There's nothing moral or heroic about conservative churchmen or
male politicians denying women access to birth-control and /or abortion

Let's talk about the leading opponents of birth-control & abortion,
      the Roman Catholic hierarchy

Most people would agree that today's "Pro-Life" movement is the fruition of the teaching of some of the most Conservative of Roman Catholic Popes.  Many people mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church has always believed that human life begins at conception, which is what drives the church's opposition to abortion in any and all circumstances and to every form of "artificial" birth-control (because these all involve termination of the life of a fertilzied egg).  The truth is that the church has see-sawed over the centuries between belief in human life begining at conception vs. its beginning at the time of "ensoulment" at some unknowable later stage of pregnancy.
        Since the Catholic Church has played such a prominent role in the promotion of the current radical "pro-life" position, we believe it deserves special attention from everybody effected by its teaching whether they be Catholics or not.  We address the specific problems with the teaching of the Roman Catholic hierarchy at CatholicArrogance.Org/Catholic/abortionteaching.html.

Regarding others who claim to base their views of abortion on the Bible:

As a life-long devout Christian, and a Bible-guided clergyman all of my adult life, I wish that the Bible were more helpful in resolving these questions.  But the Holy Scriptures simply don't resolve every moral issue, and they certainly don't the crucial issues involved in the morality of abortion.  Jesus said that the Father didn't even share all of his knowledge with him, the timing of the end of the world, for example.  Unlike the rest of us who have no direct line to God, some people claim to have special knowledge of God's mind.  But, in truth they don't have any more access to God's mind and will than you do. 
        In this connection, whenever self-assured preachers go around accusing others of "murder", I can't help but wonder if Jesus is saying, "There you go again!"  How similar this scenario is to the one related in

{ John 7:53 – 8:3-11 } 

"As Jesus was speaking, the Jewish leaders and Pharisees (i.e. the leaders of the "religious right" of that time) brought a woman caught in adultery and placed her out in front of the staring crowd.  "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.  Moses' law says to kill her.  What about it?"  They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use  against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger.  They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said,   "All right, hurl the stones at her until she dies.  But only he who never sinned may throw the first!"  Then he stooped down again and wrote some more in the dust.   And the Jewish leaders slipped away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until only Jesus was left in front of the crowd with the woman.  Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"  "No, sir," she said.   And Jesus said, "Neither do I.  Go and sin no more."

( Given the number of people who write to me in order to emphasize the last words, maybe the story should have continued : "One of those shamed by Jesus was close enough to hear what he said to her and ran to catch up with the others. 'Guess what he said to her after you left. Maybe we'll get a chance to stone her after all.'  And they all agree to keep an eye on her."  If such people hadn't missed the point of this story, they would realize that "Go and sin no more" applies to their judgmentalism as much as this woman's adultery. )
        Jesus elaborated on this theme in another familiar passage, in

 {Matthew 7:3-5} 

"And why worry about a speck in the eye of a brother when you have a beam in your own?  Should you say, 'Friend, let me help you get that speck out of your eye,' when you can't even see because of the beam in your own?  Hypocrite!  First get rid of the beam.  Then you can see to help your brother."

When the religious zealots of our day throw stones at women who don't feel obligated to complete their pregnancies, aren't these men doing exactly what Jesus condemned?  Even though the woman had been caught "in the very act of adultery" (a serious biblical sin), Jesus condemned those who wanted to throw stones at her, not only because they were sinners, but because they were overlooking their own sinfulness in their zeal to condemn someone else.
        We can only guess what Jesus wrote in the dust, but it surely shamed the holier than thou male preachers rather than the woman "caught in the very act of adultery"   The fact is that jesus had much, much more to say about the sins of clerics than those of ordinary men and women, all of which I have studied and spelled out in this

study of the Gospels : 

Since there is next to nothing in the Scriptures to justify condemning a woman for the premature termination of a pregnancy, but literally scores of passages condemning the sins of clerics, what would Jesus say about all of the male clerics pointing accusing fingers at women today?  All we need to do to find out, is to read what Jesus said . . .

