National Council of Churches’ support not from churches
I’ve been following the status of mainline liberal church denominations ever since I was naive enough to think the hospital where I worked, Christ Hospital, would not commit abortions because it was affiliated with two Christian church denominations, the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
This was eight years ago, before I was a pro-life activist. I had no idea there was such a thing as a pro-abortion Christian church denomination, which these two are.
My situation was aggravated when the sole state senator speaking against the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation to halt aborting babies alive at Christ Hospital and in IL, was Barack Obama, a member of nearby Trinity United Church of Christ.
Since then, I’ve felt somewhat vindicated to read that liberal church groups are losing members in droves, while evangelical churches have been growing wildly.
So I read this today with interest, in April Citizen….
CHURCH GROUP SELLS OUT
The financially troubled National Council of Churches is selling out its biblical roots for money from secular foundations bent on using it to forward a liberal agenda, according to a report by The Institute on Religion and Democracy.
John Lomperis and Alan Wisdom, the report’s authors, said for decades the NCC was supported by member denominations – but not anymore. “What was founded as a body comprised of churches seeking to come together in Christian unity,” Wisdom said, “has become a political-action committee that’s not a creature of the churches anymore.”
The NCC was founded in 1950 and claims more than 50 “faith groups” are members, including the Episcopal Church USA, The United Methodist Church, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA….
“What’s happened now,” Wisdom said, “is that those churches – and particularly the liberal elites in those churches – have become so weakened that they can no longer bear the financial load of the NCC…. Gradually, we were able to get our hands on some documents that were distributed at NCC meetings that showed how the council was being saved.”…
The trail led to millions of dollars in grants from Left-leaning organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Tides Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – organizations bent on promoting abortion, same-sex marriage and other liberal issues.
Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow at Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, offered a strong warning.
“When you cloak all of those cultural concerns and Left-wing agenda items with the cloak of religion and with the mainstream churches, then you are giving them a stamp of approval that they should not have,” she said. “Most of the religious Left is arguing for positions that are not based in the Scripture.”…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“to halt aborting babies alive”
Just a question, but isnt the “alive” necessary to the “aborting?”
Samantha, the real problem with the bill is in the definitions. The title makes it seems so obvious that one wonders why the bill is necessary. But the way they define things, this bill could apply to a 3-week-old fetus.
I don’t want to change the subject but in a few posts down Valerie brought up a topic (for the 2nd time) that I’d like to now address. I think it will be easier to have the post more up-to-date.
First, I will address her concerns:
She quoted several people who agrees with my positions concerning education as the key to reducing abortions. And then she said, “So lets see, for well over 100 years we have been saying that tolerance, knowledge, education and contraception will reduce abortion.”
You may say we have done all of these but in fact we haven’t. I believe in the idea of abortions that are “safe, legal, and rare.” These abortions can be reduced in several ways; mainly by reducing the number of unwanted pregancies and reducing the number of abortions via education and social programs.
I will address each in turn.
I will elaborate later about birth control in particular. Suffice it to say that abstinence has a 90% failure rate (because over 90% of all young people become sexually active before marriage). If we are really dedicated to lowering the amount of unwanted pregnancies contraceptives must be free or easily affordable by everyone, easily obtained by anyone who needs them, and every single adolescent must be trained in their proper use well before they become sexually active. The United States has not acheived this at all. But other, European countries have (like France, Germany, and the Netherlands). If the same Dutch attitudes on sexuality and contraceptives where applied to the U.S., the rate of abortions might be reduced from 27.5/1,000 teens per year to close to the Dutch figure of 4.5 (Math, ladies, that’s about 85% reduction).
Contraceptives are in wide use (even some 96% of roman catholics use contraceptives–this will be elaborated on later), but there is a huge discrepancy with its use with adolescents, and there are still people who are against their use entirely.
Implimentation of social programs and education is intertwined with preventing “unwanted” pregnancies.
The reasons for these underlying programs stem from common reasons for the abortions themselves.
-the cost of prenatal care–should be free and available
-the cost of raising a child alone–paid work leave, and free child day care from her provider; mandatory father support
-the cost of medical care–free pediatric care
Education is again very important. Active sexual education should be given to everybody well before their first sexual experience. This education should include the following:
-What sex is (etc)
-fetal development, etc. (pregnancy education)
-birth control: what it is, how to properly use it, failure rates, etc.
