by Laura Loo
On Friday, Rep. Steve Stockman (R–Texas) tweeted out the slogan for what he said would be his new campaign bumper sticker, which combines two hot-button conservative issues into one controversial sound bite:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gleRE-8IBb0[/youtube][Article HT: Drudge Report]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They didn’t even give Mr. Ward an adequate chance to respond to even a quarter of the issues raised – what kind of journalism is that?
Mr. Bashir is not being a very gracious host in this video.
Well, if background checks won’t stop criminals from obtaining guns, then I guess anti-abortion laws won’t stop women from seeking abortions. Check, please.
I don’t understand the point that it (the sticker) is trying to make.
Also, BV, laws against rape won’t stop rape. Do you support making rape safe and legal as well?
Like any good political slogan, it tries to reflect a truth while while the other side mocks it. (Remember how much fun we had with ‘hopenchange’ and ‘keep the change’?)
Simple fact: Babies are defenseless. Unable to protect themselves and abandoned by society, they are easy prey for killers.
Extension: If our defenses taken away, we also become prey to the predators — whether criminals or jackboots.
BlueVelvet: It is true that even if we have laws to protect women and children, some women will still seek abortion. That is unfortunate. But laws that protect the unborn will save millions of lives. At a minimum, we could at least remove the public health menaces like Gosnell and Carhart, and save adult victims like Mongar and Moribelli.
As far a gun controls go, neither the right nor the left have shown any evidence that measures how many lives their policies might save. That would be helpful.
My personal opinion is that gun controls won’t make any difference — the culture of death is making bombs now.
((Megs)))
Your poor baby had no one to stick up for her. You can pass me the check all you want, but you’re the one who’s paying. And paying. And paying.
BlueVelvet says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm
“Well, if background checks won’t stop criminals from obtaining guns, then I guess anti-abortion laws won’t stop women from seeking abortions. Check, please.”
That’s not an accurate comparisions. Guns do not kill people by themselves.
An accurate comparision – “Well, if making abortion illegal won’t stop people from aborting people so we should keep it legal, then I guess shooting people with guns shoud just be made legal too since anti-murder laws don’t keep people from shooting people, obviously, since shootings still happen.”
Or – “We should make guns illegal because people kill people with them, so we should make abortion instruments (which are also used for D&C procedures after a miscarriage) illegal because people kill people with them.”
Ooooooooooooooh. I like it!!
Carla, I am not a gun person and I even like it.
It’s an extraordinarily ridiculous slogan.
What’s the first thing infants normally do when handed something?
Infants, let alone fetuses, simply don’t possess the level of thought required to know what a gun is and how to use it.
Proaborts believe in gun control.
Pass a law that proaborts must give up their guns to prolifers.
Problem solved.
It’s a dumb slogan. I don’t even understand what he’s trying to convey, really.
And I think it’s stupid to tie gun rights to anti-abortion efforts. They are two completely different movements, you don’t have to be pro-gun rights to be anti-abortion, and vice verse (though there tends to be a lot of overlap). The more you tie the pro-life movement to other traditionally social conservative view points (anti-gay rights, pro-gun rights, etc etc) the less we’ll be able to appeal to a wider demographic, losing us support where we otherwise might find it.
I can’t stand that camel smelling grease bag Martin Bashir. I only made it though 1:30, couldn’t stand listening to these two queers.
That’s very pleasant Jasper.
”The more you tie the pro-life movement to other traditionally social conservative view points (anti-gay rights, pro-gun rights, etc etc) the less we’ll be able to appeal to a wider demographic, losing us support where we otherwise might find it.”
Followed by a perfect example of this:
“couldn’t stand listening to these two queers.”
Thanks for demonstrating Jack’s point, Jasper.
Maybe I should have said:
If you believe in gun control, give up your guns to someone who doesn’t believe in gun control.
Didn’t mean to step on any toes or hurt any feelers.
I love the bumper sticker, too. Must be because I understand it.
I don’t know who you’re directing the comment at, but no hurt feelers or stepped on toes here. I’m not giving up my guns, lol. My comment was directed at the thread in general, not at your comment. I’m tired of people tying together unrelated issues with the pro-life movement.
Jack, I’m directing my comment to anyone who may feel offended. I should have thought of those who may be prolife but also want gun control. Just because I don’t know any, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Even you say there is a lot of overlap.
I wonder if those that are prolife but also pro-gun control voted for Obama.
Well, I believe in reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but I don’t normally like getting into it on this blog. Plus, there are a lot of pro-lifers from countries where private gun ownership isn’t even an issue on the radar, so it’s not like they are going to have it tied to their abortion stance. I do believe that Canada has stricter gun controls than most of the US, yet they have plenty of pro-lifers, probably some that are anti-gun ownership in general.
but I don’t normally like getting into it on this blog
Well, then don’t.
I love and understand the bumper sticker.
I hear New Zealand has just embraced marriage equality, like Uruguay did a few days ago.
” Well, then don’t.”
