New Stanek poll: What has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal?
I have a new poll question up, and it is another one that was posed by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life to pro-life leaders a few months back:
Which of the following has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal of stopping abortion?
View 10 choices in the poll box on the lower right side of the home page and choose one.
Regarding the last poll, while Bachmann and Santorum took turns in the lead throughout the week, Bachmann supporters ultimately made her the frontrunner. Almost 36% of you would vote for Bachmann as president if the election were today…
Click on the map to enlarge to find your own brightly colored flag…
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the Vizu website.

Well, I think we need to engage the culture of death on all fronts, and that includes contraception and homosexuality.
I voted for “Get more media supporting the pro-life message.” We need the media on board to change public opinion, and we need strong public opinion in favor of prenatal rights in order to do everything else on the list.
“Change the image of the pro-life movement” is closely related. That’s largely what Secular Pro-Life is about: putting forward an image of the pro-life movement that says anyone can join.
Recruit and train proctologists in the extraction of the cranium from the colon.
ER surgeons in metropolitan areas with large populations of male homosexuals already have extensive experience in this area of medicine.
The sound of success will be a ‘pop’.
The war [metaphorically speaking] will be won, a ‘pop’ at a time.
I would discourage the use of abortionists.
Though they have demonstrated the abililty to extract craniums from tight spaces they have demonstrated little regard for the life and health of either of their victims.
On the lighter side of life:
Buckwheat has announced his conversion to Islam.
In keeping with Islamic traditon his newly chosen name is ‘Kareemawheat’.
At the heart of being pro-life, however, is really accepting that objective reality and truth exists. This is ultimately incompatible with relativism that suggests contraception and homosexuality are A-OK. It is also ultimately incompatible with Protestantism as well.
This is the decisive time for the movement. We either accept truth in its entirety, or we fail.
First of all, the pre-born child HAS to be recognized as a HUMAN CHILD with RIGHTS. More trucks with free ultrasounds parked near abortion facilities. Kick Planned Parenthood out of schools, especially Elementary schools(don’t let them in and then they can’t indoctrinate the youth). We have to help women right away, before they go the desperate way of abortion. 24/7 prayer is also needed, even if its not able to be in front of the facilities ALL the time. Kelsey’s group Secular pro life can do the educational scientific outreach with fetal models (do you do that, Kelsey?)
Make Abortion UNTHINKABLE!
In my opinion, this is not a battle of laws and courts – this is a battle for the overall culture and how we view life. I don’t believe it is a “win” if an abortion happens, but simply on somebody else’s dollar. I don’t believe it is a “win” if a person is simply greatly inconvenienced but they still end up getting an abortion.
A “win” happens when people only get pregnant when they are ready, and if they aren’t ready, the community around them overwhelms them with a love that leads them to see that, even if they don’t feel ready, other people will help and support.
We need to get to a culture where we value life and kids – where the laws are such where it is not a much better economic decision to abort for some people – where the laws are such where a mother knows her baby/child will have the health care they need, education they need, and the real opportunity to become something in society.
This is not simply about making sure everyone who gets pregnant has a baby – that we put as many walls between them and having an abortion. This is about making sure that society values children, and that pregnancy is welcomed with open arms because they know that the child is truly a blessing, and not a burden.
‘Obama Quiets Crying Baby’
When I read that title the other day the first thing that came to mind was the last episode of ‘MASH’ where the South Korean mother quieted her newly born infant by suffocating him/her.
It was an act of desperation, not wanting the cries of her baby to ‘punish’ the fellow passengers on the bus by revealing their location to the North Korean humanists.
[While not all humanists are communists, all communists are humanists, or they are not communists.]
…”I’ve [b o] got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I’m going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” [I, b o, am gonna make sure they know about pp, so I don’t even have to be bothered by knowing they made a mistake or burdened with the expense of the ‘final solution’.]
Humanists do have morals and values, but they are as relative and subject to change as the blowing of the wind. In the final analysis their ‘standards’ are meaningless.
Just ask the supporters, apologists and excusers of A. Weiner.
For an immediate example of vacuous sentiment and meaningless chatter, please read this post:
Ex-GOP Voter says: June 25, 2011 at 12:12 pm
The sentiment as expressed is wonderful. It would not be any more meaningful if the Ex-RINO actually agreed with it.
This is the same kind of ‘chatter’ that flows from the fount of flatulence that is b o’s mouth.
Even if b o inadvertently strays into the truth it does not matter because justa as soon as the sound of his voice fades from the atmosphere b o can and does say something completely contrary to what he just uttered.
[I wonder how many on-line assets the b o brigade has assigned to this site to divert attention away from the focus on the pre-natal child. Do you guys/gals/its receive some kind of compensation for your efforts or are you just true believers who are devoted to the ‘revolution’ to transform america into a humanist nightmare?]
Liz, we do educational and scientific outreach, but we don’t distribute fetal models. Those are readily available through other groups.
Ron Paul. Everyone else is not really pro-life, just another Bush.
Kick every blue state out of the union and abolish the federal judiciary?
To all my ‘birther’ buds.
Go to Google and just enter the name ‘obama’.
The second item to appear after ‘obama’, is ‘obam birth certificate’, the next item, lest any of you should mistakenly think the items appear in alphabetical order is ‘obama approval rating’.
I believe, and I could be wrong, that the items appear in order of number of searches.
Evidently many people still have questions about b o’s birth certificate.
That is why the b o internet machine is so intent to obfuscate the issue.
duces tecum
Since it’s apparently acceptable here to completely veer off-topic and bring up things that are completely irrelevant to the story and discussion thread: how about that gay marriage bill in New York, huh?
Ken the Birther
Entered in ‘Obama’ in Google.
First site – ‘Obama for America, 2012 campaign site’
Second site – Obama’s wikipedia page
Third and fourth sites – Obama’s Presidential pages (white house pages)
Fifth page – the transition into the office website
Sixth page – Chicago Tribune profile on Obama
Seventh page – Obama twitter feed
At the heart of being pro-life, however, is really accepting that objective reality and truth exists. This is ultimately incompatible with relativism
I agree 100 with Bruce here. I voted that we need to change public opinion above all. But this involves more than simply educating people about what happens in abortion and what the unborn child is. Above all, we need to combat relativism.
We all know the experience of giving facts and information hour after hour in the comboxes to some abortion supporter (not to name names) who will not or cannot listen, and who in the end can only come up with “it’s not a baby unless the mother thinks it is!” Yes, a blob of tissue can turn into a baby if the mother wants it and magically melt right back into a blob if she changes her mind!
All too often we’ve all heard “That may be your reality, but it’s not mine!”
Relativism is what is ultimately behind all the mindless, illogical arguments for abortion. Fortunately, the younger generation is tired of this. They are hungry for truth. They can be taught. This is our great hope.
I don’t know, however, that I agree with Bruce’s statment that belief in ultimate truth is incompatible with Protestantism. I think most Protestants would beg to differ on that!!