in Matthew 23:1-14:

"You would think these religious leaders and these Pharisees were Moses, the way they keep making up so many laws! . . .  It may be all right to do what they say, but above anything else, don't follow their example.  For they don't do what they tell you to do.  They load you with impossible demands that they themselves don't even try to keep."  (This wouldn't have to do with things like birth-control, masturbation, abortion, clerical celibacy, perpetuating male dominance over women, would it? ). . . 
"Everything they do is done for show . . .  They act holy by wearing on their arms little prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and by lengthening the memorial fringes of their robes.  And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the reserved pews in the synagogue!  How they enjoy the deference paid them on the streets and to be called 'Teacher' and 'Master'!  Don't ever let anyone call you that.  For only God is your Teacher and all of you are on the same level, as brothers.  And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven should be addressed like that.  And don't be called 'Master,' for only one is your master, even the Messiah. . .  Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders.  Hypocrites!  For you won't let others enter the kingdom of heaven and won't go in yourselves."

Are these words of Jesus nothing but a quaint "dead letter", now that we call our houses of worship "churches", instead of "synagogues", and "reserved pews in the synagogue" have been superseded by ornate thrones in basilicas and cathedrals?

How can anyone read Jesus' demands that his disciples shun Titles of honor, and never suspect that if Jesus considered "Father" and "Teacher" objectionable, he must really be upset with "Monsignor" (which is French for "My Lord"), "Your Excellency", "Your Eminence", "Your Holiness", "The Holy Father", "Supreme Pontiff", and perhaps most presumptuous of all, "Vicar of (i.e. stand-in for) Christ", the equivalent of "Vice-Messiah" !   Before tackling the specks (or whatever) that is in the eyes of others, particularly women, and doing so much reading between the lines to do it, shouldn't the clergy start by noticing what Jesus had to say to clergymen themselves?
        Approximately a half billion people on earth look to the Roman Catholic hierarchy for moral guidance.  Recent books, by Roman Catholics John Cornwell and Gordon Zahn, raise some serious questions about the leadership their church has been getting from the pompous, autocratic, aristocratic, bureaucratic Roman Pope and Curia, a leadership which exemplifies the very opposite of what Jesus instructed his disciples to be and to do. Get a taste of what these scholars have uncovered at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal.html.
        At the very time the celibate hierarchy of the R. C. Church claimed to know with absolute certainty that married couples who practiced birth control, or abortion, and young men or women who masturbated would surely burn forever in hell (for sins not even identified as transgressions in the Bible),  these self-proclaimed "men of God" could not figure out that God might want them to tell those under their moral guidance that it was a much more serious "mortal sin" for Roman Catholics to work (in any number of ways) for a regime that was engaged in the mass-murder of many millions of Jews, Poles, handicaps, gays, liberals, and Jehovah Witnesses  !
        How sad that many of the "faithful" are so misguided that they believe the claims of such "men of the cloth" to speak for God !

---

        As for the question of when a human embryo becomes a human person, in the absence of any clear proof, biblical or other, Christians – along with people of other faiths or no faith – are enTitled to liberal or conservative beliefs in this matter for themselves.  All those who want to make the Pro-Life stance a principal tenet of their faith are enTitled to do so.  They should be respected, just like any other religion, so long as they show the same respect for those who don't share their faith.  But, since Jesus clearly condemned those who would burden others "with impossible demands that they themselves  don't even try to keep," there is nothing "Christian" about condemning others for a sin the Bible itself does not even recognize? 
        The fact of the matter is that Christians who believe that human life begins at conception have no right to force that belief on fellow Christians, let alone on those who do not share their Christian faith!
        Far from having any right to burden others with their beliefs, all that such people have, is an obligation to carry all of the burdens which that belief imposes on them.   When Pro-Life people become aware of a mother's intention to terminate a pregnancy, and are convinced that a human being's life is at stake, such people do not have a God- given right to force that mother or anybody else to believe as they do.  But they DO have an obligation to act on their beliefs themselves.  What they should learn from God's Word is not a right to obligate others, but a responsibility to obligate themselves.  They should offer to take and raise any and all of those whom they view as imminent murder victims themselves.
        After raising our first five children, my wife and I adopted first one, then another, then another, until we had taken full responsibility for five children that others had brought into the world, three of them severely handicapped.  We can't help but wonder why more middle-class Christians like ourselves, who claim to revere the same Scriptures as we, are not doing as we have done.   No one likes abortion, but since it might be said "abortion you will always have with you," we need to deal with it.  Why are those Christians who insist on viewing abortion as a tragic victimization of innocent human beings, so concerned with imposing on others what they think the Scriptures should say, instead of attending themselves to what those Scriptures do say.
        Take the following passages, for example:

