s not heard of the NEW Testament) and shouts sundry other ridiculous things with no Biblical basis.

            I am an antifundamentalist evangelical who doesn’t scream at people in the street, now does that help?

          • colleen2

            So you scream at us online? No that does not help. But thanks for demonstrating how the poorly raised boys of the religious right deflect ANY blame or personal responsibility for their piss poor behavior.

          • fiona64

            According to his own testimony, his parents didn’t bring him up that way … and he finds that disgusting. It’s pretty clear to me that his folks tried very hard to teach him that sex and human bodies are not icky things, and to apply critical thinking.

            It’s unfortunate that they failed.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Much as I have disagreements with my parents I remain close to them so please do not misrepresent my words on my family and upbringing like that…

            I have **never** been less than thankful that my parents gave me factual information about sex and human bodies and I DO NOT wish that they had told me they were “icky” (Tim LaHaye and The Marriage Bed website explains why this is unbiblical.) My parents did a lot of good for me and continue to do so; I just mentioned particular views and formative experiences in the context of other posters wrongly yet understandably assuming in several cases that I had been brought up in a conservative-Christian household.

            They are nice people: just nice people with what we call SF values- who happened to meet in a casino on a cruise liner headed to San Diego. It was that set of values they wished to lead me to and some of their methods and some of the people in their circles who I got introduced to that troubled me. Am I expected to unconditionally approve of every aspect of my upbringing? Can I not discuss both sides- my family being as imperfect as me and everyone else since Christ walked the earth?

          • fiona64

            Well, I must admit that your statement is fair enough. I’m sorry you buy into LaHaye’s torture porn nonsense on any level, but that’s your issue.

            I take issue with many parts of my upbringing (obviously). However, your previous statements about your family have been more than a trifle disturbing in terms of language chosen … and implied a level of disgust that bordered on superhuman.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Disturbing? Superhuman disgust? What language did I use that could so shock? Perhaps I should revise my words if I can cause a stranger to think that about my relationship with my parents/family…

            Oh and that stuff’s not from Left Behind. He has written *many* other books, you know…

          • fiona64

            Yep, disturbing … such as when you described your mother walking around with her “undulating flesh on display.” Dude, that is a truly bizarre and disturbing way to describe your mom.

            And, of course, the disgust that you expressed when talking about your dad telling you it was okay to look at porn once you were 16. You didn’t mince words about how vile that was, either. I don’t remember the exact terminology; I guess it didn’t stick out as much as the way you talked about your mom. :-/

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “As far as empathy and parenting, they were in the “pro-sensitivity” mode that would be a liberal’s dream: my father is a far-left sexual revolutionist and sophisticate with an unreconstructed Mediterranean view of these things; he approved of me downloading a pirate copy of Deep Throat in my pre-teen years and criticised my mother for not letting me drink on my 14th birthday. While mom rejected his extremes, she still took me to R-rated French films at 12, told me there was “no reason” why gays shouldn’t have sex, and made it clear where she stood upon me having my first school sex ed classes aged 10-11. With only underwear covering her expansive undulations, she sat on her bed telling me how “confident” and “experienced” she was and that I could tell her anything without it going further. (Secretive any?) Both of them are now horrified at my views on sexual morality, and abortion, and God for that matter.”

            -My exact words. Found on DISQUS record, in response specifically to a liberal who sent me a study from a psychological journal saying that non-empathic/authoritarian parenting was the cause of social conservatism. So I explained my folks are at the other end of the scale.

            “pre-teen” (11-12) is not 16, I don’t think “unreconstructed Mediterranean view” is particularly vile. “flesh on display” is not there-you make it sound more possibly disturbing than it was.

          • cjvg

            You self identified as a dominionist to me, that is about as fundamentalist as it comes!

          • fiona64

            And he screams at people on the internet …

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No it’s not. Look up Sword of the Lord, Bible-Believers .net, AV1611, Landmark Baptist/Trail of Blood sites, Bob Jones U, Maranatha… that’s fundamentalism. Separatist, premillennial, dispensational, young Earth creationist, generally King James only and definitely radical about “standards” which serve to keep them from worldly influence, or so they claim. Things like no dancing, no cinema, no going to restaurants where booze is served even if you’re not drinking, no pants, short hair or sleeveless tops for women, no saying “darn” or “gosh” because they are “minced oaths” and still cussing, not even *associating* with another conservative Christian just because they work with others who are less conservative, and as Fiona has mentioned not even being friends with gays (against Jesus’ example) and no secular music (some restrict their condemnation to rock and hip-hop, others go further and ban even Christian songs in these styles.)

            The great bulk of the Religious Right are nowhere near this point on the scale. Some are moderate or conservative evangelicals, some centre-right Pentecostals and some Catholics and Orthodox Jews, and then the renewal wing of the otherwise spiritually moribund “mainline denominations”. Read atheist Libby Anne’s Love Joy Feminism blog for an explanation of this difference if you won’t take it from me, but I am evangelical and NOT fundie.

          • HeilMary1

            You ARE a cherry-picking, profane fundie.

          • cjvg

            You yourself stated that you were in a response made to me, trouble keeping your stories straight?!

            Or is lying an acceptable sin to you?!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I said Dominionist yes. And evangelical. You made the false equivalency of dominionist=fundamentalist, it doesn’t

          • cjvg

            You are so shatteringly ignorant of what you claim is your religion, and the words of your god as recorded in your bible, that it is just extremely sad to watch!

            Traditional Christianity teaches:

            The Gospel of Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross. The emphasis is placed upon repentance and conversion of individual souls. The Kingdom of God in this age is spiritual and grows through efforts of evangelism based on teaching the Bible. It is “not of this world” (John 18:36), but a spiritual rule in the hearts of men (Luke 17:20-21). Furthermore, the Kingdom of God is only finally realized upon Christ’s second return to Earth, whereby He Himself establishes His literal and physical reign.

            Dominionists teaches

            Men can be coerced or compelled to enter the kingdom. They assign to the Church duties and rights that belong Scripturally only to Jesus Christ. This includes the esoteric belief that believers can “incarnate” Christ and function as His body on Earth to establish His kingdom rule. An inordinate emphasis is placed on man’s efforts; the doctrine of the sovereignty of God is diminished.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I am *not* ignorant, you are spouting off unwarranted ad hominem about me. There are NO words of “my” “god” [sic], nor “my” “bible” [sic]; only the Bible which is God’s Word and has been since before I existed. If God calls me to write the Third Testament I shall let you know.

            Riiight… the word Dominionism has more than one meaning. I use it when speaking to liberals in *their* sense, which means “any Christian who believes government should have to folow God and a Christian-based nation is desirable”, without implying any adherence to a specific scheme of belief. That is as a synonym for “Christian Right” or “non-secular-humanist”.