Combating relativism is great, but we must retain our focus in that respect so as to maintain justice, because some things ARE relative, for freedom’s sake. I don’t know if that makes any sense to you all, but it does to me.
Using scientific guidelines to determine reality (which has already been done, btw, despite pro-choice’s best efforts to obscure that fact) and teaching that information definitively (get liberal bias out of our children’s education to stop the indoctrination machine for a start) to combat the touchy-feelies MUST be done.
Convincing people that objective moral truth exists and that it is what we say it is would certainly make any movement’s job easier. Too bad it’s not something that can be empirically measured and demonstrated.
Lori, the Protestant statement is in reference to objective truth…that truth exists outside the “magisterial me” mind of the human being.
Kelsey says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:10 am
I voted for “Get more media supporting the pro-life message.” We need the media on board to change public opinion, and we need strong public opinion in favor of prenatal rights in order to do everything else on the list.
“Change the image of the pro-life movement” is closely related. That’s largely what Secular Pro-Life is about: putting forward an image of the pro-life movement that says anyone can join.
Good points. It’s important to take away the “political” label that’s been given to the abortion issue, and I think the secular pro-lifers are the ones who must change (their own hearts and minds) in order for elective abortion to become “unthinkable and barbaric” once more in the U.S. What your secular group is doing it soooo critical, IMHO.
That said , it is also critical that those who are inclined to pray do so fervently and regularly and be courageous but loving in the “fight” for LIFE. Setting up more crisis pregnancy centers is a wonderful idea. Passing parental notification laws should be near the top of the list. (Would that fall under reducing the power of the courts or increasing it, in this instance?) Parents need to be more aware of where their kids are after school. (Thats a discussion for another thread.)
joan says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Convincing people that objective moral truth exists and that it is what we say it is would certainly make any movement’s job easier. Too bad it’s not something that can be empirically measured and demonstrated.
Joan, if there is no objective moral truth, as you imply in your comment, where do you draw the line of what is right and wrong?
Kris: Popular opinion, of course! Didn’t you get the memo? You text in your vote to 1-888-MRL-BKRP and if enough people deem it permissible, it’s a-ok.
Clarification of my post at 5:39 pm (I didn’t mean to write a negative statement against secular pro-lifers, which is how I came across.):
….I think the secular pro-lifers are the ones who must change (their own hearts and minds).
It should read: ….I think the secular pro-choicers and pro-aborts are the ones who must change…
Interesting that Fr. Pavone didn’t give us the choice of supporting your state’s Personhood campaign. Might be because USCCB is actively working against them – through each state’s Catholic Conference. Why might this be?
If you are interested in challenging moral relativism, the Personhood Campaigns are aiming at the core issue – Abortion will never end until the objective reality of personhood is recognized as beginning when human life begins.
We can go five more generations standing outside clinics and putting up billboards and fighting our local school board. People may stop having abortions on babies who’ve fingers show, but they will never stop taking the morning after pill until we start focusing on the rights of all humans from their biological beginnings.
Amen. And then keep pushing for legal recognition of those rights. That’s the American way. If you are in China, you might have to rely on prayer alone, but in America, we are blessed with freedom we are not using.
Please, Father – why did you leave out working for Personhood amendments? The work itself educates the public or at least challenges people to think about the ultimate question. And coming up, we may actually win in Mississippi and/or Alabama.
Hiawatha says:
June 25, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Interesting that Fr. Pavone didn’t give us the choice of supporting your state’s Personhood campaign. Might be because USCCB is actively working against them – through each state’s Catholic Conference. Why might this be?
I have read that legal scholars are worried that the various personhood legislation that have been brought forth could actually cause the U.S Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe vs. Wade, which apparently would be a huge legal setback. Obviously, we have to tread water carefully and do it right without unintended/unforeseen negative consequences. Lives are at stake.
Bruce, I have have misunderstood you. Evidently you didn’t mean to say that Protestants don’t believe in absolute truth; after all, it’s obvious that a great many of them do.
They affirm that the Bible is absolute truth. if they are prolifers, as most are here, they affirm there is an absolute moral truth. In one area — the magisterial authority of the Church — they don’t believe truth resides where we believe it does, but that doesn’t in itself add up to an undermining of all truth outside of us. There may be something in the faith of some of them that undercuts their getting at that truth because understanding the Bible depends on an authoritative interpretation, and for them each person is his own authority, but that is not an argument for saying that a belief in absolute truth is incompatible with Protestantism.
Please not that I do not intend to get into a Protestant-Catholic debate!
Joan is a living breathing example of exactly what I mean by relativism, but since I am tired tonight and know it’s futile anyway, I’m not even going to try to debate with her.
The whole “personhood” movement leaves me more than a little dubious. Why choose “personhood” as your battleground? It’s an arbitrary term, that anyone can define as they like; our oppenents have already defined it to their liking. They say you have to be “autonomous” and of course, outside the womb, and have heaven knows how many other important qualities to be a person. The only reason for defining someone as a non-person is that you don’t want to give them their rights as a human being. Why are we fighting them on these grounds?
We should be stressing that because the unborn are human beings, they have human rights. The scientific consensus is that human life begins at conception. The definition and the connection with rights are built in! We have even gotten pro-aborts here on occasion to admit that the unborn are developing human beings. I believe this is the path that should be pursued, because this is where they are starting to crumble.
Getting legal recognition for the rights of the unborn is a very clear goal – I just don’t think the proper term is being used.
I agree, Lori. Why do we CONSTANTLY let them set the terms and frame the debate? I refuse to let myself be hedged in by their nonsense, and tell them so at the outset, usually. “Where did you see me mention the word ‘person’? You’ll notice that I consistently used the term ‘HUMAN BEING’ throughout every comment leading up to this one.” Don’t let them derail you!!!
If you stick to “human being”, which is the core issue we’re talking about, they eventually attempt to argue the definition of “human being” with you, which in my opinion just gives our side traction and makes them look stupid. It’s a total win for us.
“I believe this is the path that should be pursued, because this is where they are starting to crumble.”
Or maybe that will backfire and more vividly demonstrate the profound difference between simply having human DNA and being what we consider, morally and legally, to be a person. The logical end to the path you think should be pursued isn’t merely “protecting the unborn” from abortion, but recognizing microscopic embryos as being equal, in every meaningful way, to you and I, which is inherently counter-intuitive to any person approaching the matter from a practical rather than strictly philosophical or religious perspective, not to mention completely unprecedented in any past or present human society. I would wager that even the vast majority of people who consider themselves pro-life would find absurd the concept that something that cannot even be seen with the naked eye is a person whose legal and moral status is on par with their own.
Well, joan, you just offered a perfect example of my thesis. Dehumanize the unborn by any means. And of course, confuse the nebulous concept of “personhood” with humanity.
You talk about the “microscopic’ unborn that can’t even be seen by the naked eye. This of course, refers to the first few days and weeks after conception. And it’s a lie even then.