-options after pregnancy. Every detail.
-STDs: what they are, how you can get them, how to prevent them. With pictures.
-also I would recommend programs that gives those dolls out to women to take care of, but depending on cost that may or may not be an option.
-if there is anything I’m missing here, let me know.
And honestly (as a side note), I believe college and high school should require a life skills class. On how to live life. I feel this is what is missing from most of our education today.
If there is something you would like me to elaborate on, let me know.
-Kate
God knew this would happen as He predicts in His Word about the Great Apostasy in the last days.
My God Reigns:
PIP, you stated, “Implimentation (sic) of social programs and education is intertwined with preventing ‘unwanted’ pregnancies.” Then you list that you want women to have free prenatal care; paid work leave; free child day care; free medical care–free pediatric care;
“-also I would recommend programs that gives those dolls out to women to take care of, but depending on cost that may or may not be an option.”
You want these women to have everything free and you’re concerned about the cost of those dolls given out to women to take care of?!?!?!?!
Samantha, 4/2, 9:56p, quoted my post: “to halt aborting babies alive,” and then asked, “Just a question, but isnt the ‘alive’ necessary to the ‘aborting’?”
There is an abortion procedure called induced labor abortion that sometimes results in babies being aborted who are living, breathing, and moving.
My experience, which brought me into the pro-life movement eight years ago, was to learn of this procedure at the hospital where I worked as an RN, and then to hold a baby who had been aborted alive 45 minutes until he died.
He was between 21-22 weeks old and had Down syndrome, which was why he was aborted. In the event babies were aborted alive at my hospital, they were shelved to die in the soiled utility room. When I learned of this baby, I couldn’t let him die alone. The experience changed my life.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act is to stop the practice of abandoning babies who have been aborted alive.
Jill, thanks for the clarification.
And…wow.
“You want these women to have everything free and you’re concerned about the cost of those dolls given out to women to take care of?!?!?!?!”
Haha, it’s true. I guess I needed to elaborate.
These things are going to cost but if you want to eliminate abortions these services should exist or the mission will probably fail. You can’t be pro-life and not want to reduce the amount of abortions, and you can’t be pro-life (in that you want to change the law) and fix the law without doing anything to help these women you are forcing to carry their children. These services have to exist, free or nearly free (universal health care can help with this).
Hi Samantha.I was with my girlfriend [Samantha] all day yesterday.You asked about me.I’m doing good!No middle name yet.Thank you so much for asking.Even though I don’t know any of you,I feel like I know all of you. Kinda strange isn’t it?
PrettyinPink:
I am an unfortunate product of the completely inneffective “educational” systems so often seen in public schools. In high school, we were sent off to a assembly once a year entitled “Aim for Sucess.” It was a religiously based, abstinance only program, as you can imagine. We were told that 1/4 of all people who were sexually active before marriage would die of AIDS, and that condoms failed 40% of the time. It was also strongly implied that someone who was not a virgin was worth absolutely nothing as a life partner.
When I got into a serious relationship, I had to teach myself, via the internet, about everything from transmission/types of STDs to the proper way to use a condom. My parents, as they are Roman Catholic, taught me none of this: it was assumed that I would wait until marriage.
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about sex and how it works.
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about sex and how it works.
It saddens me that today’s youth are not given even the most basic knowledge about marriage, monogamy, self respect, two parent families, God, love, and sex within the context of marriage.
Shoot, now both of us are sad.
mk
Wow –
I knew that Barack Obama was pro-abortion, but I cannot understand the reasoning behind this. Why wouldn’t we protect children who are alive?
I don’t have time to research this, anyone know why he is speaking against it?
As for the churches – I wonder how anyone can trust their teachings when they keep changing morality based on the whims of society.
MK, it isnt necessarily youth’s fault over marriage, look at the 50% divorce rate. Marriage has come to mean little in terms of relationships, and it certainly isnt this generations “fault”
I agree with monogamy in terms of relationships. I am going to assume optimistically that you simply mean dating one person at a time.
once again two parent families have nothing to do with todays youth, two parent families do exist, but are just about as common as single parent families, and Im actually glad that my parents divorced, otherwise who knows where my mother, or I for that matter, would be today
God = a cultural choice and personal faith. Cant learn about religion at school except for context to history or in some sort of elected class. the rest is left up to the family, not society’s fault.
love is certainly accepted and taught in many places, however its simply the fact that not all people will love who society or those around them want them to love.