            The teachings you mention from that web page describe a small faction of radical Pentecostals, I’m not even Pentecostal let alone in this movement (commonly known as the “latter rain”.)

            Ironically, those words are from… let me see… a FUNDAMENTALIST site called Discernment Ministries which claims among other things that Catholics are going to burn in Hell, “New Evangelicals” (those who are not fundie) are “compromisers” and conspiracy theories about one-world government, phonics and whole-language reading teaching. So you should just give up accusing people of fundamentalism- it would be simpler.

          • cjvg

            Every dictionary I consulted had the exact same description, and it most certainly is not the one you know are trying to pawn off in order to seem less extreme! as

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I am not trying to “seem” anything- your personal-pronoun-heavy attacks on Christian faith make you “seem” petty and nasty, however.

          • cjvg

            Well it certainly is not my faith, god or bible that you are talking about!

            So just to recap so i’m clear on your personal believes about religion;
            -your religion is how you interpret it regardless of what is actually said in your bible , presumably by your god,
            – dominionism does not mean what each and every commonly consulted and generally accepted as accurate dictionary says it means but what you decide it means.
            -you are the ultimate last word were Christianity is concerned and each and every priest, preacher or adherent who does not believe the exact same interpretation as you do is wrong.
            – regardless of the faith or lack thereof of others, you appropriated the right to demand that the laws passed in this country must be acceptable to your interpretation of your religion and even those not of your faith must be forced to adhere to said laws
            – you consider yourself a benevolent and tolerant Christian even though you want everyone to be forced to live under Christian law.

            Ultimately it turns out that you are in fact a wannabee dictator, who wants to institute his own form of sharia law and be the unquestioned prophet of said religion and law.
            If your jesus ever would come down you would be reading him the riot act about how he is not interpreting jesus’s words correctly, but you will be more then happy to tell him what he really meant.

          • cjvg

            Well maybe you should start complaining to each and every dictionary out there, cause apparently they have never heard of your interpretation either!

            Or maybe you just do not know what way to squirm to try to make any sense!
            Try to keep track of what comes out of your mouth, maybe you’ll start making more sense and come across as a tad more logical!

          • HeilMary1

            JK definitely has schizophrenia and will probably commit a mass shooting in the near future.

          • cjvg

            Or maybe he gets over himself, moves out of his parents basement and realizes that he is not a prophet or the most important person in the world

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            The dictionaries of religious terms do NOT define dominionism as a “form of fundamentalism” or an exact equivalent… and mainstream dictionaries generally do not define Dominionism at all while defining fundamentalist by a simple gloss the nuances of which could be argued out endlessly. So if anyone needs to whine to dictionary compilers, it sure isn’t ME, and for the record I do not “squirm”.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re just as nutty as him and too hypocritical to notice.

        • colleen2

          pretty much

    • Jennifer Starr

      Sure everything was just fine and dandy until we uppity women started wanting to work outside the home, control our reproduction, receive equal pay for equal work and be treated like–oh, I don’t know–complete human beings? I mean, how dare we! Didn’t we know that we’d upset the poor little menz by not knowing our place??

      I have a lot more snark saved up, plus I actually live in Southeastern Virginia and could tell you some stories about the real Pat Robertson and the 700 Club, but right now I need a second cup of coffee.

      • Jonathan Kuperberg

        Don’t be silly… as I support large parts of the feminist agenda as far as equal pay and decent treatment is concerned (not being a misogynist) I never expected feminists to stop demanding most of that. I am specifically talking about verified events in history: ultra-liberal white Democrats interfered with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and thrust against the Black Church in the 80s/90s because they would not compromise on abortion and homosexuality.

        I specifically said it is *abortion litmus tests* I am against, and Bro-Choice could turn into a male EMILY’s List- which would make it even less defensible- that would oppose female, generally sensible candidates just because they are not for abortion.

        • Jennifer Starr

          What I was actually talking about was the fact that you denied that there has been and still is a right-wing culture war. Having not grown up in the US or the American South you might not be aware of it, but I’ve spent my whole forty years in this region and I can tell you that it is not a lie, nor is it a thing of the past.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I appreciate that my lack of personal experience may leave you looking for a reason to claim that my views are out-and-out wrong; I certainly get frustrated when trying to debate a topic where my view is informed by my own experience and my interlocutor seems to be suggesting they “know me better than I know myself”,! All the same, forgive me Miss Starr- forI was not tryingto do this. Thank God one does not need to “grow up in” a nation to know about such things, else the disciplines of history and geography would not exist.

            When I said there is no right-wing culture war I meant that the LEFT started the culture war, then the Right simply got involved to defend its historic position against those who sought to change society on a grand scale to their own personal elite tastes. If you read my quote in context, it includes a list of names of various celebrated leftwing thinkers from the 20th Century- much of whom are most famous for issues that would become the stuff of “culture war” whether abstinence, homosexuality, abortion, education, parental rights, etc. AND my point that it would be some time between when their books and studies began to show up and the Religious Right forming, so the culture war is a left-wing phenomenon as they wanted to change the culture, all the right were doing was trying to preserve traditional values. (NOT segregation either before you come back with that- the culture war as I and most others define it began no earlier than the 1970s.)

            I CATEGORICALLY did *NOT* attempt to say the right had nothing to do with the culture war. You can’t have a “war” with only one side, so I couldn’t believe any intelligent person (which you are, even if I don’t always agree with you) would even take that interpretation. Apologies if that wasn’t clear in spite of the context I provided for you.

          • colleen2

            When I said there is no right-wing culture war I meant that the LEFT
            started the culture war, then the Right simply got involved to defend
            its historic position against those who sought to change society on a
            grand scale to their own personal elite tastes

            Oh, I see. So, there is a war but the religious right is a VICTIM of the “personal elite tastes” the women who want to be able to say when and how often they have a child or desire freedom of religion and conscience.
            It’s the