I learned years ago from my mother’s baby book, that the human ovum itself is the largest cell in the body and is visible to the naked eye (2.5 micrometers). The human embryo at 2-3 weeks after fertilization is about 4 micrometers long. by 6 weeks .2 inch. Of course, this is only the earliest stage of pregnancy, and since I presume you are among those who think the unborn aren’t considered “alive” or “a person” until birth at about 8 pounds and 18 inches, what does all this blather about the size of the embryo making a difference really mean anyway? The size of the unborn doesn’t make a difference to a late term abortionist after all; he’s killing something that the size, or nearly the size, of a full-term baby, apparently without any qualms. So spare me.
By the “practical” perspective, I presume you mean the scientific. Scientists have no difficulty agreeing that each human being’s life begins at conception; there is no other place it can begin. It was non other than physicians, by the way, who led in the campaign to ban abortion in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Their reasoning was the humanity of the unborn.
There are dozens of other ways your ignorance is evident in that one short comment. But I am tired and have to stop for tonight.
Hi xalisae – thanks for the support! :-)
Lori,
Right now, I don’t think the US Constitution defines human personhood. States wouldn’t be re-defining it, they would be defining it for the first time. Blackmun in Roe said that Roe wouldn’t stand if there was agreement on the personhood of the fetus. He assumed there was no consensus then nor would there ever be. What the States are attempting to do is to is to equate humanity with personhood so that all human beings will have rights under their own constitutions.
Setting this kind of precedent will of course cause a train wreck with Roe and force the court to look take up the question – are all human beings persons with rights protected by the US Constitution? Even those in IVF petri dishes? Even those who haven’t implanted yet. The opposition is bringing up these examples as arguments against Personhood efforts. This will be their downfall because the wastage of embryos that goes on in IVF labs has nothing to do with a woman controlling her own body, and focuses attention on the reality of what is in those petri dishes.
Xalisae, I agree that in discussions with individuals, it’s best to start with talking about the humanity of the unborn, but with courts, we need to talk about giving all human beings rights and that’s where personhood comes in.
Kris, those same legal scholars (Clarke Forsythe of AUL) who are afraid of Personhood, brought Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood before the Supreme Court, knowing it had exceptions. The exceptions in Roe were what were it’s downfall and and exceptions in Casey were it”s downfall. Yes, we have to be careful. Forsythe was not being careful in supporting Casey v PP. Check out Robert Muise, of the Thomas More Law Center’s argument for Personhood approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dPR3_HlVGs
It is a spiritual battle and without the Lord all is in vain. Out of those ten choices prayer is the most important.
I believe to change the culture, we must use the media. Public service announcements can be very impactful. While the “this is your brain on drugs” spots had mixed results, the pro-environment ones are probably more successful.
Ironically, the best pro-life messages are often commercials that didn’t intend them that way. I’m thinking about the GE commercial touting their production of sonogram equipment. The truth will out. We must keep brainstorming on the best way to spread that truth.
It seems to me that if all pregnancies were planned and desired by the pregnant female, abortion would be likely to fade away. If pregnancy were no longer a time of crisis but always a time of joy, there would be very few abortions.
I…actually…very strongly agree with truthseeker on this one.
Hiawatha~ Thanks! I’ll look into that.
The logical end to the path you think should be pursued isn’t merely “protecting the unborn” from abortion, but recognizing microscopic embryos as being equal, in every meaningful way, to you and I, which is inherently counter-intuitive to any person approaching the matter from a practical rather than strictly philosophical or religious perspective, not to mention completely unprecedented in any past or present human society.
Right. And granting children basic human rights through child protection laws took away rights from adults and was inherently counter-intuitive to any person approaching the matter from a practical rather than strictly philosophical or religious perspective, not to mention completely unprecedented in any past or present human society.
Tell me another one, Joan!
“…recognizing microscopic embryos as being equal, in every meaningful way, to you and I, which is inherently counter-intuitive to any person approaching the matter from a practical rather than strictly philosophical or religious perspective, ”
Approaching the question from a purely practical POV, without any other underlying philosophical considerations, is itself a philosophical position; it is called pragmatism, and it leads to extremely counter-intuitive views on many other and even clearer positions. So pragmatism as a worldview is much more horrific than any a priori aversion one may have to the idea that embryos are just as valuable as you or me.
We have to SHOW the truth of what abortion is. Without that people won’t have in mind an image of what we are talking about.
None of those 10 items will stop abortion. Defunding won’t stop abortion. Making it illegal won’t stop abortion. The fairy dancing of the other options won’t stop abortion. History tells us this.
The only thing that will come anywhere even close to stopping abortion is the discovery of a failure-proof, non-side-affect way of turning off fertility until a chosen moment. And even then…
Go New York!
“None of those 10 items will stop abortion. Defunding won’t stop abortion. Making it illegal won’t stop abortion. The fairy dancing of the other options won’t stop abortion. History tells us this.”
—
And in the same vein, no law against or efforts to prevent murder have stopped murders from happening. The question is “So what?”. Are you saying that because something will always happen that it should be left alone to happen?
“Go New York!”
—
And I guess this is in reference to gay marriage in New York, which apparently is supposed to be some kind of dig at pro-lifers, seeing as how we’re all just one big monolithic group here.
…Oh wait.
LOL! The reason any thread with a same-sex subject ends up being 200 plus comments long is because we don’t all feel the same way about it, legally or spiritually.
Before 2008, most of my gay friends didn’t think that much about marriage in general. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to hear people say things like, “I don’t need a piece of paper or a certificate to prove my love/devotion/loyalty.” Now I wonder how many gay couples have begun to bicker about the nature and seriousness of their partnerships.
But we digress, which is exactly what abortion fans always try to do. They don’t have the truth on their side, so they must always resort to deflection and distraction.
I agree with other commentors that the personhood debate derails the pro-life movement. We don’t want to end abortion because “person” is some kind of winning token. We want to end abortion because it’s deadly, horrific, barbaric, and inhumane.
The question was, Some Guy, “Which of the following has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal of stopping abortion?’ – that was the question I answered. The question did not pertain to the rights or wrongs.
Some Guy and ninek, check the first comment on this thread. And the fourth. Bruce raised the same-sex issue and is also anti-contraception. It doesn’t look like he’s a pro-choicer.
The question was, Some Guy, “Which of the following has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal of stopping abortion?’ – that was the question I answered. The question did not pertain to the rights or wrongs.”
—
Re-read what I wrote out again. My comment mentioned nothing about “right” or “wrong”. I asked you a legitimate question– a question which you, apparently, don’t feel the need to entertain.
“Some Guy and ninek, check the first comment on this thread. And the fourth. Bruce raised the same-sex issue and is also anti-contraception. It doesn’t look like he’s a pro-choicer.”
—
I’m also sure he doesn’t speak for every pro-lifer, on account of pro-lifers not exactly being monolithic in their views, any more than every pro-choicer thinks gays should be allowed to marry.