{Matthew 25:34-46} 

"Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.  For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger – and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me."
        Then these righteous ones will reply,  "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you?  Or thirsty and give you anything to drink?  Or a stranger, and help you?  Or naked, and clothe you?  When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?"
        And I, the King, will tell them, "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!"  Then I will turn to those on my left and say, "Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.  For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me."
        Then they will reply, "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?"  And I will answer,  "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me." And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life."

{1 John 3:17-29 } 

"But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need and won't help him – how can God's love be within him?   Little children, let us stop just saying we love people; let us really love them, and show it by our actions.  Then we will now for sure, by our actions, that we are on God's side, and our consciences will be clear, even when we stand before the Lord.  

{Luke 10:25-37} 

"One day an expert on Moses' laws came to test Jesus' orthodoxy by asking him this question: "Teacher, what does a man need to do to live forever in heaven?"  Jesus replied, "What does Moses' law say about it?"  "It says," he replied, "that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,and with all your strength, and with all your mind.  And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."  "Right!" Jesus told him.  "Do this and you shall live!"
        The man wanted to justify himself {i.e. his lack of love for some neighbors}, so he asked,     "Which neighbors?"  Jesus replied with an illustration: "A Jew going on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by bandits.  They stripped him of his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road.   "By chance a priest came along; and when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by.  A temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but then went on.   But a despised Samaritan (a foreigner) came along, and when he saw him, he felt deep pity.  Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them.  Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came to an inn, where he nursed him through the night.  The next day he handed the innkeeper  two silver coins and told him to take care of the man.  "If his bill runs higher than that,"  he said, "I'll pay the difference the next time I am here."   Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the bandits' victim?  The man replied, "The one who showed him some pity."  Then Jesus said, "Yes, now go and do the same."

Passages such as these are what moved my wife and me to adopt our five children.   Instead of being in the front line of those condemning others for the practice of abortion, we believe the Bible's teaching should lead the clergy to be in the front line of those offering to save "baby human beings,"  by taking and raising them themselves?  Celibacy bars the Roman Catholic clergy from marriage, not from parenthood.  Why do so many Roman Catholic bishops and priests expect lay men and women to do what they conveniently avoid doing themselves?  It's no excuse to claim that they cannot combine their profession with child-rearing.  Men in every other profession and trade manage this responsibility?   The clergy of every other denomination do it.  And even the Catholic clergy did it for ten centuries!  How many clergy and other "pro-life" champions are leading the way by volunteering to take the most unwanted of babies:  the severely handicapped, "crack babies," the victims of AIDS, and the like?

---

People don't prove the genuineness of their faith by telling others what to do.  They prove it by following the Bible's teaching themselves.  We will know Conservative churchmen and Republicans are sincere in their claim to preserve and promote the authentic teaching of the Bible when they promote obedience to this important teaching :

{ Exodus 35:1-–2 }  

"Moses assembled all the congregation of the Israelites and said to them: These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.  You shall kindle no fire in all your dwellings on the sabbath day.

{Exodus 31:12 – 18 }  

" The Lord said to Moses:
        You yourself are to speak to the Israelites: "You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.  You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people.  Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.  Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.  It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."
        When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God."