Se before or during marriage is a personal choice, where it is up to a combination of the parents and sexual education to educate the child about EVERY aspect of sex and how to protect themselves should they have sex before marriage.
Shoot, guess compromises leave everyone sad, and thats what society has to do to function, compromise.
Dan pretty much covered all the bases, MK, but I’d like to had my own two cents.
While I disagree with the concept of marriage, I believe that children ought to be made aware of the seriousness of the commitment that marriage ought to be based upon. This is why I very much encourage premarital counceling for all engaged couples.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at in terms of monogomy. I would think that most people are aware of it, and that most people understand that cheating on your significant other is detremental to the relationship.
As for self respect, I think everyone finds that in different ways. It isn’t as though you can teach self-respect classes at the local community college.
I know very few people from two parents families, and all seem to be doing fine. On the other hand, I know people who come from two parent families who are intensely emotionally troubled. Perhaps it would be better to encourage healthy family relationships, whatever that family might consist of.
Faith, in whatever form that might take, is a personal choice. Forcing religious beliefs upon others is never acceptable, under any circumstances. If an individual wishes to know about religion, than the resources are out there. If an individual is raised religious, more power to that individual: so long as people honestly think about their faith and have come to it on their own instead of being brainwashed into it by overzealous parents, I don’t see anything wrong with faith.
Love is a wonderful emotion, though again, I don’t know how exactly you would teach love. As Dan said, not everyone loves how society wishes they would love.
Sex within the context of marriage is great. So is sex before marriage, or after a marriage has been terminiated. Whether or not one chooses to engage in sex is up to the individual. I am very much against abstinance and am certainly against abstinance only sex ed, but I would never force the former view upon anyone. The latter seems to me to be common sense: not everyone wants to abstain, and everyone could stand to be educated on the subject. Living in a bubble isn’t healthy for anyone.
MK, it isnt necessarily youth’s fault over marriage, look at the 50% divorce rate. Marriage has come to mean little in terms of relationships, and it certainly isnt this generations “fault”
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about marriage and how it works.
I agree with monogamy in terms of relationships. I am going to assume optimistically that you simply mean dating one person at a time.
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about monogamy and what it is.
once again two parent families have nothing to do with todays youth, two parent families do exist, but are just about as common as single parent families,
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about two parent homes and why they work.
God = a cultural choice and personal faith.
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about God and who he is.
Sex before or during marriage is a personal choice, where it is up to a combination of the parents and sexual education to educate the child about EVERY aspect of sex and how to protect themselves should they have sex before marriage.
It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about sex and irresponsibility, which often leads to other “personal choices” that make me saddest of all.
No compromising here. sorry.
Shoot, now Dan is sad too.
Less, 3:36p, said: “Sex within the context of marriage is great. So is sex before marriage, or after a marriage has been terminiated. Whether or not one chooses to engage in sex is up to the individual. I am very much against abstinance and am certainly against abstinance only sex ed, but I would never force the former view upon anyone.”
Less, You seem to be obsessed with sex. You’ve mentioned sexual repression a couple/few times in other places and now you say you are “very much against” abstinence. That’s ok.
But to say you would “never force the former view upon anyone” is incorrect. You’ve freely acknowledged you would force it on the consequence of your sexual escapades.
Sex within the context of marriage is great. So is sex before marriage, or after a marriage has been terminiated. Whether or not one chooses to engage in sex is up to the individual. I am very much against abstinance and am certainly against abstinance only sex ed, but I would never force the former view upon anyone. The latter seems to me to be common sense: not everyone wants to abstain, and everyone could stand to be educated on the subject. Living in a bubble isn’t healthy for anyone.
You guys are big on not having anything “forced” on you, but you are sooo okay with forcing it on us
We want God in the school. You forced him out.
We want abortion illegal. You forced it in.
We want abstinence only taught, you forced sex ed. planned parenthood style into our schools.
Lot of forcing. Not by us. Odd.
mk
Valerie, 2:35p, said: “Wow – I knew that Barack Obama was pro-abortion, but I cannot understand the reasoning behind this. Why wouldn’t we protect children who are alive? I don’t have time to research this, anyone know why he is speaking against it?”