You don’t appear to have read what I said Some Guy. I directly addressed the specific question which had been posed – how to stop abortion. I gave the only answer I see as being anywhere close to achieving such a thing.
Your – completely unrelated – question was basically “should we legalise murder because it’s going to happen anyway”. Well no, we probably shouldn’t. But that is totally unrelated to abortion and especially the question that was put.
My reason for pointing out what had been said at comments 1 and 4 was because ninek said the topic had been raised and was concerned that this thread may get rather long and you had started whinging about what pro-choicers might say. My initial response had been due to Bruce’s comment, that’s all.
“You don’t appear to have read what I said Some Guy. I directly addressed the specific question which had been posed – how to stop abortion. I gave the only answer I see as being anywhere close to achieving such a thing.
Your – completely unrelated – question was basically “should we legalise murder because it’s going to happen anyway”. Well no, we probably shouldn’t. But that is totally unrelated to abortion and especially the question that was put.”
—
I read what you said, and I’d like to point out that you didn’t address anything. You were engaging in a fair bit of sophistry, being deliberately obtuse by providing a witty response sans the wit. In the same vein as your response, I would like to present a response to the following question: “How do feminists achieve their goal of stopping violence towards women?”. Answer: By ensuring there are no women to commit violence against, as you’ll never stop it otherwise– a fact history will attest to. Or better yet, how about this? “How do gay rights activists achieve their goal of stopping violence towards gays?”. Answer: By ensuring there are no gays to commit violence against, as you’ll never stop it otherwise– a fact history will attest to ;).
Those are direct answers to the aforementioned questions, yes? If I were to go to a GLBT and/or feminist site and give the aforementioned answers to the aforementioned questions, I’d be banned in a heartbeat. You see, I’m over 99% sure you wouldn’t show up in a thread about what should be the top priority in stopping violence against a certain group of people and assert that it’s going to happen regardless outside of some absurd lengths and that outside of those absurd lengths, nothing should be done because it still won’t stop abortion from happening. And probably even with those absurd lengths it would still happen, meaning it’d be pointless to do something either way.
Oh sure, you’ll probably argue that you weren’t trying to such a point, but this leads one to wonder if that’s not the point you were trying to make, then why bring it up the fact that abortions will still happen whether or not they’re legal or illegal? I mean, everyone and their grandmothers– whether they are dead or alive– knows that making abortions, for example, illegal won’t make them not happen, much like making murder illegal hasn’t driven the instance of murder down to zero. Everyone, that is, except for pro-choicers. Pro-choicers such as yourself like to gleefully point out that abortions will forever happen regardless of what’s done, and then use this as some psuedo-arguing point for why pro-lifers are just wasting their time, but cry foul when someone else applies that same twisted logic to something else. How does that work? You’re either being intellectually dishonest or are engaging in a large amount of cognitive dissonance.
I’m sure every pro-lifer here would love for the abortion rate to be zero. But it’s not going to happen. I’d be willing to bet that isn’t a single pro-lifer here who thinks that it ever can or will be. In fact, I’d say the only people here who think that pro-lifers believe that any of the goals we are working towards will make the abortion rate zero are pro-choicers who do so in an attempt to discredit the work pro-lifers do. Even if we can’t get there, it’s a goal we work towards. Being unable to reach an abortion rate of zero doesn’t mean we’re wasting our time or that we should stop working towards it anymore than people should stop working to ensure there are zero murders a year even though such a number is unattainable.
(Yes, I read a bit into your position, but I don’t think it’s a stretch based on what you typed here.)
“My reason for pointing out what had been said at comments 1 and 4 was because ninek said the topic had been raised and was concerned that this thread may get rather long and you had started whinging about what pro-choicers might say. My initial response had been due to Bruce’s comment, that’s all.”
—
Really? Unless my eyes deceive me, I posted before ninek posted in this thread, which was after you posted in this thread. So how could you be responding to ninek before (s)he posted which was after I posted about your initial comment? Did I miss something?
Your responses are becoming less relevant and more incoherent Some Guy. If you want to debate something completely unrelated to this thread just come out and say so.
My 6:32 pm comment was in direct and applicable response to the question which was the point of this thread.
I also said “Go New York” in response to what Bruce had said.
Still with me?
My 9:33pm comment was in response to your attempt to hijack the question. It also contained my response to what both you and ninek had said about same-sex stuff.
Still with me?
At 10:53pm you then posed your completely unrelated question again. And had another little gripe about the same-sex thing.
My 11:37pm comment again pointed out the complete irrelevance of your question but answered it anyway just to make you happy. I also explained again that an anti-choicer had started the same-sex thing.
Still with me?
And now you’ve gone off on some ranty little tangent even further from the topic, the question or anything I had raised. Why not ask me if I prefer blueberry or chocolate muffins.
Far from being obtuse, I was concise and direct in applying my comments to the actual question and Bruce’s homophobic comments.
Try reading the question which was posed again. Unconfuse yourself.
Your responses are becoming less relevant and more incoherent Some Guy. If you want to debate something completely unrelated to this thread just come out and say so.”
—
My comments are directly based on what you wrote out, and what you wrote out was– how can I put this gently?– dumb.
“My 6:32 pm comment was in direct and applicable response to the question which was the point of this thread.”
—
I’ll play this game and I’ll be frank; the response you gave is a non-answer and it gives no guise of even being an answer. There is not a single pro-lifer here who has ever refused to acknowledge that abortions will happen in some form regardless of the steps taken to make sure they don’t occur, much the same way I doubt there’s a single individual who has ever refused to acknowledge that murder will happen regardless of the steps taken to make sure they don’t occur. It’s pro-choicers who like to assert that pro-lifers don’t realize that abortions will always happen regardless in an attempt to somehow try to discredit the efforts of pro-lifers in regards to discouraging abortions or even making them illegal. You see, the question was what had to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal of eliminating abortions. You didn’t answer this, and instead tried to change the question to whether or not pro-lifers can eliminate abortion entirely. At best, that’s a failure to read on your part. At worst, it’s a straw man. The best method for achieving a goal is not contingent on whether that goal will be met. Rather, the best method for achieving a goal is calculated based on how close to that goal it comes when compared to the other methods of achieving that goal. But I’m sure you knew this before bothering to respond.
“And now you’ve gone off on some ranty little tangent even further from the topic, the question or anything I had raised. Why not ask me if I prefer blueberry or chocolate muffins.”
—
And yet, none of what I wrote out was a tangent. Though I’d probably get a more direct answer than any you’ve thusly provided if I did ask if you preferred blueberry or chocolate muffins.
“Far from being obtuse, I was concise and direct in applying my comments to the actual question…”
—
No, you weren’t. In fact, I addressed this only to have you spectacularly ignore it (no surprise there!), so I’ll reiterate the point I made earlier. I’m more than 99% sure that if this was a topic about entirely eliminating violence against women or gays, with ten choices given as to which has to happen first to accomplish that goal, I’m absolutely positive that you would not have chimed in with a “Well, none of those are going to stop the violence against gays/women, anyway!” type response. You would have probably chimed in with a “Well, I think X is best because…” type response. I know this. You know this. We all know this. So cut the BS.