          • HeilMary1

            Amen!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Civil rights, women’s rights, reproductive rights–it’s all part of the same cultural battle,and yes we did fight it because it had to be fought. Things simply couldn’t stay the same forever because a lot of things were wrong, and while change is upsetting to a lot of people it’s also inevitable. And yes, opposition to segregation is very much a part of it in this country. That’s what I meant about you not having grown up in the American South, because if you think that racial attitudes were all nice and correct by the ’70s, you’d be sorely mistaken. This is not to say that all or even most of the religious right felt that way, but I can tell you that even Pat Robertson back in the ’80s used to frequently wax nostalgic about Governor Wallace ‘bravely standing in the schoolhouse door’ to prevent integration. And I can recall when I lived in a tiny Arkansas town when some people at our church freaked out about square dancing at our school, because not only would children be doing that ‘sinful dancing’, (all dancing was sinful to Baptists) but black children would be dancing with white children. And being upset about a workbook that showed a picture of a little boy cooking while his sister reads the recipe because it ‘upset the traditional roles’. My mom being told she was ‘going to hell’ for working outside the home. Getting upset about kids reading a book in class called ‘Girls Can do Anything’, And this was 1981. And yes, this is all tied up with trying to bring back the past ‘a simpler time’, which is really nice if a simpler time ever existed. (it didn’t) Our childhoods are generally recalled as being simpler times, but that’s generally because we were children.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I knew all that had happened; what I meant by segregation not being part of the cultural war is that it was over by c.1969, with the organized religious right not being a factor until c.1975- so one came before the other. It is true that a small number of Religious Right leaders, most famously Jerry Falwell, worked to support racism before the “culture war” got underway. Anti-busing was to some extent racist but many parents opposed it on other, respectable grounds which had nothing to do with them being against integration in principle.

            Anti-feminist extremism is an issue but when it comes down to it most of us are complementarians, who in practice consider women to be capable of just about anything men can do, or egalitarians. As shocking as the likes of Doug Phillips or Michael and Debi Pearl are in their views on working women, they are a tiny fraction of the pro-family movement. I’ve seen the Texas standards board- who’ve lost none of their fervour since 1984 when James Robison, the Gablers and Lottie Hobbs’ Pro-Family Forum were at their peak in the state- trying to mandate “traditional sex roles” in 1995 and still last year, as well as banning CSCOPE over New Age conspiracy talk and spouting off worse than Glenn Beck about Common Core. Sure, they have a problem with dirty textbooks: so do I but it comes down to whether you see pictures of women working and mention of breast cancer as “dirty” or not. There are different levels of conservatism within the Christian community which secularists too often miss, assuming we’re all in with the most extreme people.

            I can’t get outraged about the dancing thing though. Some of the people I’ve spoken to on Facebook, having added pro-family people to replace the liberals who deleted me for my uncompromising statements about abortion, the homosexual agenda and anti-family schools, are Fundamentalist in the way you refer to: they oppose drinking, dancing, gambling, cussing, movies, rock music and more. I have no personal inclination to this sort of Fundamentalism but I can respect those who practice it: God’s Word says that believers will have different thresholds for what their conscience leads them to view as sinful, and some people may find they can best serve God by living a plain life, separating from the mainstream and cutting out altogether those things they see as “worldly”; while most of us in the more ecumenical wing of the Church prefer to advocate moderation.

            I believe I understand “racial code words” pretty well: I was following them in the last election. I may not have supported Obama due to his anti-religious right stance but I was still offended by the nonsense that some factions were coming out with (ex. Tom Tancredo speaking of a “literacy test” because people can’t “spell ‘vote’ in ENGLISH”, Joe Wilson’s “You lie!”- South Carolina, once home of Thurmond; Newt Gingrich, arch-Southern strategist, claiming BHO is a “food stamp president” and offering to ask the “NAACP” about accepting welfare over jobs; Romney’s “birth certificate” joke; the Romney campaign ad about removing the “welfare requirements”, which was called out by Chris Matthews as “ethnic politics” and Reince Preibus tried to deny it but I didn’t believe him.) As I spoke of on another forum Dianne Feinstein accused of being a “cosmopolitan radical” for her gun safety efforts, which is anti-Semitic code, probably because the person saying it believes that Jews will run a “new world order” through the UN after confiscating US citizens’ guns (the black helicopter/ Illuminati nonsense.)

            I am young and aware that a lot was wrong in the past so I do not see my Religious Right views as having anything to do with the “past” or “nostalgia”, they have more to do with me wanting people to know Christ and obey the Bible: to start with, it has been pointed out here many times that abstinence was often used to punish women only while men were “allowed” to be promiscuous by social double standards. I have no interest in this. I want both men and women to abstain equally, as God’s Word requires. Hypocrisy is nothing but sin. I have no belief whatsoever that there was some “golden era” of Godliness that we can simply return to and make everything OK.

          • HeilMary1

            You still won’t answer why us non-believers and non-marriageable disabled, intersexed, or disfigured people have to obey your abstinence idolatry! Why should we die virgins after decades of involuntary miserable abstinence if we find temporary, good-enough-for-now romantic relationships? You’re probably intersexed gay and poisoning yourself with primitive medical ignorance that demonized people with gender diversity conditions or misunderstood disabilities like Tourette Syndrome.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Hello stranger (ignorant, pathetic stranger at that): how can you describe me as intersexed “GAY”? Intersexed would be enough of an insult. I am FED UP of LYING assholes like you trying to homosexualize, pathologize and/or de-Christianize people who politically and religiously disagree with you, it is nothing but a BIGOTED HATE SILENCING TACTIC and you can shove it up your fucking ass, scumsucker! If we disagree we are NOT “idolaters” or “so-called christians” or *”* Christians *”* in scare quotes. We are actual CHRISTIANS. We are not “psychotic” or “insane” or “mental patients”- we are just Religious Right or pro-Family or traditionalist. We are not “gay”, “closet cases”, “in the closet”, “repressed” or even “intersex”- we just hold to conservative sexual morality.

            Your nonbelieverhood makes you an automatic candidate for eternal death and also prevents you from appraising spiritual things so forget about it: no answer I could give would satisfy your reprobate mind. A temporary “good-enough-for-now” relationship defies God’s Holy standards- and if you come up with some blasphemous response that involves denying God then there’s no point in continuing the discussion as we are coming from irreconciliable places.

          • HeilMary1

            Your Nazi flat-earth denial of the 46-known intersex syndromes won’t make them go away, and since mothers’ hormones feminize fetal sons and since left-behind chromosomes of older opposite sex siblings also effect the genders of younger siblings, you are flaunting your flat-earth denial of your own likely non-100% “male” gender, you bigoted anti-Christian, damned-to-hell Pharisee. If you can condemn me to hell, I can condemn you also, you mentally ill sex pervert hypocrite.

          • fiona64

            You have to hand it to Johnny for spreading Christian love like that. Is it any wonder that people walk away from churches in droves, when the religion has self-appointed spokespeople like him?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            God is a God of love. He is also a God of judgment and punishment of wickedness. The Scripture says He is both- the Michael Moore/ Karen Armstrong/ “Bishop” Spong tendency lyingly says He is only one. Denying half of God’s nature and spreading quasi-Christian distorted love is wrong, no matter how many unsaved folk or weak Christians it gets cramming into your liberal church to have their ears delicately tickled.