Until Conservative Republican Christians shut down every last one of their money-–making businesses on the Sabbath day, each and every week, we will know that they don't really take the Bible as seriously as they profess.

Isn't it curious how prosperous "Conservative" Christians, who vehemently resist most every tax-funded program to help the needy, are such enthusiastic supporters of the "pro-life" cause?   They want to make endorsement of this non-biblical belief the touchstone of Christianity, and want to see every fetus come to term, no matter what the cost is to someone other than themselves !  And these very same people resent immigration, welfare, nutrition, head start, guaranteed health insurance for everyone, universal employment, minimum wage, civil rights for all, and even housing and education programs for those very children, once born.  What is so different about this one cause, that it enables the well-to-do, who resist just about every other form of biblical compassion, to embrace this one?  Could it be that it costs them nothing?  They get to be held up as morally upstanding people by coming out in favor of imposing burdens on others, burdens which the Bible does not impose.

"Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen."

It might likewise be said that "Those who say, 'we love fetuses', whom they cannot see, while not being concerned about their brothers or sisters whom they can see, are liars."

It's amazing how many Pro-Life female activists suddenly change their tune, when they find themselves hosts to an unintended and unwanted pregnancy :

Why morality is best served by liberal churchmen & Democratic politicians
    fighting to defend women's right to abort their pregnancies

  Sunshine for Women

NARAL's report on Stem Cell Research

Reproductive Rights of Women

Some Pro-Life people try to compare abortion to the NAZI "holocaust".  This of course conjures up images of the slaughter of Jews during World War II.  But, far from being champions of "choice", the perpetrators of the holocaust, like most Conservative dictators, were fierce champions of "the unborn".  In the NAZI bible, "Mein Kampf", Adolf Hitler made plain his Catholic feelings on abortion.  "I'll put an end to the idea that a woman's body belongs to her . . .  NAZI ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand."  Accordingly, Hitler sentenced Aryan women who had abortions to hard labor after the first offense, to death after the second.  Advocacy for the life of unborn obviously didn't translate into respect for the life of the born for Hitler then.  And neither does it do so in our time

Jurisprudence vs. Moral Theology

In an article published April 23, 2004 in the National Catholic Reporter, the U. of Notre Dame theologian, Richard McBrien, makes the point that :

Does anyone actually believe that greedy, selfish, pompous Conservative Republicans like George Bush, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Ken Starr, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Judge Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchannan, would not be the first in line to have a girl friend, a mistress, a wife, a daughter, or a sister of theirs abort an unwanted pregnancy in order to protect their reputations, or for any other convenience?  How much would you be willing to risk in a wager that they have already done so, and would be no less willing to do so again?
        Deep in your heart, you know full well that, while engaging in it privately when it suits them, these hypocritical politicians only oppose abortion publicly because of the political benefits which this issue has given Republicans, by driving a wedge between a vast number of poor, and middle class people (who have everything to gain by supporting the Democratic Party), and persuading them to ignore their self-interest in order to support the party that opposes just about all of their interests as poor or working class people.

Why abortion rates go up under Republican administrations
and down under Democratic administrations.

In mid 2005, Susan Wood the FDA's director of the Office of Women's Health, resigned her position. She cited the agency's endless stalling and political maneuvering over emergency contraception as the reason for her resignation. Here's an excerpt from the e-mail she wrote to colleagues announcing her decision:
        "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled. . . The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health.  [Reproductive Health Technologies Project]

The Catholic hierarchy has failed so miserably in convincing its own members that it wants to use the U.S. government to enforce its beliefs on both members and non-members of its church.
        A reputable 2000-2001 survey found that the abortion rate among Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; while the rate for Protestants was only 18 per 1,000 women. (Surprisingly, 13% of the women surveyed actually admitted to being evangelical or "born again".)
[ factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_catholic_women_get_abortions_more_frequently.html ]