“…and Bruce’s homophobic comments.”
—
So I guess that’s why your comment was directed towards Bruce, instead of hanging out at the end of a response which was directed towards a question in the OP, and not Bruce? And that still doesn’t explain how your response could have been in response to ninek when (s)he posted after me.
“Try reading the question which was posed again. Unconfuse yourself.”
—
I think you’re the one who is confused and you’d benefit from taking your own advice.
Abortion, just as murder, will always be with us. We are fallen creatures with free will.
The goal of the pro-life movement should be to end the LEGALITY of abortion.
Abortion will never end if we don’t keep focused on human life being sacred from the beginning. There are currently probably more abortions of embryos by chemical and laboratory (IVF) means then surgical. Without personhood ammendments, chemical abortion will only increase as access to surgical abortion is restricted.
The longer this focus is delayed, the more people forget and have to be re-convinced. The common wisdom, because prolifers have let people forget, deems it foolish to consider human life sacred in all its stages.
Pro-life people should recognize the reality that the law is a teacher for most people and that we have a window of opportunity right now, in Mississippi – to pass a Personhood measure. Let’s unite, and go for it!
Duh, Reality, maybe you should check MY comment, which is: we don’t all feel the same way. Pro-life people are a cross section of many political and religious beliefs, including no religious beliefs. Sure, many pro-lifers are politically conservative, but not all. WE don’t fit into a neat little box: it is abortion advocates that try so hard to put us all in the same box. That’s YOUR problem and your set of straw men. Keep swinging at windmills, abortion advocates, while your industry of feticide crumbles around you.
Since the homosexuals insist on being “married”; what ceremony/word will we use to define the union of a man and a woman? And once we come up with that word; won’t the homo’s just say we are discriminating again. I for one, will not accept any part of society changing the definition of marriage. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. The relationship between two men or two women can NEVER be equal to the relationship between a man and a woman. They may get a generation of society to coin and speak the term homosexual marriage as if it actually existed; but they will never be happy cause homosexuals will never have what heterosexual couples have. The heterosexual union was ordained by God as unique and as the foundation of family and society. You will not find any dictionary or text book that is over a decade old that referrred to marriage as anything other that the union of a man and a woman. Trying to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuality only makes gay unions LESS than what they actually are because it is specifically the difference between a man and a womand that is the foundation of the marriage union. Homosexual relationships have no natural place in society and no foundation in familial structure.
Truthseeker- we will call the union of a man and a woman “marriage.” we will call the union of two men “marriage.” we will call the union of two women “marriage.”
Because that’s what they are: they are married.
Do you hate interracial marriage too?
No, not at all Jane. Do you recognize any difference between the union of a man and a woman compared to the union of two men? Traditionally, the marriage has defined that special union. Since you want to change the definition; maybe you could come up with a new word that represents the union if a man and a woman. What would you have us call it?
Before 2008, many folks of all orientations were willing to accept the phrase “civil union” which many of us thought was a workable compromise. Politically, I have this to say: If gay people get to use “marriage” and “be married” then the Mormons and Muslims deserve to get their polygamy back, with all the legal protections and social acceptance that should come with it. And I don’t want to hear peep one from the feminists. You want gay marriage? Then we also get polygamy. Fair is fair. If you don’t allow polygamy, you ARE DISCRIMINATING!!! Why should I have to choose this man or that man, why can’t I marry both? Why can’t I marry a man and a woman on the same day and have a great big party?
Author George Orwell warned us what would happen when a society began to butcher their own language. Alas. I resent the destruction of our language. I resent the butchering of the word “choice” most of all. I resent the phrase “politically correct” which has wrought damage on our culture that we cannot even fathom yet. For example, a 25 year old woman who doesn’t use the “N” word but does pay a stranger to kill her child is considered GOOD by abortion fans.
That’s insanity. And it’s doubleplusungood.
“If gay people get to use “marriage” and “be married” then the Mormons and Muslims deserve to get their polygamy back, with all the legal protections and social acceptance that should come with it.”
Okay, in that case, you can help them lay the extensive political, legal, and social groundwork necessary to make polygamy palatable to legislatures and courts; groundwork that the same-sex marriage movement has been diligently laying for years. “Gay marriage is no more deserving of legal recognition than polygamy!” isn’t an argument against gay marriage, it’s an appeal to the negative emotional reaction that the recipient of the appeal is expected to have towards polygamy. Suppose that I agree that polygamous marriage should be recognized by the state. Would that somehow preclude me from endorsing same-sex marriage in the here and now because I believe it’s the right thing to do, independently of whether or not polygamy ever has its day as well? The expansion of marriage rights isn’t all-or-nothing.
@ninek, I agree about the civil unions. I have no problem with the LGBT community, and defend their rights, but I think pushing through marriage amendments on such a divisive subject is a mistake. But then, I’m strange because I really don’t have a problem with polygamy as long as everyone is consenting.
Anyway, ninek is right. There is no requirement to be conservative and/or religious to be pro-life. I am the most liberal person I know in RL, yet one of the few pro-lifers. You don’t have to belong to any ideology to know that it is wrong to kill a developing child.
As to the question posed, I think that the pro-life movement needs to change it’s image to be more effective. The pro-choicers I know seem to be put of by the religious and conservative aspects of it. I am NOT saying anyone should have to give up their moral convictions, but I think it would be very positive to show non-religious and liberals that there is no need to prescribe to any specific ideology to oppose abortion.
Let’s try yet again Same Guy.
“There is not a single pro-lifer here who has ever refused to acknowledge that abortions will happen in some form…” – that is indeed the reality of the situation.
Now, let’s look at what was actually said.
The title of this thread is “What has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve it’s goal?”
and the question posed was
“Which of the following has to happen first for the pro-life movement to achieve its goal of stopping abortion?”
to which I said that none of the options outlined would achieve this. I said that “None of those 10 items will stop abortion” because it would not matter which of the options espoused may occur first, it still wouldn’t achieve the ‘goal of stopping abortion’.
I then offered one which may go closer to achieving what anti-choicers desire.
I also stated ‘Go New York’ in response to Bruce’s homophobic statement.
My answer was clear and relevant. There was no straw man.
Then you start again with the murder and violence again women stuff, what’s that got to do with the question which was posed!
If you want to discuss something other than the topic of the thread, say so.
And ‘duh’ indeed ninek, I was not lumping all pro-lifers into some conglomerate of anti-gay bigotry. Can you show me where I did? I did not ‘put you all in the same box’.
“society changing the definition of marriage. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage” – that’s about as historically accurate as someone claiming that ‘under god’ has been in the Pledge since it’s inception!
“The heterosexual union was ordained by God as unique and as the foundation of family and society” – and no-one is asking god believers to enter into gay marriages.