            Jesus Himself said opponents of His Truth would land up with Satan and his angels in a lake of fire that burneth with brimstone, that He came not to bring peace but a sword, that people were a generation of vipers, fools, twice sons of Hades, that whoever saves his life will lose it,
            Christian love matters. So does not compromising Christian doctrine on sexuality, marriage, abortion, and other moral issues and reproof of wickedness, lies, anti-Christianity and secular humanism.
            When I am called a lying prick, flying spaghetti monsterist, superstitious asshat, Nazi, Kapo, KKKristian, “Christian”, so-called Christian, christianista, cock sucking closetcase, fucking crackhead weirdo, 17th century scumbag, cross between Ugandans and Fred Phelps, ignorant cunt, killer of gay teenagers, reproductive enslaver… and that’s just a small selection of the names I’ve been called recently- for advocating Absolute Truth in moderate language, it is no wonder I sometimes end up using more aggressive and extreme language to make my point. I know I sometimes go too far but I’m still only human and even a born-again Christian is not perfect. Rather than criticising me for my aggression how about criticising those who spew filth at Christian traditionalists just for expressing their opinion?

          • HeilMary1

            You are a hateful delusional satanist anti-Christian and I hope you get banned from this web site!

          • fiona64

            It wouldn’t be the first one …

          • fiona64

            Thanks for proving my point so well …

          • colleen2

            And yet your ‘God’ and church produced you, an abusive, dishonest jerk. We are not impressed.

          • Arekushieru

            There is no such thing as a ‘homosexual agenda’. There is, however, a
            heterosexual agenda. Homosexuality was not condemned by God or Jesus.
            In fact, it was a MAN who condemned homosexuality, Paul, I do believe.
            But, I don’t believe he actually did, either. The passage that is often
            used to condemn homosexuality actually has been suggested to refer to
            those who cheat on their wives with other men in the same way they cheat
            on their wives with other women. Also, if homosexuality is condemned by
            God, how did Adam and Eve’s children, all boys, have children?
            Finally, if you want to invoke the standard that marriage and/or sex is
            for procreation only (and, if you don’t, you are a hypocrite, because
            that is what Conservative Religious Rightist, Pro-Family traditionalists
            are all about. After all, their theory about sexual morality comes
            from the [erroneous] interpretation that couples should be ‘fruitful and
            MULTIPLY), then you would have to mandate that all elderly couples
            divorce. Whoops.

            As to your OTHER point: Why are you accusing
            someone of ‘nonbelieverhood’, when, not only is she OBVIOUSLY simply
            distinguishing between compassionate and non-compassionate self-serving
            Christians, she is also OBVIOUSLY, and as a RESULT, pointing out that
            true practicing Christians ARE compassionate and caring? Why do you
            equate yourself with ‘believerhood’ when you are the one who OPPOSES
            this definition?

            Also, it is not blasphemous to deny God (I AM
            Christian, btw). What IS blasphemous is for a CHRISTIAN to take God’s
            name in vain. Equating being intersexual or gay with an insult, hate or
            someone else being bigoted against you is poor proof of compassionate
            Christianity and positive proof that this is more than just holding to
            Conservative sexual ‘morality’. More like IMmorality. SO sorry.

            Lastly, segregation as part of the cultural war did NOT conveniently ‘end’ in 1969, as you would like to CLAIM.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Firstly I will address your most serious error: “compassion” does not equate to approval of sin, as you would like to CLAIM!! It is NOT compassionate to tell people it is OK for them to engage in sinful behaviour for which the Lord will judge them- even if they are saved Christians and He will judge them by withholding of some of the rewards of the next life rather than by eternal destruction of body and soul (Mat 10:28 on why we must fear the Lord). Love and holiness are not opposites, they go together, and I expect unbelievers to deny this and assume love means singing Kumbaya and open-ended inclusivistic applauding of all lifestyles and beliefs so long as everyone involved is “consenting” (a secular humanist standard- consent is not sufficient to make sex moral as God owns our bodies and He expects more.)

            It is also a grave sin to tell lies and make defamatory claims: every time a liberal Christian claims pro-traditional family advocates “hate” gay “people” rather than disagreeing with specific behaviours, talks of “bigotry”, compares conservatives to Nazis or segregationists, or (although I have mainly seen this from atheists, some radical professing Christians have done it) call us “so-called” Christians or talk about “your god” with a lower-case G to imply we do not worship the True God they are sinning.

            You liberals and radicals also accuse us of twisting Scripture. Well all I see from your people is CONSTANT Scripture twisting. From quoting Matt 25:31-46 out of context to imply judgment by works rather than faith and grace (an outright damnable heresy) to “judge not” being thrown around whenever someone dares to question the morality of another person’s behaviour- though the Church should judge those within and witness to the lost by calling them to repent of their wrongdoing in accordance with God’s standards if the whole witness of Scripture is allowed to stand- to using “God is doing a new thing” to justify changing moral teachings in accordance with the secular cultural fads of the day to a young Catholic I heard today justifying sodomy and tribadism with “love thy neighbour” to the overall focus on Scriptures about “love” which ignore the context of God’s love within His Holiness, justice and moral government you are FAR more guilty of hypocrisy and quote mining, proof texting, eisegesis and “clobber versing” (to use your side’s terminology) than at least 95% of conservative, evangelical, non-pluralist, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion, anti-fornication Christians.

            On the date segregation ended and its place in the culture war: Mississippi was the last state to desegregate and it was completed in 1969-70 according to two Professors of African-American Studies and hard core Democrats (so not people who would whitewash a form of racism by making it sound further in the past than it was) who I saw on MSNBC discussing then-MS Governor Haley Barbour’s “Citizens Council” comments with Rachel Maddow; they mentioned the exact date because Barbour claimed to have attended “integrated high school” from which he graduated in 1966 and they were calling BS on his claims. The book “The Citizens’ Councils” by an anti-neoconfederate makes similar points.

            “Cultural war” as I have previously stated is generally understood to take shape around the second term of Richard Nixon’s presidency [1971-1975] with Roe vs. Wade, the Equal Rights Amendment debates, the Kanawha textbook controversy and formation of the American Association of Christian Schools by Florida pro-family pastor Al Janney, the rhetoric of a War on Drugs, pornography becoming mainstream in cinemas in a way not seen before or since (Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door played at “regular” cinemas- the sexually immoral still call this the Golden Age of Porn), the founding of Concerned Women for America to support women who oppose feminism, Hal Lindsey’s end-times book, Dobson’s anti-Spock comments and Dare to Discipline, McGraw’s Secular Humanism in the Schools, the beginning of politicised Christian televangelism and other issues involving moral conflict. Racism was not over and is still not over now but segregation was and racial bigotry was NOT the primary motivating factor for culture war.