Well, if people are going to continually tie the two positions together I have to say something. It’s the same thing with gay issues. We got to appeal to the non-conservative crowd somehow. Pro-life shouldn’t be lumped into a Republican party issue, it should be transcending party boundaries.
“I hear New Zealand has just embraced marriage equality, like Uruguay did a few days ago.”
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. But good for them.
I think you are thinking too hard on this one Jack.
And I am tired of trying to appeal to those that love abortion.
Well, if people are going to continually tie the two positions together I have to say something.
Then you are choosing to get into it on this blog.
There is a correlation between these two positions hence the lumping. You admitted an overlap yourself.
Those that don’t respect a child’s right to life, on the whole, sure in the heck aren’t going to support a prolifer’s right to bear arms.
“And I am tired of trying to appeal to those that love abortion.”
Well, so am I, but I think that it’s important to try to win over as many people as possible. Much more possible to end something if more people are against it. There are plenty of “personally pro-life” people who are fairly liberal otherwise. Those people are certainly reachable.
Plus it’s incredibly annoying to see viewpoints I agree with lumped in with pro-abortion ideology.
” There is a correlation between these two positions hence the lumping. You admitted an overlap yourself.
Those that don’t respect a child’s right to life, on the whole, sure in the heck aren’t going to support a prolifer’s right to bear arms. ”
It seems to be a political party thing imo. A lot of people claim a label and seem to parrot certain viewpoints without ever really thinking about it (not exempting myself, though I don’t have a party I do accept some things without thinking about them properly, just like anyone). A lot of younger people I talk to seem to think abortion is just a Republican thing or a religious thing. I would like people to see it as a human rights issue that it is instead, separate from Dem/Republican squabbles over unrelated issues. It’s hard to convince them of that when people tie it all together.
“Irrelevant to the issue at hand. But good for them.” – I just thought Jasper may be interested to know.
“I think you are thinking too hard on this one Jack.” – now why am I not surprised to hear that.
A lot of people claim a label and seem to parrot certain viewpoints without ever really thinking about it
I have found those that defend the right to life, on the whole, to be those that think through other issues as well. Not saying there are not a few parrots in the mix, though.
” I have found those that defend the right to life, on the whole, to be those that think through other issues as well. Not saying there are not a few parrots in the mix, though. ”
Yeah, I was talking about those who accept abortion because they tend liberal otherwise. A lot of them I have talked to don’t seem to understand much about the issue beyond it’s a GOP/religious thing, which is what I would like to combat.
You could probably ask Ex-GOP how well that works Jack ;-)
” “I think you are thinking too hard on this one Jack.” – now why am I not surprised to hear that.”
What did you mean by this?
“You could probably ask Ex-GOP how well that works Jack ”
Lol. Well at least he enjoys arguing.
“What did you mean by this?” – I wasn’t surprised that someone you weren’t exactly totally agreeing with didn’t appear to encourage you to keep applying thought to your argument. Your next couple of comments indicated that you were thinking, clearly and strongly. (the bit about people claiming labels and parrotting viewpoints)
“I wasn’t surprised that someone you weren’t exactly totally agreeing with didn’t appear to encourage you to keep applying thought to your argument. Your next couple of comments indicated that you were thinking, clearly and strongly. (the bit about people claiming labels and parrotting viewpoints)”
To be fair I usually argue too much and think too little. I didn’t really mean to argue too much on this thread, I just get tired of the assumption that if you accept one typically Republican issue (anti-abortion) you accept others.
“To be fair I usually argue too much and think too little.” – I would have to disagree with you there Jack.
“A lot of younger people I talk to seem to think abortion is just a Republican thing or a religious thing. I would like people to see it as a human rights issue that it is instead, separate from Dem/Republican squabbles over unrelated issues. It’s hard to convince them of that when people tie it all together.”
Who are “people,” Jack? There are connections within particular conservative and liberal ideologies. And, to your point partly, different connections among different sets of ideologies should be highlighted. But wait – that is what linking gun control and abortion does! If you care about keeping people safe, how about starting with preborn people? If you are willing to forfeit gun rights, why not compromise on reproductive rights? That doesn’t mean people are necessarily trying to sell it all as a conservative or liberal package (though some may) – they are pointing out that it may already be a part of an unlabelled package that someone already possesses.
“Who are “people,” Jack? There are connections within particular conservative and liberal ideologies. And, to your point partly, different connections among different sets of ideologies should be highlighted. But wait – that is what linking gun control and abortion does! If you care about keeping people safe, how about starting with preborn people? If you are willing to forfeit gun rights, why not compromise on reproductive rights? That doesn’t mean people are necessarily trying to sell it all as a conservative or liberal package (though some may) – they are pointing out that it may already be a part of an unlabelled package that someone already possesses. ”
I strongly disagree that people don’t try to package certain viewpoints with the pro-life movement. I mean, you really just have to look at the liberal bashing (and other viewpoint bashing) on this blog to see it. I really don’t know how you all don’t see it, maybe it’s because most of you agree with the viewpoints being packaged and don’t notice how it alienates other people.