“You will not find any dictionary or text book that is over a decade old that referrred to marriage as anything other that the union of a man and a woman.” – you need to look a little harder.
“Homosexual relationships have no natural place in society” – despite being there from the start?
Reality,
Is there any difference between a man and a woman? Answer yes.
Does that mean that the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men? Answer again is yes.
How about you show me a link to the oldest dictionary you can find that defines marriage as the union of two humans instead of the union of a man and a woman. I won’t hold my breath.lol you liberals are just silly
I think it is time to throw out marriage as a legal definition – everyone should have legal unions in regards to decision making and property, and let churches bless marriages – much like baptism, confirmation, and other things that are left out of legal circles.
It is a stupid dividing issue that breaks up churches and causes issue after issue. And the darndest thing is, it seems like anytime somebody comes out yelling so loudly about the “sanctity” of marriage, they either turn up to be gay themselves, or they cheat on their spouse.
As an issue, I’m so done with this one…my wife and I will continue to be committed to each other no matter who legally can get married. Our love is bigger than the state in which we live in.
Jane,
Your question about interracial marriage shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the marriage issue. It should be obvious that any male can marry any female. And just as obvious that no male can marry another male, regardless of race.
Ex-RINO,
I agree with you. The preferrable solution would be to leave marriage alone and give the homos rights to each other’s property or person. And I feel for your church. Fortunately the Catholic church I belong to is openly supportive of marriage being defined as the union of a man and a woman.
If a NY man gets his girlfriend pregnant can he marry her brother in order to get medical insurance for their kid?
What is marriage other than a financial partnership? The procreative aspect is obviously huge. The way we compliment one another biologically is also huge. Spiritually the differences are enormous but I am at a loss for words that can explain them? And I thank our God for having given us our complimentary faiths in Jesus.
“You will not find any dictionary or text book that is over a decade old that referrred to marriage as anything other that the union of a man and a woman” –
American Heritage went first, adding this to its definition of marriage in 2000: “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.”
Oxford English Dictionary, since 2000 has included in the definition of marriage the phrase “long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition – 2000) includes same-sex marriage.
If I had access to old and ancient copies of dictionaries I’m quite sure there would be those which contain definitions of marriage which are not exclusively heterosexual. These don’t seem to be available online. Ancient ‘dictionaries’ of other cultures would no doubt include same-sex under marriage because their cultures included and recognized same-sex marriages.
And do you seriously expect me to have to show you text books which demonstrates that there have been cultures which gave equal credance to same-sex marriages. Will you be that asinine?
“It should be obvious that any male can marry any female.” – it didn’t used to be so.
“And just as obvious that no male can marry another male, regardless of race” – and it will be so.
“give the homos” – says it all really.
Maybe churches should keep out of marriage, they probably shouldn’t have purloined it in the first place. Perhaps the state could enshrine the legal status of ‘marriage’ and the various churches could have ‘ceremonies’.
Oh look, a troll has successfully derailed the topic from abortion to gay marriage. WHY DO YOU GUYS INSIST ON TAKING THIS BAIT?!
Let it GO! We’re talking about abortion here. You know, the thing that is KILLING THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS EVERY DAY. Remember?
It can’t be defended, so they change the topic to gay marriage. Stop falling for it, please.
Reality,
You only prove my point when you say the the oldest dictionary reference you could find to homosexual marriage was in the year 2000.
x, Marriage brings stability to couples who engage in procreation and thus promotes a culture that values unborn life. Could you maybe help me and answer this question. Spiritually, what differences do you see between men and women?
xalisae, I think Bruce brought up homosexuality first. Reality mentioned New York and it snowballed from there.
@truthseeker, you can value unborn life and care about gays and their rights. The only reason I am not too gung-ho for gay marriage is that it is ridiculously divisive. I think it would be cool if civil unions for all orientations were left up to the government, and marriage was left to the churches.
Oh no you don’t truthseeker. You can’t dismiss and run.
It is now 2011, those dictionary editions were 2000, that means they are over a decade old. So I have proven your point wrong. And like I said, if I had access to true ancient dictionaries there would be some who did not differentiate because their cultures included same-sex marriage.
Apart from that, you also stated that no text books would include marriages other than one man and one woman. That is patently not true.
xalisae, it was Bruce who introduced the subject of homosexuality and truthseeker has been harping on about it. I did not start the ‘derailing’, I have simply been responding. So unless your reference to ‘trolls’ now includes god-believing anti-choicers….
Could a person be charged with a hate crime for promoting a hetero pride rally?
“Could a person be charged with a hate crime for promoting a hetero pride rally?”
?? Why would they be?
Reality,
You see a gotcha moment cause you found a dictionary that was published 11 years ago and it had a reference to homosexual marriage. My point was that it was only in the last decade or so that US society has been subjected to this attack on marriage. God’s greatest gift to man was woman. And now a segment of society wants to take what men and women have traditionally used as our outward acknowledgement/recognition of this gift and say it is no different then a homosexual union. If they want the equal property rights etc… I would be for that. But at that point those rights would have to be made available to unmarried couples also. It would have to be universal for any and all people to enter into those types of financial relationships. But we don’t need to destroy marriage in order to do that.
JackBorsch, the ACLU could find a liberal judge to deem a hetero-pride rally to be in violation of hate laws which categorize homosexuals as a ’protected’ class of people.
Spiritually, what differences do you see between men and women?
None, but you’re asking the wrong woman. I’m pretty manly.
Reality, you brought it up with your “New York” remark, because you KNEW it would turn into this to take the attention off of abortion and how the tide is turning against you and yours. Congrats, it worked (sadly enough. I happen to agree with Jack about the civil union=government/marriage=churches thing).
Marriage brings stability to couples who engage in procreation and thus promotes a culture that values unborn life.
I’ve known far too many heterosexual marriages (my parents’ and my own for starters) that did no such thing. You’re once again talking to the wrong person about this.
(Hey guys, I bet if we kept the talk down to abortion and weren’t so easily distracted by trolls, we’d get a lot more done and garner far more support, eh?)
“JackBorsch, the ACLU could find a liberal judge to deem a hetero-pride rally to be in violation of hate laws which categorize homosexuals as a ’protected’ class of people.”
Maybe, but it is the opposite in a lot of states/counties. In a few counties here in Florida, the government can acknowledge any celebration (including religious, ethnic, whatever you can think of) but are prohibited against acknowledging gay pride festivals. I think it is wrong to discriminate like that no matter who the victim is.
I think xalisae is right. All of us are definitely not going to agree on gay marriage, and heterosexual marriage doesn’t necessarily protect anything (I would looove for you to meet my parents!). This conversation probably isn’t particularly productive.
Reality,
If you were talking about me then you could at least get it right; that would be ‘God-believing’ and not ‘god-believing’. And you should clarify by finishing the phrase ‘anti-choice’ to include ‘anti-choice to mutilate mother’s and kill their babies in the womb’
Three truthseeker, three. Not “a dictionary”. And there are more. Not a gotcha moment either. Just addressing the challenge. Maybe you tried for a gotcha and fell flat?
“My point was that it was only in the last decade or so that US society has been subjected to this attack on marriage.”
1. it is not an ‘attack’ on marriage. The church and heterosexuality don’t ‘own’ marriage. And same-sex marriage is becoming available, not mandatory.
2. Since same-sex marriages are an historical fact, it is the intervening period of faith-based conservatism which has excluded same-sex marriages.
So if there has indeed been any such thing as an ‘attack’ on marriage it has been by those who would preclude same-sex marriage.
“God’s greatest gift to man was woman” – Gees, you’ve put me in a difficult position here! I agree with the underlying sentiment but disagree that anything was given by any god.
‘And now a segment of society wants to take what some men and women have traditionally used as our outward acknowledgement/recognition of this gift and say it is no different then a homosexual union.’ or ‘And now a segment of society wants to take what men and women have traditionally used as our outward acknowledgement/recognition of this gift and say it is no different then a heterosexual union.’
In most western nations de facto couples operate under the same legislation as married couples when it comes to children, property, financial support etc.
No-one is ‘destroying’ marriage. You believe in god, that doesn’t destroy my humanity.
For crying out loud xalisae, your desperate need to devalue what I say is stretching credulity.
Bruce made a comment on homosexuality, Bruce. Did you see that? Then he did it again, did you see that too?
My “Go New York” comment was merely my response to those comments. A bit of a dig back at him.
I was responding to what had been said.
That was all I said. It was others who started the same-sex marriage commentary.
truth – one clarification – my church has seen no division on this – but surely you’ve seen the news regarding denominations everywhere.
Ex-GOP,
I am glad to hear your church is without division on this.
People should stop referring to adoption as an alternative to abortion. Adoption cannot — at the present time — be performed prenatally. The alternative to abortion is NOT HAVING THE ABORTION. A female who carries to term and gives birth — however reluctantly — is usually going to want to raise the child. Adoption is an alternative for those who give birth and STILL don’t want to raise the baby.
‘And now a segment of society wants to take what men and women have traditionally used as our outward acknowledgement/recognition of this gift and say it is no different then a heterosexual union.’
Sorry Reality, but that is flat out wrong unless you are willing to remove the word “traditionally” from the statement.
And men and women are still called a heterosexual couple aren’t they? So what was the point you were trying to make there at all? I have a question for you.
Does changing the meaning of the word marriage also change the meaning of the words husband and wife.Would you be in favor of a law that states homosexual couples are legally able to call each other husband and wife too? lol If not, then why not? If two men could marry wouldn’t that mean that marriage is between a husband and a husband; or do the terms husband and wife no longer apply to marriage? And if two men adopt can one of them change their legal status to mother of the child? If not, then why not?
No-one is ‘destroying’ marriage. You believe in god, that doesn’t destroy my humanity.
Reality,
you are correct that no-one is destroying marriage. I said they were attacking marriage, not destroying marriage. And my belief in God does not destroy your humanity; rather my belief in God confirms your humanity.
The church and heterosexuality don’t ‘own’ marriage.
Reality, from where do you get your source for your definition of marriage?
You are wrong. Marriage has not always and totally been only heterosexual. There is no universal man and woman only ‘traditional’ marriage.
Not all heterosexual married couples refer to themselves as husband and wife. Gays could call themselves what ever they wish. I think most would say husband and husband.
You said – “But we don’t need to destroy marriage in order to do that”
My definition of marriage is based on it’s historical precepts and practices. This has included both straight and gay marriage.
Not all heterosexual married couples refer to themselves as husband and wife.
Care to give me a couple of examples? I am interested to know what else they call themselves.
Quick question truth – you seem very concerned about the “sanctity” of marriage, enough to deny marriage rights to the gay community (correct me if I’m wrong on that).
To protect the sanctity of marriage, do you also believe that we should legally deny marriage to anyone who has ever had an affair, or sexual relations outside of marriage?
What I’m wondering is, do you want to protect the “sanctity” of marriage, or do you just not like gays and want them out of the discussion? Just looking for some clarification.
Ex-RINO,
For example, a man might cheat on his woman but the woman forgives him and stays married to him and they live out their lives in a marriage that is still sanctified. But I also I believe that if a married person has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse then that should be legal grounds for divorce with prejudice against the the person who has an affair. My fundamental concern about the ‘sanctity’ of marriage is that the entire concept of marriage stay the union of a man and a woman. I would say that I consider each union of a man and a woman to be a marriage regardless of the propriety of their behaviour to one another within the marriage. Does that clarify?
I know people who refuse to refer to their marital partner as ‘husband’ or ‘wife’. They just use their name. “I said to Jane last night…”. If someone asks who Jane is they say “the person I am married with.”
I thought the new testament condemned divorce.
Reality, I have never heard a married couple say this but I have to admit I don’t get out all that much.
I introduce my husband as My Young Stud.
Whatever rocks your boat.
I also know a mildly fervent christian gentleman who insists on referring to non-married partners as husbands and wives. I guess he thinks they are because the conjugal relationship is at the basis of ‘marriage’.
truth – that clarifies it – I suppose I wouldn’t use the word “sanctity” – I would use more “exclusivity”. I believe, if I’m reading it right, that you are fine with a marriage full of sinful behavior as long as it is a woman and man.
Again – I go back to my earlier thought – get the government out of it.
I would never say that I am fine with a marriage full of sin. I would say that it is possible to have a marriage full of sin. It would be more accurate to say that it is the union of a man and woman that makes marriage; not the lack of sin.
Reality, I can understand they are comfirtable calling their partner by name; but what possible reason do they have for “refusing” to call each other husband or wife?
Some people feel those particular titles carry connotations of ownership or subservience.
A connotation of ownership? That could logically stem from marriage being an outward sign to the rest of society of an ‘exclusive’ partnership of monogamy and fidelity. By any chance are those couples you are refering to in openly “loose” relationships? Like do they go out ‘partner swapping’ when they go on dates?
truthseeker, just because people may be atheist, or may not be as conservative as you, or feel that marriage is only real when it meets your criteria does not mean they automatically qualify as perverse or wrong.
The origins of formal marriage were all about the protection of property, wealth and ownership. Women were subservient, chattels even.
This is the type of connotation they seek to avoid.
They are not in ‘open’ relationships.
They do not ‘swap’.
They are as committed and loyal as any couple who do meet your personal criteria.
But to them it’s about their love and committment to each other, not a need to attempt to prove to the world that they meet some ‘ordained’ status.
You are not making any sense Reality. If they are commited and loyal then why would they be so afraid of belonging to one another?
Depends on your interpretation of ‘belonging’ now doesn’t it.
Tell me how the notion of belonging to one another causes a loyal, committed spouse to refuse to call their partner husband or wife?
It’s like drawing teeth with you sometimes.
Like I said, if ‘belonging’ is meant in an ownership sense, then many people don’t like that reference.
Alternatively, if ‘belonging’ is meant as giving one’s love, respect and and committment, some are happy with that.
The fact remains though that to have love and respect for others we must have love and respect for ourselves first. In this context the only person we may ‘belong’ to is ourselves.
To some people the terms husband and wife have connotations of ownership or subservience, therefore they won’t use those terms as they don’t see themselves as ‘belonging’ to anyone but themselves.
Serving your spouse and children is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?
We can agree it is a given that people get married to share ownership of property. But you are saying that some people who get married resent being called a husband or a wife because they don’t want anyone interpretting that marriage ‘ownership’ is extended to the person. I personally have no problem with extending that ownership to my wife. When we married the two became one.
It is anathema to marriage when the couple resents belonging to one another.
I am still waiting for an answer to the question above subservience in marriage.
“Serving your spouse and children is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?”
How long do you want to play word semantics for?
Once again, it depends on how you feel about ‘serving’. Loving couples will do things for each other and for their children. This is usually done out of love and respect.
To some, ‘serving’ again has connotations of some sort of subservience. But again, it depends on what the word means to each person.
“We can agree it is a given that people get married to share ownership of property” – no we can’t. If that’s a reason for getting married then that marriage is shallow. Sure, people generally go into marriage knowing that that is a likely result but it isn’t why people should wed. That is an archaic basis for marriage.
“When we married the two became one.” – sounds like a negative sum to me.
“It is anathema to marriage when the couple resents belonging to one another” – rubbish. If we don’t belong to ourselves first then we don’t have much value.
“It is anathema to marriage when the couple resents belonging to one another” – rubbish. If we don’t belong to ourselves first then we don’t have much value.
But people are supposed to be over that childish stuff by the time they get married, Reality. Once you’re grown-up enough to worry about someone besides yourself and belong to someone else (BOTH partners-this is not about the sex of the partners involved), then you should worry about getting married. If you’re still “I gotta belong TO ME! I gotta live FOR ME, BABY!” it’s not going to work. (Anyone else notice how ego-centric the worldview of pro-choicers is? They are self-centered I’d say almost to the point of psychosis, if not past it.)
ego centric yes; and they are quite narcistic
What a confused statement!
We always belong to ourselves first. It’s not a ‘childish’ concept. We don’t have much to offer someone else in sharing a life if we don’t have a full sense of self.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with worrying about someone else besides ourselves. “Belonging’ to ourselves does not in any way preclude worrying about someone other than ourselves. What a strange thought!
Nor is it indicative of “I gotta live for me baby!”. It’s just that we ‘belong’ to ourselves first. But that doesn’t mean we don’t make sacrifices and compromises out of love and respect for someone else.
Typical absolutist view of an anti-choicer.
“When we married the two became one.” – sounds like a negative sum to me.
Actually so far since we became one we have had six kids so we are positive five.
Living without absolutes must be confusing.
Using your mathematical summation, logic would dictate that at least two people in your household are not full persons. Or one is not a person at all. How does that work?
Only for the feeble-minded xalisae. The world is not absolute. Nor is humanity.
Absolutists think that all humanity must come to know their absolute truth. Whether it wants to or not. Add god to the mix and such people will weld divine sanction into a tendency to believe that the ends justify the means.
Mind you, absolutism isn’t always restricted only to the religious.
I’ll stick to my empirically-proven facts, thanks. I guess when one lacks the capacity to comprehend even the most simple of truths their only alternative is to devise their own which they either find more palatable or easier to fathom. After all, the reasons which seem the most prevalent for relativism are ignorance and/or depravity. XD
And what particular empirically-proven facts would you be in possession of which indicate that some people devise their own which they find more palatable or easier to fathom, hm?
If they are empirically-proven then surely we could not disagree on them?
Well, we ARE here on a pro-life blog, eh? I’ve had plenty of pro-choice individuals tell me that the gestating human being is in fact not a human being at all, to which I respond with sworn testimony of Harvard professors and excerpts from biology textbooks. After that, they still disagree with me, but they do tend to change their terminology from “human being” to “person”. I take that as a concession on their part.
Yes, you are right. There is a biological concept of human being and there is also the philosophical concept. This tends to revert to the use of ‘person’ as a descriptor in debates to differentiate it from the biological concept.
Your 7:58pm comment was a good example of relativism I suppose. Even though I found it mainly to be just wrong.
How long do you want to play word semantics for?
And this from the mouth of a liberal. The one who explains himself by saying it depends what you mean by belonging and it depends what you mean by serving;the one in who’s mind serving may have nothing at all to do with subservience. lol. I can see Reality going through life singing Lynerd Skynrd’s Free Bird. Oh this bird you’ll never chain. I belong to me and me alone. Ain’t nobody gonna tie me down. etc etc etc.. The whole wild in a monogamous relationship but unable to give of herself to her partner.
We can only tie ourselves down. Otherwise we are a captive. And that’s not very fulfilling for a person now is it.
Loving, respecting, sharing, caring and doing things for others do not necessitate ‘giving’ oneself.
There is the dictionary definition of “human being”-a living member of our species. That’s all there is to it. Anything else is philosophical nonsense: touchy-feelie relativistic mumbo-jumbo trash.
That coupled with the fact that the notion of unconditional love seems to be foreign to you, I’ll chalk yours up to depravity.
“We can only tie ourselves down. Otherwise we are a captive. And that’s not very fulfilling for a person now is it.”
—
That depends on how you’re defining a person and what arbitrary criteria you’re ascribing to personhood.
“Anything else is philosophical nonsense: touchy-feelie relativistic mumbo-jumbo trash” – really, and there is nothing about which you operate in this fashion?
“That coupled with the fact that the notion of unconditional love seems to be foreign to you” – not desiring to participate in concepts of ownership or subservience does not preclude unconditional love. Being a person of self-worth and respect actually gives greater ability to show real love for others.
“I’ll chalk yours up to depravity.” – there’s the absolutist talking again.
There is no arbitrary criteria that is acsribed to personhood Some Guy. It’s a matter of opinion and belief.
I’m off to have some fun. Have some yourselves :-)
not desiring to participate in concepts of ownership or subservience does not preclude unconditional love
Only a liberal can have unconditional love while putting forth conditions like no subservience and no giving of self. They have no problem with hypocrisy when it suits their ego-centric world.
So who is subservient in your marriage then, you or your wife?
So who is subservient in your marriage then, you or your wife?
When adults rather than greedy, spoiled, self-centered adolescents are married, both parties are “subservient” to the other. It’s called “compromise”, and tends to grease the wheels of most happy, functional adult relationships.
“When adults rather than greedy, spoiled, self-centered adolescents are married” – yawn.
“both parties are “subservient” to the other” – that’s just not possible. They can cooperate, they can share, but they can’t both be subservient.
Yes all happy, functional relationships have their wheels greased by things such as compromise. Not by one being subservient.