            I do not believe it is an insult to call a GAY person gay or an intersex person “intersex”- I believe it IS an insult to call a straight, non-intersex person who you know opposes homosexuality those names in an attempt to belittle and offend them. It is the same when homosexual agenda advocates call straight Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who choose not to agree with same-sex sexual activity “closeted” or “closet cases”, which I have also experienced.

          • HeilMary1

            Hitler and his GOP fans in America started earlier culture wars against human rights for ethnic minorities, women, intersexed folks and the disabled, so stop rewriting history. You are a cherry-picking hypocrite who disobeys all of Christianity. And how old are you? Are you married or still a virgin bachelor because you scare away all women with your hatemongering?

          • fiona64

            He’s a 19-year-old kid … who believes that no one should have sex unless they are married. Draw your own conclusions.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            18-year-olds can marry just about everywhere in the world… 16-year-olds here, in most US states and most other places. So I have a fair idea of what “conclusions” you have in mind, but they are invalid.

            And on your patronising use of “kid”- when I came out strongly against domestic violence and racism on RD, you didn’t call me a “kid” or “child” in response to those comments, although they are surely just as much mature subject matter as sexual morality and I am old enough to have and express an opinion on all three. The one which you disagree with, you start the “kid” thing. It doesn’t show much for *your* maturity if you have to belittle someone when they come to a point on which they don’t support your morals or political ideology.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “It doesn’t show much for *your* maturity if you have to belittle someone when they come to a point on which they don’t support your morals or political ideology.”

            Really? This from the guy who just wrote “I am FED UP of LYING assholes like you trying to homosexualize,
            pathologize and/or de-Christianize people who politically and
            religiously disagree with you, it is nothing but a BIGOTED HATE
            SILENCING TACTIC and you can shove it up your fucking ass, scumsucker!”

            Hmm.

          • colleen2

            Your immaturity is obvious and to be expected in one so young. The part that is your fault, the part that makes you ugly is he established fact that you’re abusive towards women and so is your religion. Now please go away.

          • fiona64

            You are still a kid, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Incorrect. You have no valid reason to call me a “kid” regardless of your ideological and religious bigotry.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, I do. To wit, your stomping your widdle feet and having a temper tantrum that features swearing like a stevedore with Tourette’s syndrome every time someone calls you out. That is not the behavior of a reasonable adult.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            How come disagreement is labelled as “hate” and “mental illness” when I do it? Why stoop to the level of Ann Coulter in claiming the other side must be mentally ill and hate you? I have consistently been clear that I *do not hate anyone*…

          • fiona64

            I’m re-reading my post to see where I’ve accused you of hating me … and I just don’t see it. What I do see is my statement that your behavior is not that of a reasonable adult … and I stand by that.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            It was HeilMary who called me a violent hater and refuses to accept she is wrong to provoke believers by repeatedly mentioning fascism and IRRELEVANT abuse issues.

          • fiona64

            I do see her point, though. The Vatican has *knowingly* shuttled its pedophile priests all over the place, while decrying women for *legal use of contraception and abortion.* When you’re hiding criminals in your ranks and bitching about women who have done nothing wrong, well …

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Except that I categorically reject viewing the world through a prism of “criminal vs. legal”. That doesn’t decide who has “done nothing wrong”. I believe in rendering unto Caesar, but not rendering what’s God’s to Caesar (and right and wrong is an issue of obeying God.) The Catholic *CHURCH* is not a police officer, an attorney or a jury but part of the Body of Christ. Its job is to oppose sin against God, not crimes against the secular state. That’s what law enforcement does. People are already pretty unanimous on child abuse being wrong, so I don’t expect them to ramble on about it any more than they have to preach against bank robbery or arson or poisoning your elderly relatives.
            Or are there Catholics somewhere actually saying that the criminal laws against child sex abuse are wrong and they are committing righteous civil disobedience against them? I’ve not heard any.

            I agree the abuse issue was mishandled under Crimen Sollicitationis and that abusers should have been handed over to police immediately but it is NOT relevant to any other issue, does NOT discredit Catholic voices (a great majority of whom had nothing to do with abuse) and to keep dragging it up is just a form of anti-Catholic bigotry. If people drag up terrorism and the fact some clerics shield terrorists from governmental authorities every time Islam is spoken of, they are rightly called anti-Muslim bigots. I wish people would get it when it comes to Catholicism.

          • HeilMary1

            You completely ignore the Vatican’s genocidal support of fascist Catholic politicians like Hitler throughout history. The RCC opposes all effective family planning so its pedophile priests will have unlimited victims. The RCC is a mother-killing, child-raping crime syndicate and you egregiously defend it.

          • HeilMary1

            You’ve been violently hating and condemning me for being a whistle blowing survivor of Catholic abuse. Catholic fascism put Hitler in power to punish feminists, family planners, union members, honest gays, the unemployed disabled, etc. You don’t know history.

          • HeilMary1

            You consistently condemn me to hell for sins you falsely accuse me of committing because I truthfully point out your hypocrisies and Vatican crimes.

          • HeilMary1

            Your violent hatred for everyone who even slightly disagrees with you is proof that you are not only mentally ill, a dangerous bigot, but also ignorantly immature as well.

          • fiona64

            Your childish behavior is more than adequate reason.

          • colleen2

            Correction: he’s a 19 year old with anger management problems and a deep seated, faith based contempt towards women.

          • fiona64

            Good points all.

          • fiona64

            you CAN’T TELL ME NOTHING

            Truer words were never spoken … but not for the reason you think.

            You continue to remind me of my favorite Oscar Wilde quote: “I am no longer young enough to know everything.” I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, John: one of these days, the real world learning curve is going to smack you awfully hard.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Except disagreeing with radical leftists does not make you a “know-it-all” who needs a “reality-based” “real world” lesson. It makes you a human being with a different viewpoint to yours.

            If a young person of fervent liberal sensibilities went on a paleoconservative site and posted comments challenging the group of middle-aged Old Right wingers, they would likely come up with a similar response- it wouldn’t necessarily make them right and the young person wrong.

            But given that it is normally the (far) left who are in favour of youth speaking their mind and being treated with respect (and even being allowed to make big medical decisions and have abortions at the age of 13 or thereabouts without their parents’ consent) I find it less explicable why a middle-aged liberal like you would keep insisting on bringing up the age issue against a young religious conservative.

          • colleen2

            Your nonbelieverhood makes you an automatic candidate for eternal death
            and also prevents you from appraising spiritual things so forget about
            it: no answer I could give would satisfy your reprobate mind.

            You are ridiculous.

            Find another blog.

          • pockysmama

            And….FLOUNCE!!

          • HeilMary1

            The culture wars have been going on for at least 2,000 years with RCC male clergy cruelly denouncing their childbirth-ruined wives as “piles of dung witches” and swearing themselves to faux celibacy. Your heretic “Christianity” has shamed, tortured and murdered millions of women, intersex gays, children, the disabled and indigenous “heretics” for centuries, so don’t blame celebrities of the past few decades for your 2,000 years of genocide and gynocide. Your fascist GOP supported Hitler and Mussolini and recruited Gen. Smedley Butler to overthrow Roosevelt in order to throw feminists, union members, the unemployed, and minorities into concentration camps here, but lucky for us regular Americans, Gen. Butler instead blew the whistle on your treasonous GOP idols. Your 1970s Religious Right was simply the new-fangled treasonous Nazi “Liberty” Lobby of the 1930s.

            Why won’t you address the human rights of born-intersexed people? Why won’t you acknowledge that childbirth is grossly dangerous, disfiguring, bankrupting and ruinous to marriages? Your heretic primitive goat herder cult doesn’t speak for any universal creator and is completely debunked by rudimentary science.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “When I said there is no right-wing culture war I meant that the LEFT
            started the culture war, then the Right simply got involved to defend
            its historic heterosexual, christian, white privileges and power from those who sought to change society on a
            grand scale to achieve equal rights and power for everyone who wasn’t a christian, heterosexual white man…..so the culture war is a
            left-wing phenomenon as they wanted to change the culture, all the right
            were doing was trying to preserve their privilege at the expense of everyone else.”

            There, fixed that for you.

        • cjvg

          What you refuse to acknowledge is that choice does not prohibit birth or adoption if the woman so choses!
          It is of utmost importance that at least one political groups stays ideologically wedded to Choice!
          If you are anti-choice you are in effect telling women that they are second hand citizens that will never have the right to ownership and full say over their own bodies like men do.
          You are in effect saying that women will never be considered fully capable adults who can make their own medical and live decisions!
          People who support choice do not force abortions on women, they are in effect saying that we women are considered capable competent adults who can make their own decisions without having “big daddy” passing laws making decisions for us ’cause us poor little females just don’t have the brain capacity and the clear-headedness to make the right choice for our self!

        • HeilMary1

          So you support enslaving us as throwaway incubators for pedophile priests and wife-murdering adulterers like Erik Prince of Blackwater who counted on additional pregnancies killing his has-been first wife with additional female fetus-caused breast cancer! You support forcing early deaths and leperdom on black women by ruining them with gross childbirth injuries like obstetric fistulas! You have criminal Munchausen by Proxy psychosis and you rely on using fetuses instead of fists to maim and murder us women. You’re as bad as Hannibal Lector.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Go fuck yourself. I told you one more “priest abuse” comment and I don’t speak to you again. You’ve had your fair warning, now go find someone else to torment.

          • HeilMary1

            Take your marbles and go home, you spoiled toddler troll. And at least I don’t use profane four words and defend pedophile priests like you do.

          • colleen2

            You don’t get to do that here. You don’t get to spread Catholic dogma and then abuse us when we point out that you’re browbeating us with the beliefs of men in an institution that has spent hundreds of years emotionally, physically, sexually and spiritually abuses women and children as a form or recreation.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Yes, actually I *do* get to refuse to continue discussion with anyone I like, especially anti-Catholics. So I say to you the same as HellboundNonvirginMary: Go fuck yourself. Disrespect for Christ and His Word and the institutions that preach it are sufficient reason for me to call you scum out.

          • colleen2

            Find another blog.

          • HeilMary1

            I hope he gets banned from here because a Catholic Fred Phelps terrorist is just a homemade bomb away from being another Anders Behring Breivik.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I agree with Colleen–find another blog. Not only have these discussions become increasingly pointless, but this continuous insistence that others must acknowledge your beliefs as the only valid beliefs or else they’re somehow disrespecting you is more than a little annoying. Please take your theocratic opinions elsewhere.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Live Action allows pro-choice posts, even fairly nasty ones…

            How about banning the person who libelled me by calling me a terrorist, associated me with Hitler and Nazis over and over again and linked me not only to a hate preacher but mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik? Is it any wonder people get nasty when treated like that? Liberals frequently tell me their blogs are better than conservative ones because they allow dissenters to be heard in the comments section…

          • Unicorn Farm

            No, live action does not allow most pro-choice posts. While it leaves up a few, its “moderator” has consistently banned the pro-choicers who regularly commented and point out the numerous and egregious factual and logical errors pervading their “journalism.”

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Well I was accused of “sexual provincialism” (!!) on Live Action by a prochoicer just for my view of abstinence till marriage.

          • fiona64

            I find the accusation accurate, myself …

            Choosing abstinence is a personal choice, and I won’t fault anyone who says they choose it for themselves. When people insist that *others* choose it ::ahem::, well, that’s a pretty damned provincial attitude. Once again, mind your own bedroom and keep your nose out of other people’s.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Won’t go over the substance yet again but is being provincial necessarily a *bad* thing?

          • fiona64

            How about if you re-read the sentence (copied here for your convenience): When people insist that *others* choose it ::ahem::, well, that’s a pretty damned provincial attitude.

            To put it bluntly, you don’t get to decide for anyone but yourself, Mr. Nosy Parker. Try giving other people the same courtesy you demand for yourself: respect for decisions and opinions that differ from your own.

          • HeilMary1

            Allowing us free will and the liberty to choose is too Christian for him. He only does Pharisee hypocrisy.

          • fiona64

            I got a correction on this from a practicing Jew; Jesus was a Pharisee. They were the law-givers. It was the hypocrites amongst them whom Jesus decried.

            I do concur that Jonny only seems to think respect should flow in one direction: toward him. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s getting every bit of respect that he’s earned. He’s no dummy; the kid is obviously bright. But his wisdom score is fairly low.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            This whole “nosy”/”MYOB” thing will NOT work on,me. You can say it as many times as you like but I’ll keep saying what I think is morally right.

          • fiona64

            Well, then, you’ll just continue to look like a voyeuristic prat. ::shrug::

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Voyeuristic? Surely if I was, I’d be looking at porn online, not typing out Christian and conservative apologetics…it is more my side (the promoral ones, not the hypocrites) who actually think there’s something wrong with peeking at sex for pleasure.

            Sure, Rush Limbaugh said he wanted to see the tapes of Sandra Fluke. But I don’t share such views at all, any more than I think he’s right to bash “illegal aliens” and spew about “death panels”.

          • fiona64

            Yes, voyeuristic. That’s the kind of person who spends all of his time worrying about what people are doing in their bedrooms — and demanding that they only do it a certain way and under certain circumstances.