Oh, yes, I do:
“Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama”
“Born Alive Veterans for Truth”
“Obama’s constitutional crisis”
“When Obama chose his church over his state”
“We want God in the school. You forced him out.
We want abortion illegal. You forced it in.
We want abstinence only taught, you forced sex ed. planned parenthood style into our schools.”
sorry, forcing God out of schools? Your disappointment is for the founding fathers deciding on a separation of church and state, not us. We simply realize that not everyone has the same faith or beliefs in God.
Ok, you want abortion illegal, court says it should be legal according to various rights. Take it to the Supreme Court like we did.
Abstinence only IS taught and IS GOVERNMENT funded. We are still fighting for sex ed, and have yet to really achieve that goal.
We dont “force”, we fight for our beliefs, thoughts and rights. The government writes and enforces the law, not us.
You want God in school? Go private.
Want abortion illegal? go to court
Want abstinence only? Teach it to your kids, or go to a school that teaches it.
I don’t think Less is “obsessed” with sex. Sex is great in marriage (although rare ;) –just a joke) sex is great before marriage too. Abstinance makes little sense to me.
Less is right about that. Not obsessed.
I’m sure that not all pro-life people are anti-sex.
You want God in school? Go private.
He was there. He got forced out.
Want abortion illegal? go to court
Ya think? Novel idea. We should try it.
Oh, we did. You won. Abortion is legal.
We’re forced to accept it.
Want abstinence only? Teach it to your kids, or go to a school that teaches it.
So you can run the “public” schools, cuz you’re the public. And we are “forced” to go to private schools.
When you do it it’s fighting, when we do it it’s forcing?
Oh, I get it now. And all this time it felt like I was the one being forced into accepting things…
mk
Dan,
Tell me something, if we take it to court and prayer was allowed back in school, abortion was made illegal and abstinence only was taught would you then start crying that we are “forcing” our beliefs on you or would you say, “Oh they fought valiantly. It was a fair fight. After all they took it to the courts…”
mk
You want God in school? Go private.
He was there. He got forced out.
thats an issue with your school, not the government. Private schools are welcome to choose any religious affiliation they wish
Want abortion illegal? go to court
Ya think? Novel idea. We should try it.
Oh, we did. You won. Abortion is legal.
We’re forced to accept it.
And court decisions have never been overturned?
Want abstinence only? Teach it to your kids, or go to a school that teaches it.
So you can run the “public” schools, cuz you’re the public. And we are “forced” to go to private schools.
No, you can teach your kids whatever you wish. Heck, you can tell them to do nothing or opt out of sex ed for all I care, it isnt my kid.
When you do it it’s fighting, when we do it it’s forcing?
you are forcing because it is a SINGLE RELIGIOUS mindset, a single set of beliefs that not everybody follows. If religion were allowed to be endorsed in public schools, cultures would not intermingle and no one would really meet people all that different than them, and schools would appear segregated again, except this time by religion
“Tell me something, if we take it to court and prayer was allowed back in school, abortion was made illegal and abstinence only was taught would you then start crying that we are “forcing” our beliefs on you or would you say, “Oh they fought valiantly. It was a fair fight. After all they took it to the courts…”
very little chance of anything having to do with religion being put in public schools due to the precedent and the Constitution, but if it were to occur, we wouldnt just give up, we would fight like you have been trying to do, until we get a government that favors us once again so we get our rights back. We would take it back to the courts and fight again, thatr simple.
Thats politics, a continuous fight between groups of people who carry very different beliefs for control of the government.
thats an issue with your school, not the government. Private schools are welcome to choose any religious affiliation they wish
I do. And I pay a lot of tuition. 6 kids. 6 Catholic educations.
This would not be a problem, except I am still be FORCED to pay taxes into the public schools, which promote things that I disagree with. You know, basic things, like fairy tales about princes prefer other princes to princesses or how to put a condom on a banana.
Now that I think of it I am being FORCED to pay taxes to fund abortion and contraception too.,
Face it, you guys have some “forceful” arguments.
mk
you are also “forced” to pay for pregnancies. If people were allowed to pick and choose what they paid taxes for, the government would have little or no funding.
Or they would only having funding for things that the people paying taxes wanted funded.
My money would go to help women carry their pregnancies to term. Yours would go to killing these babies.
My hands would be clean.
So let me understand this…
You have no problem with your tax monies funding abortions, but you don’t want your tax money helping women keep their babies?
Why that surprised me, I don’t know…
mk
Nope, my money would be going to both if I got to choose what I paid taxes for (though that system would ultimately fail, least it seems like it would)
I wonder if it would. It would sure speak louder than votes, because with votes you always seem to be giving up one issue to gain another…
You know what I mean? I’m pro life so I vote for John Smith who is for capital punishment. Only I’m against capital punishment…
But money talks…
I wonder…
mk
Jill:
I
MK-
You forgot one very important detail about how pro choice ‘forces’ their beliefs on us.
They tell our daughters that it is okay to have an abortion and then lie to us about it. They are now ‘forcing’ legisilation on this right now because they do not believe I can make the right decision for my daughter. They are ‘forcing’ their abortion beliefs on my daughter without my consent.
They believe that if I, as a mother, do not agree with them then it is okay for them to tell my daughter to lie to me. It is okay for them to take my daughter to an abortion clinic/mill/slaughterhouse without me even knowing about it.
You’ve taken God out of our schools and force us to go broke trying to pay for private schools and still pay taxes for public schools that our children don’t attend.
You’ve made abortion legal so now I have to worry that a pediphile will impregnant my daughter and then ‘cover up’ the crime by forcing her to have an abortion.
You’ve forced sex education without any concept of moralty into our schools with no regard of the consequences.
You can do all this.
But, by God, you will NOT force yourself into my family and treat me, her mother, with no respect.
Jill –
Thanks for the links.
I’m speechless.
That doesn’t happen very often with me.
God does not belong in schools, as not everyone believes the same. If there was education on every single religion
I didn’t say religion, I said God.
The fact that a boy was thrown out of school for wearing a Jesus costume on Halloween, or that you can’t bring your bible to school, or wear a pro-life T-shirt or have a Christian club, or a pro life club, or pray or mention his name…
And the people who complain about all of this are not people from different religions. They are people of no religion.
God got sent to the principals office and then expelled.
mk
As previously stated, I am forcing abortion on no one. I simply want the choice available. If you don
Hear, Hear Valerie!
mk
MK, I go to public school, and Ive brought my Bible to school and sat there reading it. One of the AP English classes reads some of the Bible as literature, and we talk about Biblical allusions and look at some passages somewhat often in English. Just because it isnt being used religiously, doesnt mean it is not allowed at all.
Pro life club s were certaily allowed if they have support and arent based solely on religion last I checked, heck, at some schools that I know of they do have religious clubs, and a girl I know of is still fighting toget a GSA at her school.
as for the Jesus costume, thats more an issue of respect I would think than religion
MK, I go to public school, and Ive brought my Bible to school and sat there reading it. One of the AP English classes reads some of the Bible as literature, and we talk about Biblical allusions and look at some passages somewhat often in English. Just because it isnt being used religiously, doesnt mean it is not allowed at all.
That’s because they haven’t gotten to your school…
Yet.
But they will.
mk
Dan,
I actually (gag, sputter) enjoy debating with you.
I’m free to play my “sarcastic” card and you don’t take it personally. I appreciate that. Thanks.
It makes it almost fun. If only the subject weren’t so deadly serious. Let’s debate perennials vs annuals sometime, okay?
mk
And what are you doing up at and typing at 6:00 in the morning? I thought only us old ladies did that.
I gotta take a shower so I won’t be back until around 8:00. (Not that my showers are that long, but then I gotta get the kids up and off to school)
see ya later,
mk
Frankly, I believe that parents rely too much on the school system to instill values in their children. If you want your kid to abstain until marriage, not have abortions, and pray and read the bible every day then it is your job as a parent to mold them that way. School is there for the 3 R’s, parents should take a more active role in educating their children to their liking.
Frankly, I believe that parents rely too much on the school system to instill values in their children. If you want your kid to abstain until marriage, not have abortions, and pray and read the bible every day then it is your job as a parent to mold them that way. School is there for the 3 R’s, parents should take a more active role in educating their children to their liking.
That’s one reason we homeschool. :)
Yeah right,
the three R’s…
Regurgitating Rhetoric about Reproduction!
mk
“It saddens me that today’s youth is not given even the most basic knowledge about sex and how it works.”