“I strongly disagree that people don’t try to package certain viewpoints with the pro-life movement. I mean, you really just have to look at the liberal bashing (and other viewpoint bashing) on this blog to see it. I really don’t know how you all don’t see it, maybe it’s because most of you agree with the viewpoints being packaged and don’t notice how it alienates other people.”
See, now, I was specifically addressing bumperstickers and certain types of cross-issue rhetoric. I agree that there are packages, and people peddle them all the time – here, elsewhere, intentionally, unintentionally, whatever … I know there are, for instance, secular pro-lifers – God bless you! – but there is not a random relationship between position on abortion and religious and/or political ideologies. Our way of seeing the world more generally strongly informs our stance on abortion, wouldn’t you agree? Why aren’t there more atheists for life? Are you going so far as to say that it’s because pro-lifers often identify as religious? I’d have to get out my BS stamper.
Don’t think I don’t know what you are saying about trying not to alienate – I do, and I applaud your approach. It’s effective and important to separate the issues, but insisting they always be separated is to try and splinter individuals, who very much appreciate being more than the sum of their parts.
“I know there are, for instance, secular pro-lifers – God bless you! – but there is not a random relationship between position on abortion and religious and/or political ideologies. Our way of seeing the world more generally strongly informs our stance on abortion, wouldn’t you agree? Why aren’t there more atheists for life? Are you going so far as to say that it’s because pro-lifers often identify as religious? I’d have to get out my BS stamper.”
Well, there aren’t very many atheists in general, so I don’t see why there would be a whole lot of them in the pro-life movement.
Other than that, I don’t think it’s particularly productive for me to go into the reasons I think atheists/liberals tend to avoid the pro-life movement. I’ve discussed it before and no one really agrees with me, and it just tends to make people mad lol. So we’ll leave it here. I will say that I don’t think that people identifying as religious is the problem at all. How they choose to express themselves sometimes, yes.
“secular pro-lifers – God bless you” – now that’s funny.
How is it funny, Reality?
Edit: Okay, I must be tired lol, I see the irony.
Just heard Waco’s had a huge explosion.
Yeah, probably dozens are dead last I heard. :(
“Other than that, I don’t think it’s particularly productive for me to go into the reasons I think atheists/liberals tend to avoid the pro-life movement.”
Reason #1: People who are not pro-life avoid the pro-life movement.
We should certainly work on how we express ourselves at times, but sass, alienation, self-righteousness, or whatever else keeps someone from liking every single pro-life person, is not preventing them from believing a baby shouldn’t be torn apart. Nah. They should be able to accept that truth even if we were stealing their garden gnomes, or … something. Anyways, whatevs as they say – gotta get some sleep. Always swell talkin, Jack. Good night.
“We should certainly work on how we express ourselves at times, but sass, alienation, self-righteousness, or whatever else keeps someone from liking every single pro-life person, is not preventing them from believing a baby shouldn’t be torn apart. Nah. They should be able to accept that truth even if we were stealing their garden gnomes, or … something. Anyways, whatevs as they say – gotta get some sleep. Always swell talkin, Jack. Good night.”
But see, I do agree that people who believe in the humanity of the unborn babies should involve themselves however they are able, even if they are a bisexual agnostic or whatever, and even if people are mean to them. But that’s not really how humans work. We like groups, and we listen to people’s viewpoints better when they accept us. A lot of people are not going to hear the message if they feel attacked, they just won’t. I mean, I just argue back, but I was already pro-life and very firm on my opinions on anti-abortion before I ever got involved and realized how unwelcome a lot of my viewpoints and how I am is lol. I can’t say that if I hadn’t already believed it that I would have stuck around. It’s very human to disregard a group or a movement because you don’t feel like you’re going to fit in, even if they are right.
I don’t feel like I explain myself particularly well and I don’t expect that you’ll agree. But I do think it’s very limiting to think that the general approach and how people are treated doesn’t effect who it can reach.
Good night sleep well!
Real-stupid-ity says: April 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm
“I hear New Zealand has just embraced marriage equality, like Uruguay did a few days ago.”
[this might explain why progressives have such a difficult time balancing a budget.]
stupididty strikes again with a bumper sticker slogan that is inherently and explicitly illogical.
if two things are different, they cannot be ‘equal’.
same sex unions can never equal heterosexual marriage.
That is not a value judgement about either relationship, is it simply an undeniable truth.
clue: ‘Congress shall make no law’…
The second ammendment was adopted to protect and preserve the first ammendment from the federal government.
If the right to life is inalienable, then the ability to defend the ‘right’ and the ‘life’ is also inalienable.
If a pre-natal child was capeable of defending herself with deadly force, then there would be even fewer abortionists.
ARM THE HUMAN FETUS
I hear prolifers are relieved no fetuses were killed in Boston and West, Texas.
“I hear prolifers are relieved no fetuses were killed in Boston and West, Texas.”
Yup. We’re all jumping for joy “yay only born people died!!!” (how would you know that anyway?) You’ve got us all figured out, you so smart.