            There is no other, more appropriate word.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “Theologically conservative”?

          • fiona64

            Nope, just frigging nosy.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I’m *not* theologically conservative now?

          • colleen2

            no, you are sick and creepy.

          • HeilMary1

            Why don’t you just lop off your detested sinful manly parts and leave us alone? Your pompous schizophrenia will never convert us to your dystopian “religion”.

          • colleen2

            why should we be interested in the moral pronouncements of a jerk whose hobby is verbally abusing women he does not know?

          • fiona64

            Everyone open your hymnals to page 152, so that we may sing together: “And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love …”

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            That got old in February… and you haven’t said it to any of the people who have shown hate toward ME for MY beliefs. I already knew most people here would disagree with me but they don’t need to be hateful about it.

          • fiona64

            No one is showing hate for your beliefs, John … they’re showing hate for your behavior. I’m sorry you don’t know the differenc e.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re hateful, you whining baby hypocrite.

          • cjvg

            Ah, another who recovered from their early childhood indoctrinations
            Appreciate the irony in your post very much!

          • cjvg

            So that is what your god and jesus promotes, name-calling and belittlement of those who have other believes?!

            I seem to remember from my childhood indoctrinations some of the very well known jesus quotes about “turning the other cheek”
            and some other very commonly used bible statements like “judge not unless ye be judged” that seem to reserve the right to judgment to god only!

            And then there are the less common verses, but of course you should know them (although you are curiously ignorant of actual bible content when called out on it)
            ACTS 10:28 “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
            MATTHEW 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
            PETER 3:8 and 15 “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling”
            “make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, ” (?!)
            PROVERB 16:24 “Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body”
            ROMANS 14 “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

            So unless you are now claiming god status for yourself, you are sinning against your gods word, by making judgments that your god strictly reserved for himself alone

          • colleen2

            His religion exempts him from the judgement of any woman. In Christianity, he talks. We listen. He’s just frustrated because we’re not playing fair and we refuse to recognize that he and God agree with each other. He’s being loving when he tells us to fuck ourselves.

          • HeilMary1

            He reminds me of my “loving” HATEFUL family. You never win with such Hannibal Lectors when they are determined that you’re going to be their next dinner special.

          • HeilMary1

            He also doesn’t get it that his misogyny and sexual phobias would drive him to team with Judas Iscariot to split the 30 pieces of silver to punish Jesus for hanging out with prostitutes, unwed mothers like HIS MOM, and midwife-abortionists.

          • cjvg

            Oh, that must be an American phrase I’m misinterpreting then, thanks for clarifying that it really means with (christian?) love

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, it means I could take no more of your anti-God claptrap without getting aggressive. I try to be patient but I lost it when you kept on claiming Almighty God’s absolute Truths somehow don’t apply to you because of your denial He exists, when He will judge you anyway, and *dare* to quote Scripture out of context to a born-again believer explaining why you are wrong and why “I don’t worship your [sic] god [sic]” will NOT be an excuse on Judgement Day.

          • cjvg

            Well if the scripture is out of context by all means bring in the quote it comes from and explain away!
            You have not done so yet, for obvious reasons!

          • cjvg

            Again read your genesis, but that would require actually opening that bible you never look in!

            Apparently you only read your little special excerpts that are satisfying your needs, not very religious of you!
            However since you are so mentally impaired I will here restate the story with the the appropriate bible verses listed!

            (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, “Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated “Gods” or “Pantheon.” (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and female they created them. (1:28) The Gods blessed them, saying to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth.”

            Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7)
            Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:8) Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9) Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:15)
            Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh’s precise words: (2:16) Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, “You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. (2:17) Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.” (!)

            Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don’t forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, “male and female,” who are presumably doing just fine somewhere “outside the gates of Eden.”

            This new set-up in Eden is Yahweh’s own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21) So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep.
            And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. (2:22) Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. Right, man gives birth to woman, sure he does, but that’s the way your story is told here. (2:25) Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other.

            (Gen. 3:1) The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made, asked the woman, “Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” (3:2) The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. (3:3) “But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, ‘You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death.” (3:4) Then the serpent said to the woman, “No! You will not die! (3:5) “God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.”

            Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil(!) why could that possibly be a bad thing? do good parents not want their children to learn and make good choices!
            The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh. Wouldn’t it be a good thing, to have knowledge and become like thy father, to become “like gods, knowing good and evil”? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?
            Obviously one of them is lying.

            (Gen. 3:6) The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give.
            She took some of its fruit and ate it, as did her husband who was with her(3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked.
            They sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths and cover their nakedness.

            (Gen. 3:8) The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. (3:9) But Yahweh God called to the man. “Where are you?” he asked. (3:10) “I heard the sound of you in the garden,” he replied. “I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” (3:11) “Who told you that you were naked?” he asked. “Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?”

            And so the sign of the Fall of Yahweh’s followers becomes modesty (!)
            The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked.
            It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked or of their bodies are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

            Yahweh had said back there in chapter (2:17), regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that “on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.” The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter (3:4-5): “No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse: (3:22) Then Yahweh God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever.”

            Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh’s own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods!
            So who, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!

            Outside of eden (Gen 4:1) The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain… (4:2) She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain.
            Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, Cain tilled the soil. (4:3)
            Time passed, and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, (4:4) while Abel, for his part, brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well.
            Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry and downcast, both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahweh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice.
            This was to set a gruesome precedent: (4:8) Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out;” and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him, after all Yahweh favors blood sacrifices!

            Accursed and marked for fratricide, (4:16) Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
            Your bible states cain “left the presence of Yahweh” which clearly indicates that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent.
            Now Eden, according to (Gen. 2:14-15), was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey.
            “East of Eden,” therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland.
            Cain settled there, among the people of Nod.
            He married one of the women of that country.
            Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the “other people” who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. i.e: the Pagans.

            So one of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and married him… (4:17) Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch.

            With both of their first sons lost to them, Adam and Eve decided try again: (4:25) Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth… (4:26) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh. Now it doesn’t mention here where Seth’s wife came from.
            Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among “the other people.”

            Adam, way back there in chapter Gen. 2:17, was warned that when he eat the magic fruit of knowledge he would die the next day!
            Jahweh told him that “on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.”
            So, when did Adam die? (Gen. 5:4) Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters. (5:5) In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died!
            Nine hundred and some odd years isn’t bad for a man who’s been told he’s going to die the next day!
            Not big on the truth your god!

            Your Bible is filled with admonitions to the followers of Jahweh to “learn not the ways of the Pagans…” (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic, worship the sun, moon, stars and the “Queen of Heaven.” (Goddess)
            Your bible admonishes you that “You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws.” (Lev 18:3)
            For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasizes, is not the god of the Pagans (!).

