Weekend question
Incredibly, radical pro-abort KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, President Abortion’s nominee for US Dept. of Health and Human Services Secretary, skated through 2 Senate hearings – Health Committee and Finance Committee – with nary a question asked of her that included the word “abortion.”
Numerous pro-lifers are members of those committees (click on committee links for names), including Sen. Bob Casey and Sen. Pat Roberts, although the latter’s silence should come as no surprise since he has already endorsed her as a colleague from his home state.
Only Sen. Tom Coburn ventured close, asking Sebelius her position on health care providers’ conscience protections and whether she agreed RU-486 should be reclassified as an emergency contraceptive. Sebelius snaked in both her responses.
Two questions: Why do you think senators ignored the abortion elephant in the room, and what questions do you think Sebelius should have been asked?
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.
Wait a second, they’re contemplating remarketing RU-486 as an emergency contraception?!
Wait a second, they’re contemplating remarketing RU-486 as an emergency contraception?!
I was confused by that as well. I’ve never heard of this and I don’t understand why that would be considered. Was it just a hypothetical question?
lso saying it’s a fly on the wall makes no sense. Do you know what that expression means?
Lauren, don’t you know? In communist Russia, abortion debate watches you!
Hm, this is probably not the venue for that particular meme. Oops.
LOL- I appreciated it, Alexandra.
Yes ndfan, and how exactly is abortion listening in on what is going on?
What? That makes absolutley no sense. How does listening in on something make you either small or big? Youre an idiot.
Oliver! I don’t know if you saw this and didn’t want to get into it, or if you didn’t see it. It’s fine either way, I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t assuming either way. I had a question for you, from this thread: https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/03/beating_proabor.html
You said: “You are talking about mob rule which has no place in deciding the laws based on the protection of human rights.”
I said: Oliver, I am curious to hear more from you on this, if you don’t mind elaborating. I also believe that “majority rules” is not the sum and substance of our ethics/legal system, and I just got into a discussion at another blog about this. If you were given the opportunity to vote to ban same-sex unions, would you? By that I mean, would you believe that your religion required you to vote against sin — that, in essence, to vote against criminalizing an immoral action would be to support that action itself — or would you believe that your duty as a majority member required you not to take away the rights of the minority just because you could (so long as those rights did not directly interfere with the rights of, or harm, others)?
It’s okay if you don’t want to get into it. I was just curious.
Dude, just drop it. The sayings arent interchangable.
Itd be analogous to saying “abortion isnt an elephant in the room, its busy as a bee!”
“bees are small right? right??”
Are you really surprised? I told you she’d sail through confirmation.
Anti-choice extremists may be scandalized that she happens to know an abortion provider and that she vetoed a few bad bills, but for normal people these are non-issues.
Alexandra : “If you were given the opportunity to vote to ban same-sex unions, would you?”
Nope.
I dont believe it is our place to enforce God’s law as our country’s law. I believe that our law should protect the rights of all humans (no murders/theft/etc) and facilitate organization (traffic laws/limited govt programs/etc.) I dont see how banning sexual deviency does either of these things.
The way I feel about it is that God’s entire plan is based on free will. so it would be disingenuous to “force” his will through legislation.
So is a bee ndfan, but would it make sense to say that abortion is as busy as a bee?
Thank you, Oliver. So you don’t feel that your religion would view your vote as an endorsement of sin?
I agree with you, BTW. I was just curious because there are a lot of things about some denominations of Christianity in general that I do not object to and actually agree with — but I really strongly feel that something that would require me to outlaw the immoral actions of others is something I want no part of. I mean I understand that The Truth is the truth whether I want a part of it or not; I guess what I mean is that I cannot logically understand how something like that would be the truth.
Dont get me wrong. I believe homosexuality is unethical as determined by God. However, my only concern with ethics is the protection of rights, not the enforcement of ethics. Sometimes those go hand in hand, and sometimes they do not. Sometimes it is an incredibly complicated issue such as abortion.
No, I understand. Thank you. :)
Whereas an elephant in a room is large and obvious, a fly on the wall is small and unnoticeable–I think that’s what the metaphor means.
Again, a small bee is also not noticable, but would it make sense to say that abortion is not the elephant in the room but is busy as a bee?
The bottom line is this guy was trying to make a clever jab with an alternative idiom. The one he happened to use makes no sense whatsoever, given the meaning of the idiom.
All of these sayings…they’re so confusing. I’ve never heard the elephant maxim.
Anon, it’s not that Oliver can’t let it go. It’s that Ndfan keeps trying to explain his obviously incorrect idiom. I agree though, it’s not really a mountain to die on. Just funny that ndfan won’t even admit he’s wrong on something so silly and incidental.
Posted by: ndfan at April 4, 2009 9:55 AM
‘because it’s not an elephant in the room.maybe a fly on the wall.’
——————————————————
Both are inadequate analogie, no matter how you understand them.
A more appropriate comparison would be the ‘decaying dead rat’ in the middle of the floor that every assiduously side steps and conspicuously pretends not to notice.
yor bro ken
I just wonder how it would go in the British Parliment with the free wheeling almost no rhetorical punches pulled free for all they enjoy as debate.
yor bro ken
You know, I once won a college legal ethics debate that was mediated by some bigwig DA, and I got in the newspapers for it. I had a nametag on, and I had long feminine hair and I was wearing a skirt and blouse, and I specified the spelling of my name; and still — in both the text of the article where they quoted me, and in the caption that accompanied the picture of me with my hair and skirt — they identified me as Alexander.
I must project an air of masculinity. I don’t really mind. But I’m just sayin. It happens with an alarming frequency.
