I checked the ages, and they’re accurate. It should also be noted that Antonin Scalia at age 72 is no spring chicken either. We stand to lose even more ground under an Obama presidency.
[HT: Illinois Review]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
It truly is an awful thought to think of not only Nobama getting in but the Democrats having complete contol of Congress.
Why when polls show congress only has an approval rating of about 10% would voters give the democrats an even bigger majority? That makes no sense to me.
(or 374)
Ha! Pretty good, Jill.
Those justices are waiting for a pro-abort president and won’t retire till they get one or die.
You’ve identified one of the most important reasons to vote for Obama.
This whole issue of Supreme Court justices simply points out how ridiculous the whole idea of a ‘fundamental right to abortion’ really is.
If so fundamental, then why such a disagreement by top legal minds? Oh, yeah, and where is it in the Constitution?
I can’t believe that it is so difficult to find 5 people that will look at the Constitution and say “Oh, actually abortion is NOT written (or clearly implied) in there.” When you have to reach so far that you start inventing rights, you are pushing policy, not protecting the Constitution.
These black robed angels of death have the blood of every single baby murdered in the womb since Roe v. Wade.
They didn’t lift a finger to stop the holocaust and will be held accountable to a Holy God as you will too Hal.
Your Holy God knows where to find me HisMan.
I’m waiting….
Hal, are you atheist?
God, it will be SO AWESOME if Obama gets to stack the Supreme Court with 40-year-old pro-choice liberals.
Hal, are you atheist?
Posted by: Alex at October 27, 2008 1:30 PM
Yes indeed. You?
No. I am Catholic.
I wasn’t sure if you were mocking HisMan’s faith or being extremely bold and taunting a deity you believed in.
If you don’t mind my asking, do you feel that your atheistic faith has some influence on your views here?
If you don’t mind my asking, do you feel that your atheistic faith has some influence on your views here?
Posted by: Alex at October 27, 2008 1:55 PM
I suppose it does influence my opinions somewhat. I’m aware that some religions oppose legal abortion. Perhaps if I were a member of one of those religions, I would oppose it too (or leave my church).
If I believed that a devine god was involved in conception of a new human, I might re-examine my support for legal abortion.
However, I am well aware that many people of faith support legal abortion and support Obama/Biden, so I can’t really say for sure. Maybe I would be one of those who personally oppose abortion but who believe it would be wrong to impose those beliefs on others.
As an atheist, under what theory would you rationalize the concept of a fundamental right, or the basic liberties of humanity, beyond that of other creatures? (The Dec. of Ind. explains that they are endowed by a creator, for example.)
In other words, I’m trying to figure out what standard you would personally use when saying ‘humans can do A, but not B’. As potential examples, humans have the right to free speech, but not to slander. Humans have the right to privacy, but not the right to conceal crimes. Humans have a right to abortion, but not to murder born children.
Put simply, I am a Catholic and I believe I have the earthly right to do as I wish (so long as I do not violate human life & dignity), but the duty to act in a way that glorifies my God. Practically, that means I have the earthly right to use contraception, but a duty not to. Humans do not have right to abortion because although we have the ability to do it, it is harmful to human life & dignity.
In what way does not using contraception glorify God, Alex?
And do humans not have the right to abortion even if the pregnancy is threatening their own life?
That’s interesting to me that Maher might have a soft spot in his heart for the unborn. I have a hard time listening to a guy who isn’t just an atheist, but straight-on violent to it at some times.
Hal, I believe that my pro-life views, while supported by my religion and grounded by my faith in a divine dignity pressed upon the human soul, I believe that a ‘conception to natural death’ position is less a religious philosophy than a logical ending point for our capacity for reason. I will need someone to seriously make a good argument to convince me that a child in the womb is less human to ever convince me to shift my thinking (which I remain open to, in all fairness). That is why I ask these questions – I desire greatly to understand the logic of your ‘side’.
Ray, as a Catholic, my views on contraception are, indeed, grounded and rest solely in my faith. In a God-empty world, I might only be deterred by the natural risks involved in a promiscuous lifestyle and side effects of contraception, but otherwise open to the idea and willing to invite more girls to stay over. Needless to say, the conflict of contraception and Catholicism would take more than a blog post to explain. If you are indeed interested in my view, I invite you to ask specific questions, or read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Put succinctly, I have core issues with adding chemicals and latex to one of God’s greatest gifts.
Alex, you ask some interesting questions. I have never attempted to outline my personal philolosphy in a way that would explain why I believe certain things are right and other things are wrong. The short answer is to embrace as much privacy and freedom as possible while not allowing one person to infringe on the rights of others. That language, however, is broad enough that it could be used to argue both sides of the abortion debate. Some day, over a bottle of wine, it would be fun to discuss and hammer out these things. There are some athiests, of course, who have outlined a very comprehensive moral theory, and I’ve read their books. Bill Maher said Friday night that the opposition to gay marriage can only be justified by religion, while the opposition to abortion is easy for all of us to understand.
I don’t have his exact quote, but he argued that he didn’t see an issue with a few cells in a petri dish, but once the baby starts sucking its thumb in the womb, it seems cruel to kill it.
who’s 88? A Liberal Justice?
Liz, it’s John Paul Stevens. Pretty moderate actually, but on this court he seems liberal by comparison.
I want to know what half the judges are looking at over to their right-hand side…..
Bill Maher said Friday night that the opposition to gay marriage can only be justified by religion.
Hal, It is also completely opposed to and an aberration in nature. The gay bucks can’t reproduce can they?
@Alex: Bill Maher isn’t an atheist.
It also seems to me that the people posting here are forgetting that Congress has to approve the judges appointed by the President.
@HisMan:
“These black robed angels of death have the blood of every single baby murdered in the womb since Roe v. Wade.
They didn’t lift a finger to stop the holocaust and will be held accountable to a Holy God as you will too Hal.”
Dude, none of these judges were on the Supreme Court when Roe v Wade was decided. Some weren’t appointed during the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case. You would really call the pro-life justices angels of death?? Stop being so hysterical.
“Bill Maher isn’t an atheist. ”
I know Maher claims to be agnostic. But I don’t know agnostics in other walks of life who act like him (as well as many other agnostics). For example, when it comes to string theory, the existence of an unseen 10 dimensional underlying infinitesimally small vibrating strings which make up all matter, I have no idea if that’s true or not. Yet, I don’t go around making documentaries aimed at mocking those people who do. I don’t interview physicists or unintellignet people hoping they’ll give me some stupid sounding quote about string theory. I don’t talk about “magical, invisible, pixie dust ropes” or other flippant phrases to describe strings like he does about God. For someone who isn’t sure about the existence of God, he sure is sure that mocking those that do is totally acceptable and will have no negative repercussions for him.
Alex: “Oh, actually abortion is NOT written (or clearly implied) in there.”
The purpose of the Constitution is not to write down every right, in the first place, and it is clearly implied, by the 9th Amendment and the principles of freedom, liberty, due process, and yes – privacy contained in the Constitution.
Womyn: Dude, none of these judges were on the Supreme Court when Roe v Wade was decided. Some weren’t appointed during the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case. You would really call the pro-life justices angels of death?? Stop being so hysterical.
Exactly – the ‘Roe’ court really came from Nixon, a Republican and “conservative.”
Steve: I want to know what half the judges are looking at over to their right-hand side…..
I don’t know but Scalia looks like he’s scared of it – ready to bolt out of his chair and start running.
Hal, It is also completely opposed to and an aberration in nature. The gay bucks can’t reproduce can they?
Posted by: truthseeker at October 28, 2008 1:46 AM
I’m glad our rights are not dependent on our ability to reproduce.
For someone who isn’t sure about the existence of God, he sure is sure that mocking those that do is totally acceptable and will have no negative repercussions for him.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 28, 2008 8:03 AM
Well, as I understand it, he’s pretty convinced that the “Christian God” is not real. Thus, he feels free to mock those who believe in that. He’s not sure there isn’t some type of higher being, so he’s agnostic. I don’t think he’s “agnostic” about the whole “Jesus is God” thing.
I’m glad our rights are not dependent on our ability to reproduce.
Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2008 12:51 PM
So am I Hal. I was just pointing out a difference. Maybe you could help me understand better homosexual relationships. Is it the “sex” between two people of the same gender that makes somebody homosexual? If so, then is there any difference between celibate homosexuals and two brothers that live together in the same apartmnent, pal around all day and love each other dearly?
pip, I had asked you that same question as I asked Hal above only it was on the 22 weeks blog and it didn’t seem appropriate for me to ask you again after Jan opened up her heart to us on that blog. Maybe you could answer it here. I seriously want to know the answer from a homosexual’s perspective. I know you are not hmosexual but you claim to hang with them a lot so I though you might be able to provide some insight and answer this question for me.
truthseeker, it seems to me (although I am not religious, I am not Hal, and I am not PIP, so maybe you don’t care) that the difference is minimal; I do not believe it is sex that makes a person homosexual, but rather the (mostly exclusive) attraction to someone of the same sex. I think that a chaste homosexual man is still homosexual.
The dynamics of every relationship are different. I have lived with and loved my sister, and I have lived with and loved a friend, and while my actions towards the two people were basically the same, the relationship I shared with each person was intrinsically different.
The danger seems, in my opinion, to come from placing yourself in a situation where you are likely to be so tempted that it will be difficult for you to control yourself. It is not irresponsible for me to go to a bar even if I do not want to have a drink, because I’m perfectly capable of sitting down and having a glass of soda while my friends have beer. If I struggled with alcoholism, this same action would be skirting dangerously close to the lines of irresponsibility. When it comes to temptations so strong we cannot count on ourselves to fight them off, sometimes the best fight we can put up is to avoid the temptation, not just the act itself.
Of course, this means that every situation is different for every person, because what presents overwhelming temptation for one person is no obstacle at all for another. But if a homosexual wishes to be chaste, and feels confident that he can overcome whatever temptations arise from being close with someone he loves, I don’t really see how being close with that person would be more wrong than two good friends living together and caring for each other. Would the relationship be different between that of two good friends? In some ways, yes, because it IS different. Perhaps not in the actions of the people involved, but in something closer to the core of what brings the two people together in the first place.
What I can’t really figure out is why this matters so much. If one lives a chaste life, then does it matter which temptations one fights off?
Thanks Alexandra. It sounds like you are saying that you believe that it is attraction/desire for sex with the same gender that makes somebody a homosexual. But that still defines the relatrionship on sex (in this case the desire for sex) with your partner. I apprecite your thoughtful response. I think that relationships that at the core are based on a desire for “sex” with your partner is lacking, ie., based on eros and not agape love. What are some of the differences you see in heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships? For exaple an obvious one is that by design, homosexual sex is lacking in a complimentary component that allows couples to share their union as part of Gods creative power. That is a huge difference and I believe one of the fundamental purposes if marriage was to support this and support the traditional family unit. But going even deeper, are there any other differences that you can think of?
The supreme court justices have blood on their hands ? Okay, who has blood on his or her hands for the countless abortions which took place before Roe v Wade? Or for those which would have happened anyway if Roe had never happened?
Or for the many,many ones which WILL happen if abortion becomes illegal again here? And what about the individual states where abortion was legal before 1973? And the millions which happen every year in poor countries where abortion is illegal?
And don’t tell me that the supreme court judges who decide to make abortion illegal again here, if this should happen in the future, won’t have the blood of all the women who will die on their hands.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution mandating that all women who are pregnant must beat those children even if it is against their will.
At the time this nation was founded, abortion was a non-issue. No one even discussed it anywhere. it happened, as it has for thousands of years and always will.
But if any of the founding fathers had even MENTIONED abortion at a meeting, let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !
“There is absolutely nothing in the constitution mandating that all women who are pregnant must beat those children”
You’re right, Berger, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating that women beat their children.
“God, it will be SO AWESOME if Obama gets to stack the Supreme Court with 40-year-old pro-choice liberals.”
Yeah, it might start a Civil War, but wouldn’t that be awesome? Good God.
At the time this nation was founded, abortion was a non-issue. No one even discussed it anywhere. it happened, as it has for thousands of years and always will.
But if any of the founding fathers had even MENTIONED abortion at a meeting, let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !
Robert,
You have no clue whether that is true. Pure speculation. How can you prove that? Seriously.
Google “AMA 1871”. The AMA in 1871 called abortionists “educated assassins”. Do you believe that abortion is murder? If you do, you can’t justify killing to reduce poverty. A ten year old could attest to that.
I understand your concern for the poor and downtrodden. But there must be another way than advocating legal abortion as a solution to the problem.
If abortion is the cure, why after 35 years of legal abortion, is poverty still around?
God bless you.
Of course , I meant to say BEAR those children, not beat them. Finger slip.
Do you have any proof that the founding fathers were opposed to abortion?
In fact, for many years in America until it was outlawed, abortion was legal until the quickening. It was later made illegal because the primitive medical technology of the 19th century made it very dangerous at the time, unlike today, where death from legal abortion is extremely rare. It was still common, though.
I think that relationships that at the core are based on a desire for “sex” with your partner is lacking, ie., based on eros and not agape love.
I suppose that I don’t see chaste homosexual relationships as being based on a desire for sex. At least no more than chaste heterosexual relationships. Would you say that a man and a woman, who love each other and care for each other but abstain from sex despite being attracted to each other, are in a relationship that is based on a desire for sex?
Obviously, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. This is why they’re homosexual, rather than asexual. It’s why homosexual relationships are unique from friendships or sibling relationships. The main difference — in some views, the only difference — is that there is a component of sexual attraction. But I think that, especially in a chaste relationship, that desire is IN ADDITION to the other aspects of the relationship, rather than in place of them. As it is in a good heterosexual relationship.
What are some of the differences you see in heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships?
Really the only difference I see is the gender of the people involved. I understand that from certain religious perspectives, the possibility of the creation of life is an integral aspect of sex. But that is really the only difference I see.
Really the only difference I see is the gender of the people involved. I understand that from certain religious perspectives, the possibility of the creation of life is an integral aspect of sex. But that is really the only difference I see.
Posted by: Alexandra at October 29, 2008 3:28 PM
Alexandra,
I see a lot of other ways men and women compliment one another. Some may seem stereotypical but I believe they are generally true in most relationships. Much of it is based not just on the sex but on the complimentary things we offer to care for our childrenAbility to care for infants. Women compliment men. Also, it is not just the creation of life where men and women compliment one another in unique ways. Women are better able to care for children, especially infants.((at least in my case), I can’t do it anywhere near as well as my wife and not just the breast feeding but that sure is a huge design difference)). And males are physically stronger by design so they can compliment women in that way and as a protector. I also think they have natural difference in their thought processes, some of which is likely due to a womens cycle and natural hormonal differences between men and women.
But I also believe men and women compliment one another spiritually in ways that same sex relationships do not. I am not sure if thats what you meant by religious perspective.
With all those difference, then why can’t homosexuals accept that their relationships are not equal to heterosexual relations. That the institution of marriage was created and passed on throughout history as a recognition of those those differences and to help men and women navigate their the child rearing etc…
What is it homosexuals want from marriage? And please don;t just say the same thing as heterosexuals.Tell me, what is it specifically that they want. And do they need to destroy the traditional concept of marriage in order to get it?
Some may seem stereotypical but I believe they are generally true in most relationships.
While I agree that there are generally differences, I think the important thing is that they are generalities. Most men are stronger than most women, but I am stronger than some men — even though I’m quite small, my line of work usually keeps me at a certain amount of strength. And so forth. I am awful at domestic things, and if I ever had a child with my boyfriend he would probably be much better as a caretaker than I would. I’ve never been a “baby” person, while he is drawn to every baby he meets and they’re all drawn to him.
And I think that every relationship is obviously about the individual, rather than the general. I complement my boyfriend quite well, but I would not complement most men similarly well. Our relationship is, in many ways, atypical as far as generalities of gender go, but it doesn’t matter because we are two individuals and we have both created a relationships that works for us. So I think that gender-based generalities, while often true for society as a whole, are pretty irrelevant when it comes to individual relationships.
With all those difference, then why can’t homosexuals accept that their relationships are not equal to heterosexual relations.
Probably because, not conforming to the gender norms on the whole, they don’t see the differences as being so important.
What is it homosexuals want from marriage?
It probably varies. What most want — and what I would argue they deserve — are the same benefits and rights that heterosexual couples have. They are rights and benefits given by the government — not a religious authority — that stabilize and streamline a couple’s shared life. I don’t see why the government has any grounds to deny them these benefits. Would you object to homosexuals obtaining these rights one at a time, via contracts and other legal measures?
Then, too, there is the social approval effect, which I’m sure many homosexuals want but which I don’t think they are ‘owed.’
And do they need to destroy the traditional concept of marriage in order to get it?
I don’t believe they do. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament, and civil unions are a government function. Churches are free to restrict the sacrament to the couples they feel are the only expression of God’s intended natural order.