            We have our own lineage and our own heritage as your bible clearly states.
            Our tale is not told by your god or in the Bible.
            We were not “made” from dirt by your god and do not owe him any worship
            We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over aeons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us

            Nearly all of our ancestral tribes lack that peculiar obsessive body shame that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed!
            Why, our God(des)s even tells us, “as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites.” Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of your Christ to redeem us

            Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities.
            The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories.

          • colleen2

            You aren’t being “aggressive”. You’re aggressive when you proselytize your absurd beliefs. What YOU are doing is being abusive. I mention this because Christianity produces a lot of abusive men who dislike women, just like you do.

          • colleen2

            I’m pretty sure that sort of Christian ‘love’ is not specific to the US but the religious right here is busy codifying their ‘love’ into laws. Just yesterday the far right Catholics on the Supreme Court expressed their love for people of color by eviscerating the Voting Rights Act. Because theocracies can’t thrive in an actual Democracy.

          • cjvg

            You are absolutely right, it is not specific to the US.
            It seems to be specific to most self-righteous and full of self importance religious adherents though.
            However, in northern Europe this particularly virulent strain of “Christian” love just does not have a public platform, or even any political relevance.
            What amazes me is the complete and utter contempt they display for the words of their god as printed in their bible that directly contradict their statements (not that that particular document cannot be used to justify just about anything).

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I don’t take theological orders from humanistic Christ deniers who write “your god” [sic] with a small “g” when descrbing God… gender is irrelevant.

          • HeilMary1

            We don’t take self-destructing orders from hateful heretic, self-appointed delusional “Voices of God” bullies.

          • cjvg

            Actually these are statements made by your god and written in your bible, curious that you do not even know what you are so vehemently are defending!

            Obviously you are ignoring the theological orders from your god and his holy book of scripture when convenient to you, but hey no one ever stated that christian people should not lie or commit falsehood.

            Oh wait someone did, YOUR GOD.
            Just another commandment from your god you are willfully breaking.
            Pilling up the sin quit thick jonnie boy

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Actually they are NOT FROM “my bible”, they are from THE Holy Bible which is NOT “mine” but of universal applicability, just that some choose to follow it and others refuse to.

            I am fully aware of all of those quotes and the contexts around them, being a Biblically literate person, but get this through your thick skull- I will NOT, repeat, NOT spend long periods of time explaining thoroughly for you what they mean when you don’t even get the most BASIC of points and you have NO respect for the Holy Lord who will one day be making you give an account of yourself.

            Those statements are NOT made by “my” “god” [sic]; I do not worship an idol. Theological orders do NOT come from “my” “god” [sic] but God, who you do not understand one bit. And it is NOT “my” “god” [sic] who forbids lying but Almighty God, who unlike idols has the right to tell us what to do.

            Now go bother someone else.

          • cjvg

            Ah, because taking the word of god as the way he made his minions record is most certainly wrong.

            What a relief he appointed you to interpret what he actually ment
            Can you please tell me were in the bible he commanded that your interpretation of his word is the one and true way to read his commands?
            Who knew, god does not want you to take his words as he said them, god wants us to take his words the way you will tell us to take them!

          • cjvg

            Getting hard to explain away all those contradictions, so very inconvenient!

            Then please explain genesis the creation story that clearly admits not all of us fall under your gods dominion, some of us were obviously created by different god(desse)s

          • cjvg

            Then please explain genesis the creation story that clearly admits not all of us fall under your gods dominion, some of us were obviously created by different god(desse)s

        • Unicorn Farm

          Forced gestation isn’t decent treatment, to clarify.

    • HeilMary1

      I’ll bet you’d cheat on any brood mare with the slightest disfigurement, never mind the deadly complications of stinky, divorce-causing obstetric bladder and bowel fistula incontinence, female fetus-caused face and breast cancers, multiple organ failures and autoimmune diseases caused by fetal microchimerism. And you’ve never addressed homosexuality being caused by commonplace pre-natal chimerism and microchimerism intersex syndromes that can only be blamed on YOUR god.

      • Jonathan Kuperberg

        The phrase “YOUR god” [sic] -a hyper-personalistic version of what is already a spiritually bankrupt personalizing phrase- sums up everything wrong with libellous hatemongering anti-Catholic bigots like you. Nighty night.

        • HeilMary1

          That you support a mother-killing, child-raping cult tells me you are the satanic bigot here, troll. My opposing criminal abuse by you Catholics makes me a good citizen and better human.

  • Ivanka Klaar

    So, does encouraging men to fight for Reproductive Justice mean that you support men’s rights to a financial abortion? Is is Pro-Choice only for the women…

    • Arekushieru

      My body does not equal a man’s wallet. That you think it does says more about YOU than it does about US. Besides, as it CURRENTLY stands, BOTH men and women are obliged to provide financial support to the custodial parent. DERP. That a heterozygous human male (hereafter referred to as men, as well) cannot get pregnant is not the homozygous human female’s (hereafter referred to women) fault. By granting more rights to the male, this means providing a ‘financial abortion’, you ARE saying that this is her fault. That a man does not get pregnant means he does not NEED an avenue in which to protect his body. It’s like saying that someone who isn’t being raped doesn’t need an avenue (self-defense) in which to protect themselves as the one who is being raped DOES. Or, are you going to now say that those who are not being raped need equal rights to those who are being raped? Thought not. Hypocrite, I hope you see how RIDICULOUS you are now. AND why Pro-Choice SHOULD be ONLY for women, when it comes to abortion? DERP.

  • Bryan Harrison

    as a straight white male who is pro choice i am pleasantly happy to see that i as a male ally am finally being recognized for our role in the fight for reproductive rights but there is still more to do to reach the goal i realize that there are men who are not pro choice who will say that i am betraying my gender by standing with women like my mom who is the strongest person ive ever seen and for me standing up and saying im pro choice is easy and its the right thing to do not just for women or men for everyone i hope one day to have a son so i can say to him stand up for what is right and this is right

    • Guest

      x

  • kksetep

    DOn’t READ THIS. YOU WILL BE KISSED ON THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. NOW THAT YOU’VE STARTED READING, DOn’t STOP. THIS IS SO FREAKY. 1 say your name 10 times 2. say your mum’s name 5 times and your crushes name 3 times 4. paste this onto 4 other games. If you do this, your crush will kiss you on the nearest Friday possible. But if you read this and do not paste this, you will get bad luck. SEND THIS ON 5 DIFFERENT GAMES IN 143 MINUTES. WHEN YOUR DONE, PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO FREAKY IT ACTUALLY WORKS