Christianity

• Roman Catholic Church: The Roman Catholic Church, with more than 60 million members in the United States and Canada, has taken an historically well-known stance against abortion. Under its laws, a woman who obtains an abortion faces excommunication, except to save the life of the mother.
• Southern Baptist Convention: The world's largest Protestant denomination, with more than 15 million members in North America, generally takes an anti-abortion position.
• National Baptist Convention: A predominantly black denomination, abortion is not favored, but a woman's right to choose is also stressed. There are more than 8 million members in the United States and Canada.
• Greek Orthodox Church: Abortion is murder, according to the Greek Orthodox Church, which believes that life begins when a child is conceived. Exceptions are permitted in cases of life or death for the mother. Generally, a woman having an abortion must seek repentance to be welcomed back into the church. There are more than 530 churches in North and South America and about 2 million members in the United States and Canada.
• United Methodist: With more than 8 million members in North America, United Methodists generally take a pro-choice stance.
• Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints: (Mormons): With more than 4.6 million members in the United States and Canada, this group strongly opposes abortion.
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.): This denomination, with more than 3.6 million members in the United States and Canada, strongly stresses the personal right to choose based on an individual's religious principles and opposes government interference in the issue.

  African Methodist Episcopal: The more than 3.5 million members in North America hold various points of view on abortion, though many leaders describe themselves as pro-life.

• Seventh Day Adventist: This denomination has more than 775,000 members in North America and in general believes that the final decision should be made by the woman after "appropriate consultation" and "guidance of the Holy Spirit."
• United Church of Christ: The more than 1.6 million members in the United States and Canada stresses alternatives to abortions, but uphold the woman's right to choose.
• Unitarian Universalist: Members generally believe in a woman's right to choose as part of her right to privacy. There are 500,000 members in North America.

• Most Orthodox Jews strictly oppose abortion, except to save a mother's life. Rape or incest cases are no exceptions. Many of the 1 million Orthodox Jews in the United States and Canada oppose government intervention in abortion, which they feel is a religious matter.
• Reform: Reform Jews believe in a woman's right to have an abortion and oppose anti-choice efforts. There are about 1.5 million members.
• Some Conservative Jews hold views, while many of the 1.2 million Conservative Jews are anti-abortion, others are closer to Reform Jewish position, i.e. pro-choice.
• Buddhism With more than 320 million members worldwide, many Buddhists believe that abortion is killing, but approval or disapproval of abortion should be determined according to each situation.
• Islam Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, administrative assistant at the Council of Islamic Organizations in Detroit, expressed the view of most Islamic countries: "We are against abortion unless it's a matter of life or death for the mother. In the Koran, it tells us we should not kill our children for want or anything. That is 'harram,' Arabic for forbidden." There are more than 5 million Muslims in the United States and Canada.
• Hinduism The more than 700 million Hindus worldwide believe the soul enters the fetus at the mome nt of conception. Traditionally, abortion is forbidden except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother's life.

Around the world, there's a general correlation between the availability of abortion and social concern
for the well-being of children, according to the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
( from material in "Anti-Child", By Kathra Pollitt   in The Nation,   Nov. 15,  1999 )

"Pro-Choice" nations:

" Pro-Life " nations:

It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses "pro-life" people can come up with to avoid any of the burdens they are determined to impose on mothers who are faced with the challenges of an unwanted pregnancy.  I saw Gary Bauer, the director of the Family Research Council and one of the nations leading Pro-Lifers, offer this great one on the national C-Span call in show (in March of 2003).  .  When asked if he was willing to adopt any unwanted children,  he replied that, considering the facts that he and his wife already had two little angels and that many more deserving parents were on waiting lists to adopt, it would be "unfair" of him to do so.
        As a former adoption advocate myself, I happen to know that despite the fact that a lot of people want to adopt, there are hundreds of thousands of children who are languishing in foster care or institutions  because many of those in line to adopt children only want model children,  not one or more of the thousands of "hard to place" children, ( i.e. older, sick, disturbed or handicapped, minority or mixed race, parts of sibling groups, etc.)  But Bauer must have gotten his queue from his fellow Republican Conservative leader, Congressman Tom Delay,  who explained his failure to serve in the military during the Vietnam war as the result of minorities having filled all the slots before he could get one!