I, as well, know your perils. I only got a basic school education (sex=drugs=AIDS), and they too implied that anyone who had sex were sluts and not worth talking to, much less be in a relationship with. “Some people are targets. And targets are full of holes. Do you want to be a target? Do you want to be friends with a target?” -Direct quote. Administration is disappointing.
“Se before or during marriage is a personal choice, where it is up to a combination of the parents and sexual education to educate the child about EVERY aspect of sex and how to protect themselves should they have sex before marriage.
Shoot, guess compromises leave everyone sad, and thats what society has to do to function, compromise.”
Nicely said.
MK–“It saddens me that today’s youth…”
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that when this is directed towards youth in general this is a common phrase regardless of generation.
“We want God in the school. You forced him out.”
I’m all for teaching religion in school (academically–and it exists), as long as no preaching or preferential treatment is involved. And there is “separation” in terms of official sanctions but the students themselves are allowed to pray, etc., whenever they want, all day long on school property. It’s not like they are forcing the students to do anything. The Christian Student Association met after school, and had fliers promoting their activity all over the place; prayer circles were common before school. Every morning we had a “moment of silence.” They wouldn’t allow our GSA in school, and they wouldn’t allow fliers to be hung around school. This is common in most places. God not present in school? Please.
Actually MK, I was thinking more about Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, but I’m glad you see the ridiculousness of the bogus abstinence only sex curriculum. ;-)
I dont take it personally simply because Im a very sarcastic person, itd be hypocritical of me to do otherwise. As for being up at 6, I logged on before school since I had nothing else to do :)
As for the classes piece, I always thought that many schools studied various Biblical allusions that occur in books? It only makes sense to analyze the passages as literature if it is being alluded to. We read a few passages from Genesis last year and this year to compare to scenes in different books, and I believe both times it was the English teacher’s choice to use the passages, they just emphasized the use as literature and nothing else. 2 years ago when I was taking biology, people were offered to take alternate work instead of learning evolutionary theory if it conflicted with their beliefs, none left simply because even the strongly religious ones wanted to see the alternate viewpoint.
Bback to the books, being in a liberal state we’ll read books on the banned books list, including those that have been seen as racist (huck finn), or possibly jabbing at Christianity (Grapes of Wrath) and just books that may be considered insesitive (Oof Mice and Men), without much of a second thought, but hey. My town as a whole (in terms of voting population) is fairly conservative, or at least thats how it appears, but Im sure we all know that not everything is how it seems in the suburbs. Many students are fairly conservative as well simply being raised as such by their parents. But I’ve found a nice little group that is mostly made up of dirty liberals like me, so its worked out, for the time being at least, lol
and Im realizing that I’ve rambled and really am too tired to want to go back and fix it, so sorry bout my going on and on etc
my last post was adressed to MK sorry bout that.
as for schools not allowing a GSA pip, Im pretty sure that leagal action could be brought upon the school for allowing one group to speak, but not another. I know there have been cases where schools have been sued and forced to allow a GSA. I believe a friend of mine down south from here may have threatened legal action, at which point the school caved. If its something your passionate about, by all means go for it. Dont forget day of silence in 2 weeks!
“I know there have been cases where schools have been sued and forced to allow a GSA.”
Interesting. This is from my high school (I am in college now), so my influence may be limited. I will however bring this up to the current officers.
“Dont forget day of silence in 2 weeks!”
Oh, snap.
In high school, I participated. The day before I made it very clear that it was directed towards violence in particular so people won’t misconstrue the message. I still found myself ridiculed, even by friends, sadly enough. A friend donned a sign that said “today I am staying silent because camels in Iraq are being used for their purpose. This abuse has to stop.” Needless to say it was hard to talk to him for a while. But he apologized so all was forgiven. I haven’t forgotten though. Seems interesting how much animosity was present given the insistance to end hate crimes.
Jill, I think this article as a whole is thought-provoking and I realized that the conversation about this post hasn’t really been carried through. The bill itself is wroght with problems, mainly because not only is it vague, leading to multiple interpretations of definitions, and yet FORCES medical procedures on fetuses, zygotes, and “infants” (by the definition of the bill) that have little chance to survive at all and are usually given, when approriate, comfort procedures. It is also dangerously close to making abortion illegal in total-which you are obviously supportive of but deserves deliberation considering that it overturns so many laws that are currently in place. I think, again, that religioustolerance.org covers the act well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm.
