A woman Labour MP has just favourably invoked, on the floor of the House of Commons, the "organisation" Catholics For A Free Choice, whose own IRS records reveal that it is funded by the Playboy Foundation.
Still, if you believe that the preborn child is simultaneously part of a woman's body (indeed, of her very reproductive system) and insentient, and that women should poison themselves in order to be permanently available for the sexual gratification of men, then, be you male or female, this level of misogyny is very small beer to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does she know it's funded by the Playboy Foundation? Does that automatically mean it's wrong?
ReplyDeleteand that women should poison themselves in order to be permanently available for the sexual gratification of men
ReplyDeleteThat's a bizarre interpretation of why a woman might wish to take the Pill - because it ignores the pretty fundamental point that recreational sex tends to be a lot more pleasurable if the prospect of unwanted conception is taken out of the equation.
And since women have far more to worry about in that respect for inescapable biological reasons, would you not agree that the Pill therefore does considerably more for their gratification than it does for their partners?
Anyway, if they don't want to "poison themselves", they don't have to: there are plenty of alternatives.
"Does she know it's funded by the Playboy Foundation?"
ReplyDeleteI do, so I don't know what her excuse might be if she doesn't.
"Does that automatically mean it's wrong?"
Well it doesn't exactly inspire moral confidence. Much like New Labour, in fact, which also has a history of being funded by pornographers.
"That's a bizarre interpretation of why a woman might wish to take the Pill"
It is exactly the "interpretation" that made the Pill so popular in the first place, and which does so in each succeeding generation of late adolescents.
"women have far more to worry about in that respect for inescapable biological reasons"
That is not "worry", but a safeguard, a true protection which cannot split, to deal with your "alternatives".
It is exactly the "interpretation" that made the Pill so popular in the first place, and which does so in each succeeding generation of late adolescents.
ReplyDeleteBut the market for the Pill is hardly exclusively made up of "late adolescents", is it? Or do you think monogamous wives should just bang kids out on an annual basis, regardless of whether it's economically or environmentally sensible for them to do so? Or give up sex altogether once they've had enough?
That is not "worry", but a safeguard, a true protection which cannot split
Just out of curiosity, how often do you utter these views in female company?
"The market for the Pill is hardly exclusively made up of "late adolescents", is it?"
ReplyDeleteThat's when they are caught for life, though. I'll pass over the neo-Malthusian nonsense that follows. But consider how we came to have three New Labour parties out of three. It is because the Old Labour voters, in particular, literally are not there. The early Labour Movement said that that would happen, and vigorously opposed birth control accordingly. They have been proved right.
Everything that I know about these things, I learned from women.
Does she know it's funded by the Playboy Foundation?
ReplyDeleteShe is Judy Mallaber MP and no, I'm sure she doesn't know that its accepted funding from Playboy or any of the dozens of other reasons Anti Catholics For Choice have absolutely no credibility. Someone should tell her.
"Does that automatically mean it's wrong?"
No it doesn't automatically mean that its wrong but its yet another reason this well-funded clique has no credibility whatsoever. No genuine RC or Christian organisation would accept funding from smut merchants.
Anti Catholics for Choice (ACFC) is an anti-Catholic group - hence its proper name - not a Roman Catholic group.
A minimum qualification for being considered an RC organisation is recognition from a bishop. ACFC has never sought such recognition because it knows full well it would be laughed at if it did.
It has been repeatedly denounced the US Bishops Conference (USCCB). For example the USCCB declared:
"[It] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB."
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz declared membership of the group incompatible with the RC faith adding that any members in his diocese (unlikely to be any) would be automatically excommunicated. The ruling was upheld by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re.
ACFC does not represent anyone. It has a miniscule membership. Past president, Frances Kissling, admitted "we're not a membership group". It does not derive its funding from ordinary pew Catholics but wealthy foundations with a history of backing population control campaigns.
One of its own former high ranking members, Marjorie Reiley Maguire described it as an "anti woman group" she added: "When I was involved with CFFC, I was never aware that any of its leaders attended Mass. Furthermore, various conversations and experiences convinced me they did not."
Anti Catholics For Choice conducts witchhunts against Roman Catholics in public life.
Anti Catholics For Choice tells lies about Roman Catholic Church doctrine.
It is to Roman Catholicism what the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) is to the Labour movement.
Would Judy Mallaber ever quote the UDM as an authoritative source on trade unions? Of course she wouldn't. She should accord Roman Catholics the same respect.