I’m just kidding with you, ndfan. :)
Do you believe the God given right to life, as described
by our founders in the Declaration of Independence –
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
should grant the pre-born baby in the womb legal protection?
Just funny that ndfan won’t even admit he’s wrong on something so silly and incidental.
Lauren, it has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? Think about it.
Good point Fed Up. The same ability to close his mind the obivious must be in play here. Either that, or my first notion that he is a complete idiot is right. Whichever.
April 4, 2009
Weekend question
”
Incredibly, radical pro-abort KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, skated through 2 Senate hearings – Health Committee and Finance Committee – with nary a question asked of her that included the word “abortion.”
“Numerous pro-lifers are members of those committees, including Sen. Bob Casey and Sen. Pat Roberts.”
————————————————–
After 27 year of involvement in the movement to revers Roe v Wade and acknowledge the humanity of the prenatal child, I believe I have detected a trend. Politicians, will say and do almost anything to get elected and stay elected.
Few politicos have any core principles that they will not abandon for the sake of political expediency. I believe the proabort leftist politcians may be more consistent in their actions and their actions may be more consistent with their words than their counterparts on the right.
That is not saying a lot for the leftist, the right has set the bar pretty low.
“Two questions: Why do you think senators ignored the abortion elephant in the room, and what questions do you think Sebelius should have been asked?”
I believe I already answered the first question.
Answer to second question:
Do you have no shame, is there nothing you would not do, no line you would not cross, no act, no matter how dispicable you would not condone’ to protect, to serve and to satisfy your self serving political ambitions?
yor bro ken
Why do you assume that my goal was to advance the pro-life movement?
Ndfan tried to be insulting and made a fool out of himself. I didnt originally point it out actually, but he was so adamant that he knew what he was talking about that I wanted to step in to clarify for no other reason than to buck him on his stuborness.
Im curious about something. You are berating me for “not letting go” of the original issue, even after Ndfan continued to assert his point, yet here you are, not letting go of your issue with my post. So Im curious whether or not you happened to notice the hypocrisy. Im also curious why you went ahead with the post assuming you did notice you were doing the exact same thing you were criticising me for.
Im also curious what I am supposed to be getting over. When have I ever suggested that I consider myself superior to anyone, especially intelectually? Does pointing to Ndfan’s stupidity somehow imply that I am smart? Of course not.
This is ridiculous- may we settle this on a misunderstanding errupting from the madcap language that we speak? Anyone care to answer the question of the day? I must admit, though I am uncomfortable of anyone who is so adamantly anti-fetal rights in a power such as Health Secretary, I hope that she was asked lots of questions regarding the topic. I hope that she tried her best to defend abortion and not the usual “pro-choice” answers of:
Question: Why do you feel that abortion ought to be legal? Why do you feel that abortion is good?
Answer: Because anti-choice nutters run the world! They’re extremists!
Question: Do you have anything to support abortion, though?
Answer: Crazy anti-choicers! If it weren’t for you and your dog, I would get away with this cleanly, too!
Any thoughts regarding the topic?
Buh Bye NDfan. Nice try.
I’m not sure if there’s much point to opposing President Abortion’s nominees. No matter how many are defeated, he will just nominate new proabort names, and eventually he will get a totally proabort cabinet. A president is entitled to create his own cabinet, no matter how evil they are, or how nefarious his intentions.
In a way, perhaps it might be better for the prolife movement to have him surrounded by the most radical, most controversial proaborts he can gather. Then no one can claim they don’t know what his true agenda is, or how black his heart really is, or pretend that none of it really matters.
I don’t know that Obama picks cabinet members for their abortion stance, with exception of Sebellius, since she’s going to be working in health.
I hope that she ignores abortion, to be frank. I hope that abortion is at the bottom of Sebellius’s list, though, unless she is seeking to expand fetal rights or reduce abortion. I don’t know much about Kansas politics (nothing actually), but I hope that she would prove herself a woman worthy of reducing the restraints on children’s rights, and I hope that she is successful in other ventures, such as healthcare reform. But, if she doesn’t care about children’s rights, then I hope that she doesn’t touch abortion, that she leaves it alone so that it cannot do further damage by loosening the laws regarding it. It’s a very sensitive subject, like a bomb, really, and anything can make a bad situation worse.
Was Ndfan also anon/Asitis?
If so, Im starting to get a little worried…
Vannah, Kansas politics are controlled by George Tiller. Sebelius hosted a receptiong for Tiller that was attended by other prominant abortionists. Tiller is a major donor to several democratic campaigns in KS, and Sebelius in particular.
Tiller is the “cash cow” that feeds Kansas politics. And of course, that cash comes from the women who hire him to kill their late term babies.
Vannah, Kansas politics are controlled by George Tiller. Sebelius hosted a receptiong for Tiller that was attended by other prominant abortionists. Tiller is a major donor to several democratic campaigns in KS, and Sebelius in particular.
Posted by: Lauren at April 5, 2009 12:11 PM
That is true, and I believe the reason why Sebelius vetoed any pro life measures as governor. She and Tiller needed each other.
Wow. Tiller is pretty powerful, then? That’s disturbing. Does anyone know how is hearing is going? Not well for him I pray?
ndfan, if abortion were a NON-ISSUE “out there” why on earth would there be Pro-life blogs, Pregnancy crisis centers, sites for women who want to heal after abortion, and abortion clinic protesting?? What world do you actually live in, and do you have anything to prove it’s a non issue? It’s a HUGE issue!!!!!!!!!
nfdan, Believe what you want to believe, but there are still plenty of people in this world who refuse to embrace abortion like you do.
How many cheap shots did the media take at George Bush? I think Bush was a great president! I miss him.