Sorry if there is any typos or whatever. It’s very late and my anti-insomniac medication is kicking in. Night.
ah, well that would do it. if its private there may be less that you can do in terms of legal action, esp if the school has any religious affiliation.
As for your day of silence story- its sad to hear that. Its message, as you said, is o try and stop violence directed at the GLBT community, which I would hope anyone would see as a worthy goal, at least the stopping violence in general; unfortunately not everyone views it that way.
PiP, 4/5, 12:49p, said: “The bill itself is wroght with problems, mainly because not only is it vague, leading to multiple interpretations of definitions, and yet FORCES medical procedures on fetuses, zygotes, and “infants” (by the definition of the bill) that have little chance to survive at all and are usually given, when approriate, comfort procedures. It is also dangerously close to making abortion illegal in total.”
PiP, your legal analysis is a tad late. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed into law on August 5, 2002. As a side note, I was there.
In the Senate the vote in support was unanimous, 98-0. Sens. Boxer and Kennedy even spoke in favor of it during Senate debate. In the House, it passed by overwhelming voice vote. Even NARAL went neutral on the bill. It was never sued. It stands.
So you stand to the left of just about everyone, PiP, in your extreme support of abortion.
You do realize your pro-abortion position, as stated, has brought you to the point of supporting infanticide.
“PiP, your legal analysis is a tad late. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed into law on August 5, 2002. As a side note, I was there.
In the Senate the vote in support was unanimous, 98-0. Sens. Boxer and Kennedy even spoke in favor of it during Senate debate. In the House, it passed by overwhelming voice vote. Even NARAL went neutral on the bill. It was never sued. It stands.”
Jill, it doesn’t matter to me whether it was passed, the point I made is true. It was passed and everyone supported it without thinking what it could mean for the legal future of our country.
“You do realize your pro-abortion position, as stated, has brought you to the point of supporting infanticide.”
Not true. I only believe the bill could stand to be tweaked a little bit. I find it interesting that rather than debating the main points in my analysis you choose to try to label me as an extreme leftist..
PiP, you are incredible. “Everyone supported it without thinking what it could mean for the legal future of our country.” ??
You have a lot of chutzpah, my friend, first of all thinking that you know more than the U.S. House Judicial Subcommittee on the Constitution, the US Senate, the US House, the President, and even every pro-abort group.
Secondly, you have no clue that by fighting BAIPA, you are fighting to preserve infanticide in the US. If you do know that, you are beyond an extreme leftist. You are sick.
“You have a lot of chutzpah, my friend, first of all thinking that you know more than the U.S. House Judicial Subcommittee on the Constitution, the US Senate, the US House, the President, and even every pro-abort group.”
No, a few people agreed with me. And I don’t think I ever said I think I’m smarter than anyone. This is only my opinion. Check out the testimony of Watt (“If we took our roles as lawmakers more seriously, we would examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that it serves only the intended symbolic purpose and does not result in unintended consequences…It is quite apparent that the Majority considered the political objective much more important than the legislative or substantive objective.”) and Nadler (“many implications of H.R. 4292 remain unknown. Consequently, it seems unwise to proceed so quickly.”). And you said Obama didn’t agree with it either. Clearly I’m not alone.
“Secondly, you have no clue that by fighting BAIPA, you are fighting to preserve infanticide in the US.”
No. You are not listening to me at all. You would rather throw labels at me than understand the point of my post.
All I’m saying is that there are problems with the bill as is. For example, it defines infant as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” So, a zygote, a pre-embryo, or a 3-week old fetus all would be considered an infant. So I feel that definition should be limited to what we normally consider infants-those born after viability-that have a chance to survive long term.
Also, the bill forces medical action on “infants” (by their defintion) that have no chance whatsoever of surviving long term. Instead I feel that should enforce the idea of comfort care to eliminate the chance of mistreatment.
I’m not completely against the bill, I think it needs to be revised.
“If you do know that, you are beyond an extreme leftist.”
By revising a bill I am an extreme leftist? This is more labeling rather than listening to reason.
“You are sick.”
Respectful debate indeed.