        In response to my question:  "What are you prepared to do once those unwanted babies are born?  Will you adopt them all?  Will you pay for someone else to adopt and raise them?  Or will you go your merry way and wash you hands of both the mothers and the children?"  I got this response from someone I'll call LDP (short for the way he describes himself "Liberal Democratic Pro-Lifer
        In response to a challenge I gave him and which I reprint below, LDP wrote to me :
"I am truly shocked, (Ray), that you would suggest that any other person – especially a person whom you have never met and whose temperment and life situation you really have no clue about – should adopt even one child.  Your earlier comments told me that you had a real concern for children, but I have to say that this suggestion – that I should adopt a child or some children – simply because I am on the Pro-Life side of the abortion debate – is truly shocking.  For all you know, I may be a person who would not take parenting seriously and who would severely neglect any child I would adopt.  Would you advocate placing children in the homes of people simply because those people are Pro-Life?  Or are you making the assumption that all Pro-Life people must be good parent material?"

        My response was:  "Your excuse is really creative, namely I am at fault, for suggesting that you adopt without knowing in advance if you were fully qualified.  That's a hoot.  You already know that I have adopted 5 children, so why wouldn't I know what you would have to go through to succeed in adopting children.  My question wasn't about how many you were qualifed to adopt, but how many you desired to adopt.  Now, you ignored the fact that I gave you three choices.  Given the fact that you ruled out the first, and didn't volunteer the second, my guess is that your choice is the one that most pro-lifers make, i.e. # 3: "go your merry way and wash your hands of both the mothers and the children."   (but only after making sure that those mothers are not allowed the option of escaping the multitude of consequences of their unwanted pregnancy)."

'[The Fuehrer's Guidelines for the Government of the Eastern Territories: ' the Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don't need them, they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable.] They may use contraceptives And practice abortion, the more the better. . .Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population."

How dishonest it is to use such a quote to suggest that Hitler and the Nazi's were "pro-choice" when the following shows that the Nazis were actually "pro-life" when it came to the lives they identified with , i.e. Aryan Christian life:
        SS chief Heinrich Himmler wrote to Field-Marshal Willhilm Keitel the following in 1939:

"According to statistics there are 600,000 abortions a year in Germany. The fact that these happen among the best German racial types has been worrying me for years. The way I see it we cannot afford to lose these young people, hundreds and thousands of them. The aim of protecting this German blood is of the highest priority. If we manage to stop these abortions we will be able to have 200 more German regiments every year on the march. Another 500,000 or 600,000 people could produce millions of marks for the economy. The strength of these soldiers and workers will build the greater Germany. This is why I founded Lebensborn in 1936. It fights abortions in a positive way. Every woman can have her child in peace and quiet and devote her life to the betterment of the race."

Here's a great video about the campaign of MIS-information that has been conducted in the anti-choice so-called "Crisis prevention Centers"

        Here is a link to a book by a very conservative Protestant pastor who has come to view the R.C. involvement in the pro-life cause as a way to convert non-Catholics to their church :
More Than These, a book designed to show how the "Pro-Life" movement has been a sneaky way to advance the cause of Roman Catholicism.

Until the day that it was learned that the person arrested for the killing of Dr. George Tiller, at the Sunday service where the doctor was serving as an usher, the Operation Rescue web site featured the post below by "Scott Roeder" dated almost 2 years to the day in connection with an Operation Rescue pro-life prayer vigil in Witchita, Kansas.

        "Bless everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller."

If "pro-life" activists really believed that abortion is "murder" or "infanticide", they would support capital punishment for mothers who ask doctors to murder this children for them. But as the vidoe below shows very forcefully, their actions speak louder than their words and prove that they don't believe their own rhetoric! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw