Weekend question
About Pastor Rick Warren’s agreement to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration I wrote the other day:
As a pro-lifer I’m glad Warren is giving the invocation. I don’t care what ulterior motives Obama has for inviting Warren, such as trying to appear more of a center than left guy….
I’ve seen Warren take a stronger and stronger stand on abortion. Obama needs people like him in his ear. Warren says things nice, but he says them well and straight up. Read this from BeliefNet.org December 12….
And then I posted a recent example of Warren’s public teaching on abortion, including what he has said to Obama himself.
The secular left has come out strongly against Obama’s pick of Warren. But some in our camp have as well. Read this from a letter Human Life International’s Fr. Thomas Euteneuer sent to Warren (click to enlarge)…
I see Fr. Euteneuer’s point. I just disagree Warren’s prayer at the inauguration will be an endorsement or blessing of Obama’s policies. I suppose we’ll only know for sure after Warren gives the prayer – but I really doubt he’ll say anything along those lines.
I think it is important that we who are praying for Obama’s conversion support those with proper theology we know Obama may listen to.
That said, I really do see Fr. Euteneuer’s point. What do you think?
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.
“I just disagree Warren’s prayer at the inauguration will be an endorsement or blessing of Obama’s policies.”
Damn Jill… if not a blessing, what the hell is a prayer?
Heck, Jesus hung out with the riff-raff (tax collectors, and such.) I’ll bet he even said grace at their meals. So what’s wrong with Pastor Warren hangin’ with the barbarians who celebrate the deaths of unborn babies? Jesus would be right there with him.
This to me falls into the category of hearing and obeying your conscience.
Mr. Warren knows the bible and I presume he knows the Author of the bible. Mr. Warren, I am sure, did not agree to participate without consulting with his circle of confidents. I give Mr. Warren the benefit of the doubt in this matter. My only prayer is that Mr. Warren’s words will not compromise his convictions concerning the condition of the nation and the incoming administration. Jesus did not always speak conciliatory words.
I have and will pray for Mr. Obama as a man and if/when he is inaugurated, as our president, but unless God gives me specific instruction, I can not, I will not pray for Obama’s ‘success’, no more than I would have praye for Clinton’s, Pol Pot’s, Lennins, Mao’s, Hitler’s ‘success’.
Mr. Obama is a cold, cruel, ruthless political animal. His stated positions on the issues of the day and the proposed policies they will produce are ill conceived and ill advised.
Unless, I am otherwise directed, I will resist Mr. Obama and his accomplices as best I can. Their fruit is death and destruction.
yor bro ken
Hey Cam, glad to have seen you back this week.
Good question. Hm. My view of how Fr. Enteneuer used the word “blessing” in this case is of Warren endorsing Obama by his presence.
Warren’s prayer may well be to ASK God to bless Obama’s presidency, which would involve God enabling Obama to know His mind on matters. Obama’s part would be to follow through. If not, there will be no blessing.
kbhvac, I agree.
I am on Fr Tom’s side on this one, in part because Obama mocked both the Old and New Testaments in one of his speeches.
I understand that Pastor Warren can pray for blessings for the nation and for Obama to be guided by the Lord without blessing Obama’s agenda per se. But if they are truly friends, then how can Warren’s presence NOT be some kind of endorsement?
I’m back and forth on this.
Cameron, there are different types of prayer: petition, praise, thanksgiving, and yes, blessing. And different levels i.e. vocal, meditation, contemplation, etc.
Depending on his choice of words, we’ll know whether Warren intends to give legitimacy to this presidency or whether he’s going to publicly remind O that he is swearing to uphold the constitution, the same document that states that first and foremost we have a right to life.
When I first heard that Warren was giving the prayer, I felt bummed. “How could he?”, thought I. “This guy’s an abortion maniac.”
Then I thought of all the questionable heads of state Pope John Paul II met with. Castro comes to mind.
Then there’s Biden’s diocesan bishop who stated he would not deny Biden communion; rather, he would try to reach out to Biden and use the power of prayerful persuasion.
Warren’s mistake is not that he intends to pray at the inauguration. The mistake was that he invited O speak twice to his congregation. He couldn’t stop the ball from rolling after that.
Notice that O didn’t invite a catholic cardinal to pray. Now THAT would have me lit!
Anything that makes the radical homosex-fascists angry is a good thing. Therefore, it’s good that Warren is going to do this. Sure, it makes absolutely no sense that they’re angry because Warren’s position on gay marriage is identical to Obama’s, but since when were insane radical homosex-fascists logical?
It’s good because evil people are angry. Everything else is arbitrary and irrelevant.
Mr. Warren is a pretty intelligent and wise man, but I have to question his statement, ‘Barack 0’bama [pbuh]is a friend of mine.”
I believe that is an honest statement by Rick Warren. I do not believe it is an accurate statement.
Either Warren, or the 0’bama (pbuh), or both, do not understand the what the word ‘friend’ means or one or the other is deliberately being deceptive.
Mr. Warren is not perfect, but he enjoys a pretty good reputation in the integrity department. The same cannot be said of the pretentious president in waiting, the 0’bama (pbuh).
yor bro ken
I can understand Mr. Warren wanting to maintain a line of communication with someone like an 0’bama (pbuh), even if he disagrees with him on substantive political issues.
But Mr. Warren’s disagreement with the 0’bama (pbuh) are not just about tax cuts or budget cuts. His disagreement with the 0’bama (pbuh) are about when prenatal children will be afforded the protection of law and mr. 0’bama’s (pbuh) willingness to guarantee the right to a dead baby.
I do not want a ‘friendship’ with people like that.
I can be kind, I can be gracious, I can even be hospitable, but I will not ‘play nice’ with the wicked who rush to shed the blood of the innocent.
Jesus interacted with the social outcasts of his day, but he did not call them HIS ‘friend’.
Jesus’ enemies called Him the ‘friend of sinners’.
Jesus reserved that distinction ‘friend’ for the ones whom HE had a relationship with based on their relationship with the Father.
yor bro ken
Well, I’ve re-read Mr. Warrens comments from a prior post by Jill.
Mr. Warren is politically naive. He thinks these politicians really care about what he thinks. They just want to be associated with Warren because the association will make them appear more reasonable to politically liberal christians who are prolife. So they invite him to their cocktail parties and Mr. Warren thinks they really appreciate him for his intelligence.
To the 0’bama (pbuh) and other liberals like him, Mr. Warren is just a ‘useful idiot’ to be taken on a Potemkin tour of the progressive plantation.
‘Do not lay hands on any man too quickly.’
‘Do not say amen to anything too quickly.’
yor bro ken
When the tapes are played of what the 0’bama (pbuh) and his associates speaking candidly about what they really think of Mr. Warren and the other ‘useful idiots’ (think of the recent ‘son of a Blagojevich’ tapes where the SOB says what he really thinks of the 0’bama (pbuh)) Mr. Warren and all the other ‘useful idiots’ are going to be really embarassed and, one would hope, very angry.
yor bro ken
Operation Rescue has an even better letter than HLI on this subject: http://WWW.OPERATIONRESCUE.ORG.
I want Rick Warren to maintain lines of communication with Barack Obama, but I do not want him to pray at his inauguration because it would appear to legitimize Obama’s administration.
Obama’s administration is completely illegitimate and must be recognized as such and called such.
One of the things we must do to defeat politicians like Obama in the future is to make everyone realize that they are illegitimate and must NEVER be supported.
One of the problems with our movement is that we do not treat unborn children as true human beings. If a Nazi President took power and said all Jews and Gays can be killed, would any religious leader attend his inauguration? No, of course not. If a President-elect said that all senior citizens could be killed, or all disabled people, would any Christian leader pray at his inauguration? The answer is obvious.
So why would it be okay with a President who supports unlimited killing of ALL human beings in the first nine months of our lives? It is okay only if unborn children are not really legitimate human beings.
No way.
This exact same “Padre” would not be writing this letter to Father Pfleger, Louis Farakhan or even the preacher giving the benediction.
By the reference to “civil dialogue”…..
I think this Pastor Warren is Praying to God, and not to Obama.
Even Blagojevich is having “prayers” etc.
On another note, this idea of converting anti-life politicians may be a pipe dream. I think we just have to defeat them. I would love to change them but not likely. I can think of hardly any politicians in the last 40 years who have converted from opposing to supporting unborn human rights. Neither politicians nor judges do this.
People who deal with this on an abstract level and have a psychological need to support abortion violence apparently lack the wherewithal to change.
Basically, the only people who change are those who deal with abortion violence on a personal level, that is they face the horror full blast: criminal abortionists who kill unborn children and the mothers and fathers who pay them to do it. Many of them have converted over the years and joined the pro-life movement.
Moral of the story: if you want to convert people you have to make them face the reality of abortion violence.
Here is what a Senate “invocation prayer” looks like.
When Pastor Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual politically correct generalities. But on January 23, 1996, what they heard instead was a stirring prayer, passionately calling our country to repentance and righteousness.
The prayer is reprinted below as an encouragement and challenge for each of us to stand for the truth of the Gospel wherever the Lord gives us opportunity.
“Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, “Woe on those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
We confess that:
We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;
We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism;
We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;
We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare;
”
We have killed our unborn and called it choice;
”
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable;
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;
We have abused power and called it political savvy;
We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition;
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.”
Hey xppc, thanks for posting that. Can’t you just imagine Obama’s reaction to a prayer like that? Makes me think of him interrupting that reporter this week telling him not to waste his question.
Fed Up, Oh I know. Can you say arrogant? Geesh. Don’t ask questions, just bow down to “The One”.
When it comes to Obama and Warren, it’s really quite simple: Birds of a feather, flock together. I wouldn’t trust either of them any further than I could throw them.
Obama is trying to reach out to you guys on the right in the spirit of Christian charity. Warren seeps to be responding in kind. You would do well to follow his example.
This country is in a terrible crisis, and it needs more people like Obama and Warren reaching across the political divide. So get off your high horse. Judge not lest ye be judged. Three things abide: faith, hope and charity, and the greatest of these is charity.
“If not, there will be no blessing.”
Ah… so it’s not *really* a blessing unless Obama would abide by you all think the magic man in the sky would ask of him?
Lol
Gotcha!!!
Carder,
“..we’ll know whether Warren intends to give legitimacy to this presidency…”
The presidency is legitimate with or without a prayer. I suspect you mean Obama’s policies though.
When “O”, I keep thinking you’re talking about Ole Miss’ former coach “O”.
John,
“Anything that makes the radical homosex-fascists angry is a good thing.”
Apparently it’s making the radically bigoted fascists on the right angry.
Speaking fascism… Who else has this right that you all think a fetus should have?
Best,
Cameron
Cameron: “Who else has this right that you all think a fetus should have?”
Why ask questions if you dont consider the answers? I dont get it, unless of course it goes along with your posts from yesterday; to simply annoy and offend. However, much like your posts about commiting sexual acts on preborns, posting the same question repeatedly despite having it answered already will have little effect.
Is this the same cameron from over a year ago? The one who teaches/taught at a college and is friends with Amanda?
To summarize Oliver’s supposed answers.
He thinks we can’t seperate a parasitic conjoined twin from it’s twin, and that parental obligation is not something which is consented to…it’s intrinsic or something… thus implying that adoption is illegal.
Posted by: Martin at December 20, 2008 2:20 PM
‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’
—————————————————
Barack 0’bama (pbuh) the pretentious president in waiting has identified himself not only as a ‘christian’ but as a ‘comitted christian’.
I take him at his word, til he repudiates his confession of faith or he demonstrates by his behavior that he is not or was not honest in his confession.
However, when the 0’bama (pbuh) confesses and professes to be a ‘comitted christian’, then he willing subjects himself to the judgement and the discipline of the body of Christ of whom I am also a member. (Your misunderstanding of the book, not withstanding.) As Alan Keyes put it I cannot fathom, Jesus Christ resisting providing aid and comfort to a premature infant or voting for someone (the 0’bama [pbuh]) who advocates such barbarsim. Then the 0’bama not only lied about his actions, he falsely accused those who called him on it of being liars.
Jesus calls us to judge righeously, not by appearances, by the Spirit of the living God who searches and reveals the secrets of men’s hearts.
The 0’bama is a liar and a deceiver who is reaching out to christians in an attempt to deceive and seduce into thinking he is somehow their ‘friend’.
yor bro ken
Posted by: carder at December 20, 2008 3:20 PM
‘Is this the same cameron from over a year ago? The one who teaches/taught at a college and is friends with Amanda?’
—————————————————=
I can’t answer the question, but I can make this ‘judgement’ based on the fews posts he/she has made this afternoon:
One fool can ask more frivolous questions than a thousand wise men can answer.
You determine whether Cameron represents the fool or the wise man.
His posts are merely the mindless chatter of a chap bent only on being contentious.
They do not warrant any response.
yor bro ken
Yes… same Cameron.
kbhvac,
If you can’t say anything nice…. alternatively, let your true colors shine.
I think Rick is doing the right thing. He really should not refuse. However, I dont trust Obama’s motives in the slightest, and I also dont believe this will change the culture of death in the least either.
Did anyone else see the interview Ann Curry did with him last night? She really went after him on the gay issue and Prop 8. Of course, she conveniently doesnt mention that Obama doesnt agree with gay marriage either. But she sure attacked Rick.
She said gays are angry. Yes they are. So are many conservatives. But we arent out marching in the streets, or shouting obcenities at those who disagree with us.
Unless Warren comes up with a strong prayer such as the one quoted above, I am against it. Of course Obama is using him, that is clearly his style. Look how he used everyone else and then threw them under the bus. He clearly is without conscience .
Disciple, mentor, educate and pray for him in private but to give the blessing at his inauguration, I think not.
I was back and forth on this but when someone likened this to Hitler’s reign and the silence and the friendship of the church, I had to agree.
We need only look at the Biblical examples of David, who worked in a position of privilege for Nebuchednezzar (sp?) and of Josepha, who worked for the Pharoah, to see that God does indeed often put the righteous to work at the right hand of rulers who are not followers of the faith. Should we somehow hold Rick Warren to a higher standard than David and Joseph?
If the blessing is “May this man act as Your servant,” that’s a GREAT invocation at an inauguration that in no way endorses Obama’s antiBiblical embrace of abortion, or his efforts to institutionalize covetousness.
Or would those dissatisfied with the choice of Rev. Warren prefer one of Rev. Wrights’s “God Damn America” invocations?
Posted by: Joanne at December 20, 2008 4:00 PM
“…So are many conservatives. But we arent out marching in the streets, or shouting obcenities at those who disagree with us. ”
Ummm… I spend at most 5 minutes here a day and I’ve seen more insults than a “triumph the insult comic dog” sketch hurled toward Obama, Muslims and generally anyone not sufficiently conservative, evangelical christian or republican. People talk about how muslims are so evil, but i’ve heard a lot of talk here about ex-communication, an eye for an eye and every other form of retribution with regards to liberals, so called “pro-aborts” ( I love that term, its so white-trashy tabloid-esque).
Seriously sometimes its like this place is populated by people angry at anyone different than them. It’s quite sad… but reading this does make me feel hopeful about my own life. Thankful that I’m not like that.
Cameron: “To summarize Oliver’s supposed answers.
He thinks we can’t seperate a parasitic conjoined twin from it’s twin, and that parental obligation is not something which is consented to…it’s intrinsic or something… thus implying that adoption is illegal. ”
Hmmmmm….lets clarify a bit here.
I said that one twin cannot FORCE separation with the result of the death of the other conjoined twin if they can healthily live conjoined.
Cameron has claimed that there is ample proof to dispute this, yet every example he brought up was in no way applicable. Is the problem comprehension skills or is it plain malfeasance?
Also, it is a HUGE language shift to hop from parental responsibility not requiring consent to adoption being illegal.
Cameron has as his premise :”Oliver believes that parental consent is not necessary for responsibility.”
He then concluded that “Oliver believes that adoption should be illegal.”
Cameron has confused what something that is NOT necessary as something that CANNOT be sufficient.
Consent can be sufficient for parental responsibility, hence adoption, but consent is NOT necessary for parental responsibility. This is obviously evidenced by the illegality of a teen mother dumping her newborn in the trash. This mother does not consent, but she is responsible. It is also evidenced by a “reluctant” parent who removes consent after taking the child home. As Cameron has explained, you can of course un-volunteer yourself, yet even when the parent has “un-volunteered” themself, the parent is still responsible until that parent can secure suitable care in place of their own care.
Of course, these are things I have already addressed multiple times, yet Cameron refuses to address the question. So again I ask, why would you ask a question Cameron when you only ignore the answer?
Carder,
Some of my most illogical students have been teachers. Never let it be said that a lawyer, a doctor, or a teacher is sufficient enough of a condition to imply the ability to reason. Youd be surprised at some of the people who are becoming these things in our country….
kbhvac,
Did you see Cameron’s post last night about giving a fetus oral sex? It was a very savvy social commentary.
I’ve been bothered by Warren’s agreement to speak. It is an endorsement of what Obama stands for, and as you have shown, and I too, that’s really a culture of death.
Obama is using Warren in the worst way. I’m bothered by all of this but especially how any political gains accruing from the event will be of benefit to the left. What Warren’s getting out all of this is beyond me. Obama needs him, that’s for sure.
Posted by: Oliver at December 20, 2008 4:40 PM
kbhvac,
Did you see Cameron’s post last night about giving a fetus oral sex? It was a very savvy social commentary.
————————————————————–
Oliver,
No, thankfully I missed that bit of inanity.
My tolerance/endurance fun meter has pegged out today.
Sometimes the truth is not nice and putting lipstick on the pit bull or the pig ain’t gonna make any more soothing to the eye.
‘It is wrong to show favoritism when passing judgment. A judge who says to the wicked, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by many people and denounced by the nations. But blessings are showered on those who convict the guilty.
It is an honor to receive an honest reply.’
‘When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.
When arguing with fools, be sure to answer their foolish arguments, or they will become wise in their own estimation.’
Eeeeny meeeemy miiiiny mooooe?
Heads or tails?
Pick a number betweeb 1 and 10?
HE loves me, HE loves me not?
yor bro ken
“Cameron has explained, you can of course un-volunteer yourself,…”
Nuf said.
Now… who has this right in which we take bodily organs from an unwilling donor to secure their right to life??
Cameron,
You can selectively respond to the posts all you want.
The issue isnt about donating organs. The issue is supplying nutrients through the body. Its already pretty clear that a mother has to breastfeed if there is no alternative, regardless of consent. Pregnancy is no different. All issues regarding parents involve competing rights of some sort of another. In all cases the parent owes in part a partial sacrifice of their rights in order to supply food, water and shelter for their child regardless of consent, as demonstrated by the illegality of dumping your child after an unintended home birth. Pregnancy is parenthood. It falls into the same category.
Now, why again are you ignoring the answers to your own questions Cameron? I dont understand why you ask questions if you dont plan to respond to the answers, unless of course this is again a part of your irritation scheme. Considering your foul posts last night, I can understand that I suppose.
Cameron,
If you take offense with my commentary, take it up with the ONE who gives us breath.
I am not too concerned with placating your false sensiblities and your politicaly correct rules of engagement.
The ‘I’m rubber, your glue’ retort is not going to prove to be a successful strategy around here.
yor bro ken
Kbhvac,
Its interesting to watch him post when he is purposefully ignoring the answers to his questions. He claims so many things with such a sureness, that when he is completely debunked, he has no response other than to post dirty comments and quote Battlestar Galactica pseudo-cuss words. Why continue to post only to evade all the responses? Its bizarre.
Oliver,
I have to go. Fight the good fight, according to HIS instructions for today. Yesterdays, manna will not be sufficient for today.
It will do you no good to hoard yesterdays manna as a hedge against tomorrows need. The manna will rot overnight and will only be good as slop for the hogs.
I pray the living WORD will abundantly supply you with the Living Bread of Life that comes down from above on a daily basis. And that you will drink fully of the Living Water and never thirst again.
yor bro ken
Obama is trying to reach out to you guys on the right in the spirit of Christian charity.
Oh please! After Barry’s excursion to Kenya in 2006 on behalf of his relative Odinga (who murdered Christians and burned their churches) I wouldn’t ever expect any semblance of sincere Christian charity from him. He’s no friend of Christians, despite his use of the term to describe himself when it suits his political purposes.
So get off your high horse. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Sounds a bit like do as I say and not as I do, Martin.
YLT, yeah, sometimes we do get a bit angry about the slaughter of 40,000,000 human beings.
kbhvac, I know the feeling. There’s so many things wrong in the world, so much suffering. We do all we can as Christians to do what’s right, and sometimes end up drained. It’s nice to take a step back and recharge.
I made a heated post a while back, and someone told me I had “post-traumatic stress syndrome”. I told her I had “post-liberal stress syndrome” and went on to state that I will stand up for what’s right until the day I die, no matter what comes my way.
Every time you stand up for Truth, you’re building a better life in heaven, storing up treasures…It’s nice to think of it that way. *hugs for kbhvac*
Two good, sobering and realistic articles re: this Obama/Warren “togetherness”:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/612-rick-warren-the-cfr-and-barack-obama
http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor169.htm
Don’t be co-opted into the universalist “One’s” real intentions!
I have to agree with Fr. Euteneuer. Rick Warren is giving the appearance of endorsing Obama’s administration by agreeing to do the invocation thereby giving scandal. There is no comparison to Jesus dining with sinners in this case. Jesus invited sinners to repentance. Rick Warren is not inviting Obama to repent and convert here. He should have respectfully declined. There is no compromise when there is a spiritual battle involving the choice between life and death.
Oliver,
“The issue isnt about donating organs. The issue is supplying nutrients through the body.”
Right!!! ;-D
It’s not *really* doing anything bodily. It’s just pregnancy…kick back and let it happen, or go to jail for negligent homicide.
Does your momma know you trivialize the physiological hardship of pregnancy like this… a hardship which causes permanent changes to most women, temporary to permanent debilitating conditions in some, and even death?
You’re an idiot. I can’t believe that one of your own ilk here isn’t even chiming in to qualify you. The insanity here is breath-taking.
I think it’s not only incredibly amusing that you all talk about it with your disingenuous concern, thinly veiling that you’re nothing more than sanctimonious louts. However, I think it’s disgusting when you all equate pregnancy to nothing… nothing more than a walking talking provider of reconstituted happy meals for a pre-baby.
As if your childish antics here on Jill’s smarmiest of smarmy blogs isn’t enough evidence, you people need therapy. You’re sick in the head. Its one thing to think abortion is wrong, and a greater many prochoicers do, but to push your notions on everyone else with nothing more than a pious cognitive vacuum entirely divorced from reality, lies, and seething hatred of women finalizes the verdict; prolife is no different from the KKK.
You want some people to have more rights than anyone else.
You’re bigots.
You’re ugly.
You are the dregs of humanity.
Now do the spineless thing an delete my post since it’s probably too compelling.
Let’s try empathy, since you slack jawed nut jobs pay so much lip service to it.
Can you not imagine that a woman would be legitimately scared to go through with a pregnancy?
Holly mother of…
I know I tick everyone off here, and you probably lay awake at night seething about me… but you should know that I’m actually ticked-off too.
Why do you people think pregnancy is nothing more than an obligation to provide a meal?
Cameron, you are nothing but a cockroach. I’m disappointed that I wasted value seconds reading your worthless posts and replying with cutting remarks. Don’t worry; I will not make the same mistake again in the future. I will simply completely ignore you, just like I do with your tin god Obama. You’re not even worth dancing upon the grave of, and actually, neither is your stupid god. Nor are either of you worth getting angry about.
LOL
I guess you’re so not angry, that you intentionally typo’d your name calling, and contradicted your effort claim.
What’s the matter… had a pang of realization about pregnancy?
“Cameron, you are nothing but a cockroach. I’m disappointed that I wasted value seconds reading your worthless posts and replying with cutting remarks. Don’t worry; I will not make the same mistake again in the future. I will simply completely ignore you, just like I do with your tin god Obama. You’re not even worth dancing upon the grave of, and actually, neither is your stupid god. Nor are either of you worth getting angry about.”
Says the twat who just spent an entire paragraph insulting the person he claims to want to ignore because he’s so stupid… classy!
Well, Rose, it wouldn’t be polite to ignore him without him being aware of it, now would it? Plus he should really be aware that he isn’t worth listening to. PLUS, he was making me angry before, but it’s just dumb to get mad about it, y’know? Or maybe you don’t. Either way, does it really matter?
As an aside, “twat” has always been one of my favorite insults. Not used by me – I don’t use the word – but rather I love it when evil people (like you Rose) use it against me. It always puts a smile on my face. Thanks!
You’re welcome Mr. Lewandowski!
Since when have you ever been concerned with being polite to pro-deathers? I mean really- are your convictions waning?
Thank you Rose!!
Cameron: “Oliver,
“The issue isnt about donating organs. The issue is supplying nutrients through the body.”
Right!!! ;-D
It’s not *really* doing anything bodily.”
Again with the poor reading comprehension Cameron. I said it is supplying nutrients through the body, so I dont see where it is not “bodily.” I know it is bodily, just like breastfeeding, which you have yet to refute.
Cameron: “It’s just pregnancy…kick back and let it happen, or go to jail for negligent homicide.
Does your momma know you trivialize the physiological hardship of pregnancy like this… a hardship which causes permanent changes to most women, temporary to permanent debilitating conditions in some, and even death?”
Right. I definitely trivialize pregnancy. I think after watching my wife hemorrhage in the bathtub that I can safely say that I know some of the worst that pregnancy can entail. Ive scooped blood clots from water before Cameron, I know the reality of pregnancy. However, I am swayed by pathos. It certainly can be a terrible thing, but the alternative is always terrible and is almost always MORE terrible.
I feel bad for a criminal who has to steal to feed his family, but its still a crime and should be a crime. Period.
Cameron: “You want some people to have more rights than anyone else. ”
Again, Ive answered this question for you over and over again. Are you that much less confident in yourself after talking with me that you cannot even muster a response? Whats with this “but you guys are really mean and also stupid” bullsh*t? You started the insults bud, dont forget that.
I guess you just cant take it when someone points out your glaring faults in reasoning. At least it is interesting (and not to mention amusing) to watch someone completely self-destruct, as far as you can self-destruct on a message board anyways.
Again, fine job there Cameron, keep it up!
” I am swayed by pathos.” should say ” I am NOT swayed by pathos.” for clarity.
Cameron: “Now do the spineless thing an delete my post since it’s probably too compelling. ”
I think its time for the quintessential Cameron line for sure.
LMAO!!!!!
“You started the insults bud, dont forget that. ”
I expect pathetic lies from n00bs such as yourself. Alas anyone can go back a few threads and see that you insulted me first.
If I recall, you called me a number of terms synonimous with stupid, simply because I asked the question i continue to ask.
In the adult world, we call that defensive.
Just like you’re doing here…. going on and on about my own trasgressions and your supposed virtues.
I’m going to question you more directly now. Try not to piss yourself.
Can you acknowledge that pregnency is in fact on par with organ donation?
we could be making some progress here.
Rose, I consider honesty to be both polite and respectful, no matter how vicious it sounds. At the same times, I consider lies to be extremely impolite, not matter how pleasant they sound.
When I tell you pro-aborts that I will be quite happy when you and your leaders finally pass away into the great fiery abyss, that is just me being honest with you. That’s how I feel. If I said different, I wouldn’t be telling you the truth.
Oliver, I would say that the concept of “Don’t feed the troll” applies here. We all know that you have already answered his question several times. He’s just looking for attention.
John,
I dont mind. Im basically on vacation and I have the time to burn a little. Besides its amusing to watch him squirt and squirm to the point of breakdown. Hes already cracked by throwing out a bunch of insults and an extremely foul post earlier. I wonder where it will go from here.
John, since you equate politeness with honesty, allow me to say the followng? May you marry somebody who lies to you, and says they’re pro-life but the moment they get knocked up with your spawn, they abort the little twat and then throw it in your face for the rest of your pathetic life. :)
Cheers!
I guess Oliver can’t acknowledge the nature of pregnancy.
Can anyone else here?
Rose, thank you. Honesty from pro-aborts is rare and refreshing.
Cameron: “I expect pathetic lies from n00bs such as yourself. Alas anyone can go back a few threads and see that you insulted me first.”
n00bs? Really? I forget how immature you are. I thought you were a college professor? Dont tell me you are one of those “hip” professors who adopts all the lingo of the “kids these days.” Or maybe you were a TA for a little while and call that “teaching college.”
Cameron: “If I recall, you called me a number of terms synonimous with stupid, simply because I asked the question i continue to ask.
In the adult world, we call that defensive.
Just like you’re doing here…. going on and on about my own trasgressions and your supposed virtues.”
Considering that you never owned up to calling me a liar when I directly quoted you, and then you posted about commiting sexual acts on a fetus, I think I am safe to “go on and on” about it. As far as my virtues go, Im not so sure that I belabor that point very much, if at all.
Cameron: “I’m going to question you more directly now. Try not to piss yourself.
Can you acknowledge that pregnency is in fact on par with organ donation?
we could be making some progress here.”
Pregnancy is not on the same level as organ donation because it does not require the permanent or entire surrender of an organ. You could say that it is on the same level as blood donation and breastfeeding. These are temporary, partial and renewable donations. You could also argue that pregnancy is on the same level as conjoined twins prepping for surgery in 9 months, as the sacrifice is in this case also partial, temporary and depending, renewable (blood, muscle, skin, etc.)
Even with no alternative, blood donations are not legally or ethically obligated to your child, yet breast milk is. Why is that? It is because as a parent we are required to make partial sacrifices to our rights for one cause and one cause only, to not neglect our children, or alternatively worded, to provide adequate care for our children. Blood donation is not a part of food, water, or shelter, but breast milk is. This is the distinction. A pregnant mother owes to her child, (until she can find SUITABLE care to replace her own,) food, water and shelter. Abortion is the removal of these things, so in essence, abortion is child abuse.
Of course that all depends on whether or not we define a preborn as a person.
You’re welcome John. I do what I can, I do what I can.
wow, that’s really nasty, Rose. :|
Cameron: “I guess Oliver can’t acknowledge the nature of pregnancy.
Can anyone else here?”
Thats really childish. Im sorry I took longer than 6 minutes to post a reply there Cameron, but dont get too excited. Unlike you, I actually respond to EVERYTHING that my opponent says.
Liz, I think it’s pretty much on par with John’s numerous “grave-dancing” comments.
Rose, you don’t sound cute or edgy when you say things like that. You sound like an immature child. I’m sure your “biting wit” earns you nods of approval over at the Daily Kos, but anywhere else it just makes you look foolish.
Erin, to be honest, I wouldn’t care if Mr. Lewandowski danced on my grave. If I were lucky enough to become zombie-fied, I’d like him to be in close proximity so I can kill him quicker. Sadly though- his brain will not exactly be the most filling…atrophy and what have you.
*chuckles*
Oh Lauren, I’ve never even read the Daily Kos, good try though!
I don’t think I’ve EVER even made it seem like I take “the high road” or act “maturely”. That being said, I’d love to see you say the same things to Mr. Lewandowski and some of the asinine things he says- but of course, you will not because you agree with him, so that’s really not here nor there…
Oh the stereotypical “If I became a zombie Id eat your brains, but not really because you are stupid” fallacy. Come on!
Erin, you could learn a lesson from this Rose person about how to be honest.
Oliver, you’re right, that wasn’t fair. I’m sure John’s brain would make a delightful appetizer. :)
Oh my gosh, its been 10 minutes and Cameron hasnt responded! Clearly he is defeated.
I am honest, John. I just happen to love everyone. Even you.
Rose, actually, my posts are frequently deleted for going too far. Most of my pro-life brethren are charitable even when pro-aborts metaphorically lie to their faces and don’t engage in rhetorical street-brawling like me.
But, again, I appreciate the high level of honesty from you. It’s more than I’ve seen from any pro-abort on here since SoMG.
And Oliver? How was what I said a “fallacy”- it wasn’t put forth as a logical argument, but instead a pathetic attempt at being a pithy a**hole. Me thinks thou art trying far too hard to appear “more smart than the friggin’ troll”.
Sarcasm Rose. Sarcasm. I swear…
“Pregnancy is not on the same level as organ donation because it does not require the permanent or entire surrender of an organ.”
Really? Nobody suffers any permanent changes? Nobody suffers organ failure during or after giving birth?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=maternal+organ+failure+perinatal
“Of course that all depends on whether or not we define a preborn as a person.”
Since you’re apparently are too stupid to notice, I’ve assumed as much for the sake of argument when I ask who else has this right.
Maybe you’d like to talk about scooping up blood from your Stepford wife?
Lauren isn’t a Stepford wife :-/
Sure Oliver, whatever you say. You know, because sarcasm is soooooo easy to read over the internet when there is no vocal inflection to imply sarcasm and what not…
CB: “Really? Nobody suffers any permanent changes? Nobody suffers organ failure during or after giving birth? ”
I swear, it amazes me how much people miss when they read.
What key word did I mention? Read it again and think real hard about it. Watch for the word that changes the meaning. Thats right, “require.”
Pregnancy does not REQUIRE the permanent or entire surrender of an organ. It may, in some cases, be SUFFICIENT to bring about such a result, but it does not REQUIRE it. When you give someone a part of your liver or a kidney, you are making a permanent donation. This REQUIRES a permanent and entire surrender of an organ. (Entire in the sense that a part of your organ is ENTIRELY removed from you.)
I in no way said that it NEVER happens. I said that it is not a NECESSARY result of pregnancy to lose an entire organ permanently.
Careful how you read.
Also, stepford wife. Thats a good description of my wife all right. (For clarity…the previous sentence is sarcastic.)
Oliver,
“Pregnancy does not REQUIRE the permanent or entire surrender of an organ.”
::head desk::
I guess life isn’t an organ.
HOLLY MOTHER….
Why the hell do you continue to belittle the nature and difficulties of pregnancies?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Rub your two working brain cells together and see if you can come up pregnancy being physiologicaly daunting.
Damn!! What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you so divorced from reality?
Oh come on Rose. I said you committed a Zombie fallacy. How can that not be perceived as sarcastic? You couldnt really think that I thought you committed a logical fallacy titled after a Zombie? Whatever.
Also, thank you Erin. CB got his/her post pretty far off, in more ways than one.
Oliver, well f*ck me then for being stupid…happy now?
“Pregnancy is not on the same level as organ donation because it does not require the permanent or entire surrender of an organ.”
Really? Nobody suffers any permanent changes? Nobody suffers organ failure during or after giving birth?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=maternal+organ+failure+perinatal
“Of course that all depends on whether or not we define a preborn as a person.”
Since you’re apparently are too stupid to notice, I’ve assumed as much for the sake of argument when I ask who else has this right.
Maybe you’d like to talk about scooping up blood from your Stepford wife?
Cameron: “I guess life isn’t an organ.”
Uh…no?
I dont think you can define life as an organ. However, Im not sure what you are implying here. Are you trying to say that pregnancy REQUIRES the sacrifice of the mother’s life? If this is what you are implying, then you are wrong again. Pregnancy does not NECESSARILY bring about the death of the mother. I know, I have two kids and my wife, who gave birth to them, is still around.
Alternatively you may have meant that the mother necessarily “donates” life to the preborn by providing it food, water and shelter. If THIS is what you were getting at, you are certainly stretching the meaning of the word “organ.”
Cameron: “HOLLY MOTHER….
Why the hell do you continue to belittle the nature and difficulties of pregnancies?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Rub your two working brain cells together and see if you can come up pregnancy being physiologicaly daunting.
Damn!! What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you so divorced from reality?”
Ah well, the wheels are coming off the cart again.
Why can you not respond to my points instead of complaining that I am not asserting the same point as you and accusing me of belittling pregnancy?
Are you just incapable of actually discussing anything?
Pregnancy does in fact require great sacrifice from the mother. This is true. There are sometimes horrible consequences, albeit more rare than common. The problem is that the only current alternative, abortion, has horrible consequences as well, and in almost every case, those consequences are far worse. It is the ethical duty to save the most life possible when there is such a conflict. The mother has an almost imperceptible death rate when faced with pregnancy, whereas the preborn has an almost 100% death rate when faced with abortion. The choice is obvious.
“There are sometimes horrible consequences, albeit more rare than common.”
It’s interesting that you say that- I don’t know if it’s my sample size (likely) and sample bias (based on where I find my “samples”)- I’ve found that a lot of the people I know (including my own mother) have had very damaging pregnancies and in some cases, the mother (including my own) nearly died in the process.
Just thought it was interesting- no real significance in my post…
Rose,
I didnt say you were stupid, I was just saying “come on.” You cant think Im THAT serious all the time to nitpick you on some stupid joke….oh well, whatever.
Holly Mother:
I thought the same thing, but to be fair, we all make typos. It just happens to be in a post with no substance already…
FREE On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
Hey, I make tons o’ typos. But some are more funny than others.
HOLLY MOTHER OF SHRUBBERY!!!
Sweet free Stanford AND Oxford education. Sign me up!
Eut is right on the money as usual.
Being a purist like myself, and not an incrementalist like some, he tends to understand things concerning morality better than others do.
I wouldn’t be caught dead intentionally within 1000 feet of Obama unless it was part of my effort to harm his ability to increase the number of babies murdered in the USA and around the world.
Dude G Spambot, can I really get FREE On-Demand TV shows and movies? HOLLY….!
Hey Oliver, don’t be greedy. Spambot ain’t Santa Claus. Now where’s my free movies.
John- you shall go cut down the tallest tree in the forest with… a herring!
Are you sure you aren’t actually a member of the Knights Who Say Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv?
YLT, yeah, sometimes we do get a bit angry about the slaughter of 40,000,000 human beings.
Posted by: Oliver at December 20, 2008 6:03 PM
On the plus side, anti-choicers tend to get angry in ways that disturb people and detract from their goals. Contstructive anger is not something you’ve quite mastered.
YLT, the fact that you are more disturbed by our anger about the slaughter of millions upon millions of human beings than the slaughter itself shows alot about your character.
Most posters here show remarkable restraint considering the fact that we are literally fighting for those whom society has decided are expendable. Every single day we face the fact that another 3700 have been killed. I’m sorry if our passion sometimes upsets your sensibilities. It upsets our sensibilities that this wanton killing continues, even to the point of celebration in some circles.
You don’t see the unborn as persons, but imagine for a moment that you did. Wouldn’t you react strongly if 3700 people were murdered every day and their deaths were celebrated as a constitutional right? I venture to guess that you would, on occasion, become a bit animated on the subject.
Yes, Lauren, but the problem for Yo La Tengo, and for me, is that while defending those 3700 a day you put yourselves into the hands of politicians who fight whatever war they can drum up if it will make their friends rich; who remove all rules on the getting of wealth so that a few make billions while the economy crumbles; who lift regulations that protect us from poisons in the environment, again so their friends will get rich. The pro-life community has disgraced itself with the pro-death politicians it has backed. And what Republican who has gotten the support of the pro-life community has ever delivered? Why did Bush not manage, in eight years, to use his influence to at least put a case before the SCOTUS that could have overturned Roe v. Wade? Why did he manage to put before the court a case that essentially eviscerated gun control, but not one that could have saved those 3700 lives? Because he doesn’t care about it one iota more than Obama does. The political choices of many in the pro-life movement have relegated that movement to the fringe. Shame. Only when the pro-life movement becomes anti-war will it gain my respect and convince those who don’t yet see the light. And that’s coming from somebody who opposes abortion.
“Pregnancy does in fact require great sacrifice from the mother. This is true.”
Well thank you.
Now can you answer the question? Who else has the right to force others to make such sacrifices?
“It is the ethical duty to save the most life possible when there is such a conflict.”
Then why don’t we take organs/blood from unwilling donors to save others?
“The choice is obvious.”
Careful now… you might be admitting it’s a choice.
Nobody forced her to open her legs, Cameron.
And don’t give me that crap about rape and incest. That’s not what you’re asking. You’re defending abortion on demand, any time for any reason.
You’re blaming Bush for the cases that the Supreme Court chooses to consider?? You must be joking, Tom. Because everybody knows the Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases it hears, and the President has zero control over it. The Supreme Court does, however, have a self-established power of judicial review. This is a power not written into the Constitution that allows nine people appointed for LIFE to rewrite the law books with no accountability. If you’d like to blame someone for the court, I wouldn’t blame Bush…..I’d blame the justices themselves.
“Why did Bush not manage, in eight years,…”
It’s a wedge issue.
Republicans like to keep you all fighting about divisive and trivial things. When people vote republican for one mind numbing reason and that reason only, why on earth would they want to nullify that issue?
Each election year they try to pass some relatively toothless legislation, pandering to the anti-choice bigots…but that’s it. Meanwhile they go about doing what they’re actually concerned about–making the rich richer.
In fact, the novel and unprecedented reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment by our supposed strict interpretation constructionist chief justice was done so that gun companies can make more money. It’s the same reason congress passed an act making it virtually impossible to sue the gun companies for anything. It’s the same reason our chief constructionist justice put time limits sexual discrimination cases…
Alas, the partisan voting majority of the supremes is soon over.
Lauren
“Nobody forced her to open her legs, Cameron.”
I guess you can’t answer the question.
Could you maybe try a little harder to conceal your hatred of women having sex though?
Or maybe that is your answer… if you have sex you can then be forced to be an unwilling donor to save others?
Did you guys know that discussing responsible behavior means you hate women?
Gosh jasper,
Did you know discussing anything but the question is called dodging the question?
Curiously, while you nut jobs think you can answer the personhood question, you can’t seem to even pretend you have an answer to the genuine question.
After carefully considering Cameron’s “contributions” in this thread, I have reached the conclusion that the previous suggestion to ignore him is still the best idea.
We can discuss and argue about abortion quite well without ever mentioning his name.
Cameron, again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn’t say what you quoted me to day. That was Laura.
Tom, Bush has actually done quite a bit for the pro-life movement in terms of judicial nominiees and items like the Conscience Bill. The pro-life movement was much better off under him than it would have been under Gore or Kerry. Were Gore or Kerry in office nominating judges we would have 2 more liberal judges. While he certainly could have done more, and there were moments that disappointed me, I feel like he was the best option for a pro-life president given the options we had in 00 and 04.
As for war- War has nothing to do with being “pro-life” in and of itself. If someone takes a strictly non-confrontational stance great evil can be perpetuated upon mankind while we stand by and do nothing. That isn’t to say that I necessarily support this particular war, just that being an anti-war pacifist does not always preserve life.
As for the economy, again, it was republicans who were calling for greater regulation and restrictions on Fannie and Freddie. It is republicans who are calling for union renegotiation to help pull the auto makers out of their mess. While there was certainly a measure of greed within the mortgage industry, it was pushed steadily along by democrats who were lauding the wonders of increased home ownership.
Conservatives support measures that will lead to increased job growth and increased prosperity. Liberals punish those at the top, leading to job loss at the bottom. It does no one any good to be fired from their job, only to be consoled with a thousand dollar check from Uncle Sam.
Despite what the liberal media says, conservatives don’t hate poor people. We just disagree with liberals about what the course of action will best eliminate poverty.
Pregnancy does in fact require great sacrifice from the mother. This is true.”
Well thank you.
Now can you answer the question? Who else has the right to force others to make such sacrifices?
“It is the ethical duty to save the most life possible when there is such a conflict.”
Then why don’t we take organs/blood from unwilling donors to save others?
“The choice is obvious.”
Careful now… you might be admitting it’s a choice.
Cameron, wow. You are dense. We have been telling you over, and over, and over that there are several cases in which someone must sacrifice for someone else. Conjoined twins, nursing mothers, hell, even parents in general. You choose not to respond to these points, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t already been made.
We don’t force organ donation because it is outside the realm of neglect. We force breastfeeding if no alternative exists because providing nutrients is a qualification to not neglect your child. We force parents to house their child, even though it infringes on their “right to privacy” because to refuse to do so would be neglect. We owe our children nutrients and housing. In the case of pregnancy, the child gets these things by remaining in the womb. It’s really not that complicated.
And, yes Cameron, it is a choice. Everything we do is a choice. I could make the choice to go outside and shoot my neighbor. That’s my choice. However, it wouldn’t be a legal choice and it certainly wouldn’t be a moral choice. Acknowledging that the choice exists doesn’t validate it.
This should be in quotes from Cameron: “Pregnancy does in fact require great sacrifice from the mother. This is true.”
Well thank you.
Now can you answer the question? Who else has the right to force others to make such sacrifices?
“It is the ethical duty to save the most life possible when there is such a conflict.”
Then why don’t we take organs/blood from unwilling donors to save others?
“The choice is obvious.”
Careful now… you might be admitting it’s a choice. ”
Cameron, wow. You are dense. We have been telling you over, and over, and over that there are several cases in which someone must sacrifice for someone else. Conjoined twins, nursing mothers, hell, even parents in general. You choose not to respond to these points, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t already been made.
We don’t force organ donation because it is outside the realm of neglect. We force breastfeeding if no alternative exists because providing nutrients is a qualification to not neglect your child. We force parents to house their child, even though it infringes on their “right to privacy” because to refuse to do so would be neglect. We owe our children nutrients and housing. In the case of pregnancy, the child gets these things by remaining in the womb. It’s really not that complicated.
And, yes Cameron, it is a choice. Everything we do is a choice. I could make the choice to go outside and shoot my neighbor. That’s my choice. However, it wouldn’t be a legal choice and it certainly wouldn’t be a moral choice. Acknowledging that the choice exists doesn’t validate it.
Cmaeron:
I see you haven’t changed one bit. Sad…..
SoMG’s been banned and Hal is delighting in O’s selection and busy with constructing the litugy of his O worship.
Not sure what Amanda is doing.
How’s Ole Miss? Did you finish your degree yet in microbiolgy (correct me if I’m wrong) there?
Lauren,
The 4000 American soldiers and the countless innocent Iraqi citizens (including, unquesitonably, a pregnant woman or two) who died because your beloved humanitarian Republicans LIED about the WMB — while Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract worth hundreds of billions — were those lives any less valuable than the lives of the unborn?
That is a yes or no question.
And as for saying it was the Republicans who were for more regulation — wherever you are, you can hear me laughing all the way from California.
But most important: yes or not on that question?
No, they were not. However, that does nothing to change the fact that nearly 4000 lives are lost DAILY to abortion.
And, yes, Tom they were for regulation. Perhaps you missed CSPAN the day that every democrat was lauding Raines and assuring those meddling Republican overseers that it was perfectly acceptable to have a house of cards set up that would fall if only 2% of home owners defaulted. Republicans were calling for tighter regulation, and the Democrats refused. It was also the Democrats, via the CRA, that pushed banks into making very shaky loans in the first place.
Lauren,
You mention to Cameron that you choose not to go outside and shoot your neighbor. But your rather more distant neighbor, an Iraqi mom, dad and kids sitting down to dinner in their house when a bomb falls on it or American soldiers burst in shooting because they got the wrong house — with your support for the war, you are choosing to shoot those neighbors. Two more yes or no question:
1. Are their lives any less valuable than the lives of the nieghbors next door?
2. Just because they are far away, are they any less your brothers and sisters under God?
Tom:
50,000,000 innocent children have been murdered since 1973.
Yes, innocent Iraqis were killed (not murdered) during a war to liberate their country from a brutal regime. The “there were no WMDs” is a liberal ruse. Saddam Hussein was a WMD and all you Libs know but conveniently choose to ignore this.
I guess we’ll never know how many lives were saved by Bush’s actions but I will tell you how many lives will be saved by eliminating Roe v. Wade…….all of them that are not aborted.
I suggest that you not only review your math 101 classes but also take some theological and ethics classes as well. This too….take off those rose colored or should I sat, liberal colored glasses. They are bliding you to reality.
HisMan:
The Iraqi family caught in the crossfire was not killed. They were murdered. Innocent — or certainly not deserving of summary execution while minding their own business — and dead.
How do you make the distinction? How? Isn’t ALL LIFE SACRED?
Only a total Gandhi-esque pacificist — which I aspire to be and am not, yet — is truly pro-life.
You’re just selectively pro-life.
Tom, I never said that I supported the war. I said that Bush was a better choice as president from a pro-life perspective, and he was. You are forgetting that all of the Democratic congress supported going to war with Iraq as well. There is absolutely no reason to think that Gore or Kerry would have handled the situation differently than Bush. I think you’re forgetting what it was like in those early months after 9/11. Everyone was calling for SOMETHING to be done. Someone somewhere was going to pay. There are plenty of innocent families in Afghanistan who might have been accidentally bombed had we focused our attention there. As it stands, the war came to us in Iraq. Definitely not ideal, but because we are not blessed with the magical ability to go back in time and revise history to examine how it would affect our current situation, we really have no way of knowing who would have died had any other president been in office.
HisMan:
And guns. Do you love guns, like Bush does? Do you think there should be no control over whose hands they get into? Why did the Republican-appointed judges wipe out gun control but not Roe V. Wade?
The modern Republican party loves death and money.
Tom, there are times when life must be lost in order to save others. Do you disagree with America’s actions in WWII? Of course there were political reasons for that war, but at the end of the day we stopped a terrible regimen from killing millions of people. Innocent people lost their lives in the fight. Should we never step in to a situation?
Lauren,
You didn’t answer any of my three questions. You qualified. Can you answer any of them yes or not? If you can’t, do you wonder why?
We could have ended World War II with one surgical attack on Berchtesgaden while Hitler was at home, arrested him, brought him to trial in Geneva or London or wherever. Like civilized people. But we didn’t do that because the ruling class does not, out of courtesy, klll the ruling class. Instead we send half a million boys to go and kill half a million of their boys. We could have arrested or killed Hitler. Why, Chamberlain could have taken him out in Munich in 1938. But instead we got ourselves mass destruction. That was a choice.
So no, World War II did not have to happen. We could have taken down a criminal instead of a continent.
Lauren,
And if some lives may be lost in order to save others, are you risking yours to save the poor oppressed Iraqi people? If you believe in it so much, why aren’t you?
Will you ignore that question, as well?
Tom, I believe in responsible gun ownership. I’m fine with regulations including background checks, tests, ect.
No state has successfully banned abortion in the way that DC banned guns. Because we haven’t had that sort of trigger law, of course the courts haven’t directly re-evaluated Roe V. Wade. They have, however, made several pro-life rulings on items that were brought before them.
Tom, I said that their lives are equally important as the lives of anyone else. That answers any of your questions. Obviously if I believe their lives to be of equal importance I believe that they are as valuable as my neighbors and that they are equally siblings in God.
Tom, I actually agree that the way we settle disputes is stupid. Why not just have world leaders duke it out in a cage match? I’m only partially joking.
However, Hitler did not rise to power for nothing. Because of the ramifications of WWI there was a culture in Germany that allowed him to lead. I’m not saying that the Holocaust was inevitable because of German sentiment, but just that underlying beliefs that propelled Hitler were not his alone.
Likewise, there are underlying beliefs throughout the Arab world that would not be changed (obviously) simply by taking out a leader.
War is an imperfect system to say the least, but unfortunately, simply removing an offending leader does not necessarily improve the situation.
Cameron :”“Pregnancy does in fact require great sacrifice from the mother. This is true.”
Well thank you.
Now can you answer the question? Who else has the right to force others to make such sacrifices?”
How many times do I need to answer this question? Breastfeeding mothers are required to make the same sacrifice physically. Parents are required to make a GREATER sacrifice to their privacy and property than a pregnant woman. Conjoined twins, in some cases, make a GREATER sacrifice to their physical rights if they can live together healthily but not separated. Car accident victims have even had to undergo this conflict.
Cameron: ““It is the ethical duty to save the most life possible when there is such a conflict.”
Then why don’t we take organs/blood from unwilling donors to save others?”
Partly because there is no conflict. Again with the misreading key terms. A pregnant woman and a preborn child have competing rights. An unwilling donor has no relationship whatsoever to the needy recipient. Its the same reason why every woman is not responsible to give birth to frozen embryos. They are not responsible for those children. There is no conflict.
The other part is because the parent’s obligation to their children is to provide them food, water and shelter. Strangers dont need to donate organs to each other just the same as strangers do not need to donate money to each other. A parent however MUST sacrifice money, property, and when necessary physical properties to provide food for their child. Of course, all those sacrifices are only in part and not permanent. This is (partly) why a parent need not offer their flesh to their child, but need offer breast milk.
Cameron: ““The choice is obvious.”
Careful now… you might be admitting it’s a choice. ”
Of course it is a choice. Choosing whether or not to feed your kid is a choice. Thats why the pro-choice title is so completely asinine. Its a choice, but one of the choices is horrendously unethical.
Tom: “You didn’t answer any of my three questions. You qualified. Can you answer any of them yes or not? If you can’t, do you wonder why?”
Ill answer for you. No their lives are not any less important. However, the parallels are not quite right. We do not plan to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, abortion is continued indefinitely. We did not send soldiers to kill civilians. Abortion is directly designed to kill human beings. The death toll of the civilians in Iraq is minimal when compared to the death toll from abortion. Also, the war in Iraq was based on either misinformation or an outright lie. Either way, the goal of abortion is clear. Finally, even though we maintained a presence there in Iraq, for the most part our goal was to uproot violent and destructive forces, even if they did lack WMDs. Abortion has no other goal aside from destroying the child.
So what Im getting at is this; the war in Iraq has some awful consequences and in total, I dont support it for many reasons;however, abortion is a much greater evil in all aspects.
As far as your guns are concerned….Canada has some of the least restrictive gun laws, yet the rate of violent gun-based crimes has declined a ton over the past 15 years or so. Gun control is not the problem. Besides, how many of the crimes in America are caused from illegal guns anyways? Law is not the answer. Look how successful the laws against drugs have been in stamping out drug abuse.
Well, Oliver, that “however” says sit all: those lives are less important than these lives, and to you, not every life is sacred.
Or let me put it another way: Do you think every life is sacred?
“Some awful consequences?” How about the death of innocent people? How do you justify the death of innocent people? Ever? How is the death-for-somebody-else’s-benefit of one innocent ever a lesser or greater evil than the death-for-somebody-else’s benefit than the death of another innocent?
You are arguing from one basis only: it’s better for our side.
That kind of thinking is moral relativism at its worst.
To you, Oliver, NOT every life is sacred.
And why, by the way, aren’t you over there fighting?
Tom,
If you are going to post, please read and think about what your opponent is saying.
The “however” was to point out that the lives lost due to abortion are not only greater in NUMBER, but also due to worse motives. The actual lives lost are no greater or worse than any other life. However, the issue of abortion is of much greater concern because of its MUCH larger impact on human life and because the motive comes from the direct desire to kill humans.
Tome: “How about the death of innocent people? How do you justify the death of innocent people? Ever? How is the death-for-somebody-else’s-benefit of one innocent ever a lesser or greater evil than the death-for-somebody-else’s benefit than the death of another innocent?”
Sometimes the death of innocent people IS justified, not that I am saying that here. I would not say it is ever a “good” thing, but it sometimes a necessary evil. Abortion is is no way a necessary evil.
Wouldnt you agree that if a pregnant mother will die along with the child, that she could abort to save her life? Wouldnt you agree that conjoined twins can be separated, even if it kills one twin, to ensure that someone survives? Are these deaths “good?” Of course not. Are they necessary? I would think so unfortunately. The question is, are the deaths to the civilians in Iraq a necessary evil, or just an evil period. This, to me, is a much more difficult call to make. Are we saving more innocent lives by suppressing a regime of death and destruction, that specifically uses civilians as targets? I do not know. Im curious if you have some research or studies on the issue.
Regardless of the point, abortion is in no way justified, and that is the issue here. Nobody thinks that civilian death is “just fine” but right now our country thinks that abortion is “just fine,” and to me this is a much greater cause.
Tom: “And why, by the way, aren’t you over there fighting?”
I said earlier if you read: “I dont support it for many reasons”
Does my original post help answer that question any?
What about gun control there Tom.
Of course it is a choice. Choosing whether or not to feed your kid is a choice. Thats why the pro-choice title is so completely asinine. Its a choice, but one of the choices is horrendously unethical.
That should be quote of the day.
Lauren, Oliver and Hisman, thanks for the great posts today.
Oliver,
Yes I did not quite catch the “don’t support the war” part…
We’ve staked out two sides of an argument that won’t ever be resolved — it’s just two poles that will always exist. I think mankind can transcend war. It only seems inevitable because we all agree that it is, and because the leaders in the safety of their palaces have a mutual non-agression pact, preferring instead to pass the death off the lower classes. I will say that the one move in the Iraq war that I applauded was Bush going after Saddam from the first hours of the bombing — but why couldn’t he have gone after Saddam BEFORE the bombing? Because that would have meant less bucks for Halliburton. The one thing you leave out of your calculations is the unimaginable wealth accumulated by those who drive the decision to go to war, and whose lives are never, for one second, at risk. This is mass death for the sake of comfort and convenience, which makes it no different at all from abortion.
See I dont know about that. You seem to think that we can go green beret on their asses and solve all the problems. I may think that is possible in certain circumstances, but sometimes there is an ideology that needs to be stamped out.
Besides, you put too much faith in our ability to kill someone. Remember the pathetic attempts to off Fidel? Of course, it could just be one big conspiracy…
Ton:
The reality is the evil exists in the world and it must be fought. Innocent people are always caught in the middle.
Are you trying to tell me that Iraqi’s would have been better off with Saddam Hussien in power? Why is it that Libs never asnwer this abvious question with the obvious answer?
There’s absolutely no excuse or rationalization for legal abortion other than the true and only reason “a means for Liberals to retain power”. Murdering future generations is insane.
And abortion frees or liberatee no one, it enslaves them to a life of mental and emotional problems and bankrupts a country as we are now witnessing.
Olive,
If you are an Iraqi mother and you are holding the mutilated, bloody body of your five your old son, what excuse can you possibly give that woman? At least Saddam isn’t in power — instead you live in a nearly lawless country held together only by a massive occupation force — but don’t worry, your son died for something?
We could have killed or taken out Saddam with far fewer lives lost if we had wanted to. Which risk would you rather take — a skilled commando force, or unlimited money and men?
Also, Oliver, I would love to hear how it is abortion and not many years of the removal of all regulations on the amassing of wealth in few hands that hand bankrupt the country.
And know that all of these questions come from somebody who thinks abortion is wrong.
Also, Oliver, I would love to hear how it is abortion and not many years of the removal of all regulations on the amassing of wealth in a few hands that bankrupted the country, on top of unlimited spending on war, on top of the cutting of taxes at a time when, for the war if for nothing else, they should have been raised.
And know that all of these questions come from somebody who thinks abortion is wrong.
Sorry, Oliver, that last was addressed to HisMan.
Tom :”If you are an Iraqi mother and you are holding the mutilated, bloody body of your five your old son, what excuse can you possibly give that woman? At least Saddam isn’t in power — instead you live in a nearly lawless country held together only by a massive occupation force — but don’t worry, your son died for something?
We could have killed or taken out Saddam with far fewer lives lost if we had wanted to. Which risk would you rather take — a skilled commando force, or unlimited money and men? ”
Im not sure that a skilled commando team would have changed anything. If we killed Saddam, the country would have ended in turmoil in much the same way. In either circumstance we would need to have some sort of presence there. Personally, Im more of an isolationist. Screw everybody else. Until we get OUR house in order, we shouldnt be trying to help anyone else out. Besides, we usually get ourselves in more trouble when we try to help.
As far as that mother goes….no you cannot tell that to someone in a situation like that. The death could still be a necessary evil. It depends on how many lives are saved from purposeful destruction by Saddam. I really havent seen any research on the subject though, so I really dont know.
You cannot make an appeal to emotions in order to prove your point. I feel awful for any mother who loses her son for ANY reason. That said, I still cannot immediately decry a action necessarily because it would leave a mother without her child.
Oliver,
Well then that mother’s child’s life isn’t sacred.
How so? What about when a doctor can only save the pregnant mother if he aborts the child, where otherwise they would both die? Is the child’s life not sacred? Or is it so sacred that both the mother and child must die? Sometimes death is necessary. It doesnt change the sacredness of life.
I don’t know. I don’t know. Iraqi child playing happily one minute, dead the next/conjoined twin who can’t survive otherwise — a million miles of difference.
No end to this one, Oliver. It all starts with why I started posting on Jill Stanek to begin with: the American consciousness about abortion will not change unless the tactics of the movement change vastly. 62 million people voted for Obama, myself included, and that’s a lot of people who need to be convinced that the pro-life movement isn’t all Republican shills. Obama himself knows that the dialog on everything has to change if we’re going to move forward — witness Rick Warren at the invocation. The pro-life movement has to entirely depoliticize and, yes, de-Christianize itself, or all the propositions will fail the next time, and the next time, and the time after that as well. That’s the only point I’m really arguing here.
Tom: “a million miles of difference.”
This is where ethics gets screwed up Tom. You are using strict intuition to address the issue and are getting caught up in emotion.
I agree that the pro-life movement needs to de-Christianize, but as far as de-politicize, I think it already is. Obama supports abortion on all levels. How can you be opposed to abortion and support a man who fights vehemently for abortion rights?
That makes no sense to me.
Because I can’t support the party that doesn’t give a s$%t how much cadmium a factory pours into the nearest river. Or spends unlimited money on a war for the enrichment of its friends. And does nothing to stop abortion anyway.
The Republican party lost me, if it ever had me, at the failure to sign the Kyoto accords and the no-bid Halliburton contract.
One more thing–
Eight years and Bush never made one major speech on abortion to the American people. Talked about it to the already-converted, but never led. Why vote for more of that? Why do we think McCain would have been any different?
Oliver,
“Breastfeeding mothers are required ….Parents are required to make a GREATER sacrifice to their privacy and property Conjoined twins, in some cases, make a GREATER sacrifice…child support…. ”
*yawn*
You really need to get a new argument if you don’t want me ignoring the same ones I’ve already refuted.
Parenting obligations are not in conflict with any human right, and parents can either abandon their offspring in the hospital or later at a fire station. Parasitic conjoined twins are routinely separated, and I have no idea how one is violating the bodily rights of the other when and if they share the same body.
Ultimately, your stranger vs. offspring point, suggests that you think the state can take the right of bodily autonomy from someone by mere virtue of having had sex. If their child needs an organ or blood, the state can force them to do as much of they’re unwilling.
Back here in the real world however, that is not the case.
FYI… like on the other thread, I will simply ignore you if you repeat the same argument again. Qualify, rebut, or come up with a new one.
Lauren,
“We have been telling you over, and over, and over…”
And after refuting it the first time, I’ve been just ignoring it. Apparently you’re too dense to catch on though.
“We don’t force organ donation because it is outside the realm of neglect.”
Then when do you keep insinuating that we can?
“We force breastfeeding if no alternative exists…”
LOL… Really? Only if she took that baby home. Even then we don’t force anything. If she fails at her obligations then she is tried in a court via due process and may or may not be found culpable.
“infringes on their “right to privacy” because…”
LMAO Are the children now the state?
Moron!
If you don’t know what right to privacy it, you should look it up.
Doyle
“We can discuss and argue about abortion quite well without ever mentioning his name.”
Translation: we can’t actually argue against abortion, so it’s better if we just talk amongst ourselves in agreement and ignore all others.
I kind of feel like I’m taking candy from a child here. You all need to dial down the pathetic antics a little.
So… back to the question… anyone have a case in which we force someone to give up blood or organs to save another?
“The Republican party lost me, if it ever had me, at the failure to sign the Kyoto accord”
Tom, should we take an obvious Democrat Party hack seriously when he pretends to be anti-abortion?
Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004? He voted for the war, then voted against the $87 billion for the troops. But then, you probably agreed with Kerry opposing the $87 billion, since he voted against it since we weren’t going to raise taxes to get it. Like most Democrat hacks, I’m sure you think that raising taxes is far more important than protecting human life, including the unborn. Your pretending to be upset over dead Iraqis is so many crocodile tears.
This is one of the reasons why the anti-abortion movement keeps failing — failing miserably — because somebody doesn’t go at it exactly the way you do, they aren’t anti-abortion. Very very sad. I think abortion is wrong, but not the way you do, so I’m not to be taken seriously.
I hated Kerry. He’s weak and dumb. But Cheney is evil. Bloodthirsty and wicked, like something from a Grimm’s fairy tale. And, to our credit, the least popular politician in living memory. So I held my nose and voted for Kerry.
You apparently think eviscerating controls on the pollution of our drinking water and the guns on our streets, the unbridled selling of national forest land for profit and a blank check for the Vice President’s own company are God’s work.
Cameron: “Oliver,
“Breastfeeding mothers are required ….Parents are required to make a GREATER sacrifice to their privacy and property Conjoined twins, in some cases, make a GREATER sacrifice…child support…. ”
*yawn*
You really need to get a new argument if you don’t want me ignoring the same ones I’ve already refuted.”
Im sorry but you have yet to even respond to the point until now. I guess it took you a while to come up with a response and figured ignoring it for a few days would help you save face.
Cameron: “Parenting obligations are not in conflict with any human right”
False. They are in conflict with the right to privacy and property. Or to stream line it a bit, they are in conflict with the right to freedom.
Cameron: “…and parents can either abandon their offspring in the hospital or later at a fire station.”
Thats right Cameron. If parents provide alternative care that is suitable to replace their care, they are good to go. Where is that in abortion?
Cameron: “Parasitic conjoined twins are routinely separated…”
They are never separated when the separation would kill one twin over the other and they could healthily live together. Please be careful how you read. Remember when Lauren made this point and you brought up case after case which didnt even come close to speaking to this issue?
If the child is going to kill the mother, and the only way for her to survive is to abort, that is fine. So explain to me why twins cannot be separated when they can healthily live together and one cannot live so separated?
You have yet, again, not responded to this point, and I guess never will.
Cameron: “and I have no idea how one is violating the bodily rights of the other when and if they share the same body.”
Thats a pretty ignorant take on conjoined twins Cameron. They do not share the same body. They are physically connected and make shared use of some organs, but those organs are usually easily defined as belonging to one twin or the other.
Cameron: “Ultimately, your stranger vs. offspring point, suggests that you think the state can take the right of bodily autonomy from someone by mere virtue of having had sex. If their child needs an organ or blood, the state can force them to do as much of they’re unwilling.”
Again with the flawed inferences. (You are a college professor right? How on earth did you ever pass your GRE? Or do you really just “teach” college as in serving as a TA?)
What I said about stranger vs offspring: “Its the same reason why every woman is not responsible to give birth to frozen embryos. ”
I said that a stranger is NOT responsible for an offspring. Now if you mean “mother vs offspring” as your summary of the argument I can respond to that as well. Of course, we have to first understand that a mother is no stranger to her offspring. They have a relationship, unlike a true stranger.
I only said that a mother is responsible to sacrifice her body to feed her child. This is evident through breastfeeding alone. You can also derive this by understanding how the other rights of parents are sacrificed to their child.
Cameron: “Back here in the real world however, that is not the case.
FYI… like on the other thread, I will simply ignore you if you repeat the same argument again. Qualify, rebut, or come up with a new one.”
Nice try Cameron. You never responded to my points period. Be honest. You have yet to respond to those points.
Cameron: “Lauren,
“We have been telling you over, and over, and over…”
And after refuting it the first time, I’ve been just ignoring it. Apparently you’re too dense to catch on though.”
You havent “refuted” the argument. You havent even responded to the argument until now, and STILL you twisted the wording so that your response is meaningless. Where are the twins that can be separated at the death of one twin when they could live together healthily? You claimed that you had ample evidence to support this. Did you make that claim without actually having any? Seems so to me.
Cameron: ““We don’t force organ donation because it is outside the realm of neglect.”
Then when do you keep insinuating that we can?”
Who said anything about organ donation? I have already pointed out that there is no organ donation in pregnancy. You claimed that life was an organ and then never responded to the point again. Life is not an organ Cameron.
Cameron: ““We force breastfeeding if no alternative exists…”
LOL… Really? Only if she took that baby home. Even then we don’t force anything. If she fails at her obligations then she is tried in a court via due process and may or may not be found culpable.”
What does taking a baby home mean Cameron? There is no contract signed when you take a baby home from the hospital. I know, Ive had two kids. Even then, what about home births? What about the teen who gives birth behind the highschool gym?
A mother can obviously be tried on the charge of not breastfeeding her child. Its been done a few times now. The question in both cases was never “does a mother owe her body?” but “did the mother do her best to provide food through her body?” In both cases, the mother is obligated to donate her body to the child in order to provide food and water.
What if a mother gives birth in the middle of a cruise? What if there is no formula, and the mother is capable of breastfeeding? Would you not agree that she is obligated to provide food for her child to the best of her ability, even if it is physical?
Cameron: ““infringes on their “right to privacy” because…”
LMAO Are the children now the state?
Moron!
If you don’t know what right to privacy it, you should look it up.”
You need to be careful when you ask for that.
Privacy is partially defined as “the right to prevent unathorized access to your home.”
An infant or child infringes on this right. A parent cannot make decisions about their household to the exclusion of their child UNTIL they find an alternative.
Pretty simple, but I guess Im just a moron too, right? Getting desperate Cameron?
Cameron: “Doyle
“We can discuss and argue about abortion quite well without ever mentioning his name.”
Translation: we can’t actually argue against abortion, so it’s better if we just talk amongst ourselves in agreement and ignore all others.
I kind of feel like I’m taking candy from a child here. You all need to dial down the pathetic antics a little.”
Oh Cameron. Its too late to assert yourself with arrogance. Youve already kowtowed repeatedly by nature of your lacking responses. Youve distorted words, posted extremely foul one liner posts, misapplied 3 different falacies in lieu of response, and even resorted to the whole “hey he didnt respond in under 8 minutes, obviously he has no response” approach. Youve already revealed yourself to be nothing but fluff, its far too late to start saying things like what you just said.
Cameron: “So… back to the question… anyone have a case in which we force someone to give up blood or organs to save another?”
Nobody can provide a case like this, but no one needs to. Pregancy is not the entire, permanent and unreplinishable donation of an organ or blood. It isnt relevant at all. What would be more relevant is the conjoined twin scenario presented to you that you have YET to respond to, or the breast feeding obligations placed on a mother who does not sign an explicit contract.
No, Tom, I just think you’re a despicable liar who is actually a Democrat hack, repeating insane talking points from Kos and DU.
Oliver, I can’t believe that he really thinks that pregnancy is somehow comparable to organ donation. It’s apples and oranges.
Abortion is killing. If you kill the unborn child inside the womb, it’s killing. If you deliver the unborn child intact and then kill it (the Obama method), it’s still killing. Refusing to donate organs isn’t the same thing as actively killing someone. As I said, it’s apples and oranges.
Very good, John Lewandowski. Send someone like me who wants to marry the best of the left with a quantum shift in abortion consciousness away. Send away everybody who MIGHT vote your way aon the next round of propositions. And the death goes on.
You’re welcome, Democrat hack. Don’t let the door hit you in the lying butt on your way out.
John,
You aren’t pro-life. You’re just right wing.
Though I must admit I find this line particularly fun:
“Send away everybody who MIGHT vote your way aon the next round of propositions.”
In other words, our “pro-life” friend would vote against pro-life propositions just because he’s a Democrat. WHOOPS, gave yourself away there buddy. You could continue to lie about why you NEED to vote Democrat because Republicans are evil demons, but you can’t use that excuse to oppose pro-life ballot propositions.
“You aren’t pro-life. You’re just right wing.”
Now Tom is attempting the “I am rubber, you are glue” defense.
Well we’re all being a little third grade at this point.
There’s a rift in this country that Rick Warren going to Obama’s inauguration isn’t going to fix. You and I exist in two entirely different realities. I see your position as based in death; you see mine the same way.
It’s actually kind of scary: 1861 all over again. Where will it end?
Well, for one, you could stop lying, Tom. That would be progress.
Pointless bickering aside, it is interesting that you paralleled the division with the American Cival War, considering that personhood and basic human rights were a significant catalyst for the war. The side wanting to extend human rights to the previously excluded won….
My family and I abandoned the Democrat Party when it became clear that they are the Party of Murder, the Party of Godlessness, and the Party of Perversity. If Democrats choose to lie to themselves and to others, and pretend that the Republicans, though far from perfect, are somehow worse, that’s their problem, not mine.
Godlessness and Perversity. You betcha
Now the perverted Barney Frank is chirping. He has a problem with pastor Warren comparing homosexuality with incest. Frank doesn’t seem to know that gay sex, pedophilia, incest and bestiality are all paraphilias. Barney just wants to make them legal. So much for Blarneys bigotry.
xppc, what I want to know (in addition to why people don’t seem to realize that Barry himself is an “evil anti-gay marriage bigot”) is, since when is Rick Warren a crazy religious extremist? I thought he was a respected minister who sold millions of copies of his book, and was generally very well liked or at least thought of positively by the vast majority of Americans. But all of a sudden, he’s public enemy #1. What’s that all about?
Cameron, You claim I never answered your question about mother’s being “forced to make sacrifices”. My response was the answer.
When a woman has sex, she is 100% aware of the possibility of pregnancy. She makes the CHOICE to have sex, thereby making the choice to participate in the possibility of pregnancy. The birth control pill, the condom, all of these things have a rate (however small) of failure. Therefore, when she willingly has sex, she is accepting that rate of failure. Nobody forced her into it. When a woman becomes pregnant despite (or perhaps in the abscence of) birth control methods, she is obligated to follow through with the pregnancy and give birth to that person. She’s not obligated to RAISE the child, but only to give birth and find suitable care, whether it be her care or another person’s care.
Therefore, my response “No one forced her to open her legs.” was the logical response, and you would have gotten it if you followed the logic through to its natural conclusion.
xppc, what I want to know (in addition to why people don’t seem to realize that Barry himself is an “evil anti-gay marriage bigot”) is, since when is Rick Warren a crazy religious extremist? I thought he was a respected minister who sold millions of copies of his book, and was generally very well liked or at least thought of positively by the vast majority of Americans. But all of a sudden, he’s public enemy #1. What’s that all about?
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 21, 2008 10:03 PM
Dawkins calls them dangerous. Like the Amish. Fundamentalits and dangerous.
This is how the extremists describe people they despise.
Joe wrote:”On another note, this idea of converting anti-life politicians may be a pipe dream. I think we just have to defeat them. I would love to change them but not likely. I can think of hardly any politicians in the last 40 years who have converted from opposing to supporting unborn human rights. Neither politicians nor judges do this.”
Politician who changed – Ronald Reagan but only AFTER he was informed of the abortion law he signed into effect in California. Read The Judge ~ William P Clark by Patricia Clark Doerner
Oddly enough, we have seen several Republicans switch from pro-abortion to pro-life, but Democrats only seem to go in the opposite direction. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich… all of them are former pro-lifers who switched to pro-abort since the Democrat Party is the Party of Murder.
It’s actually kind of scary: 1861 all over again. Where will it end?
Posted by: tom jayson at December 21, 2008 4:40 PM
Maybe in another war? If that’s what it takes, I’m for it.
Oh, the south did eventually come around to the position of personhood and emancipation. And 3 million slaves were freed!
And the Republicunt Party is the Party of Deceit and Stupidity.
Awesome.
Ask a Texan democrat about Obama and Deceit. Boy would they have a story to tell.
As for stupidity, that charge doesn’t even merit a response.
Laura, this sentence is the flaw in your logic:
“When a woman becomes pregnant despite (or perhaps in the absence of) birth control methods, she is obligated to follow through with the pregnancy and give birth to that person”
Once you drop that out, the rest falls away also.
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting take on Warren:
“If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.
“The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn’t go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.
“It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.”
See the problem with statements like that Hal is that it assumes that Obama is a transcendental force on our culture. That statement does nothing for me other than to be even more “gagged out” at the media’s fawning over our do nothing golden boy President-elect. I wish him the best as president, but I dont buy into the “Obama moment” belief system.
Hal:
Obama is just a man and one with some very evil views.
It would be wise for you to stop putting all of your eggs in his basket.
He will fail you miserably.
However, I don’t expect you to listen.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you all.