Abortion, as politically divisive as foie gras?
Fois gras, a sort of goose liver pate, is a delicacy originated by the French. The process of readying the liver gets animal rights activists goosy. As described by Wikipedia:
In modern foie gras production, force feeding takes place 12-18 days before slaughter. The duck or goose is typically fed a controlled amount of corn mash through a tube placed in the animal’s esophagus…. [T]his force feeding procedure [creates]… an enlarged liver…. [I]ts flavour is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.
With no more urgent matters pressing, the Chicago City Council banned the sale of foie gras there in April 2006 (although it is currently reconsidering, much PETA’s consternation).
All of that was to set up this rich comment received at Illinois Review on my column, “Those onerous barriers to abortion,” by John Coonen of The Coffee Group:
It’s a shame how few so-called leaders step out of the shadows any more to say they are pro-life.
Talk to most pro-life advocates in either party, and you’ll hear the same retort: “It’s a divisive issue.”
Ah, brilliant rationalization for one’s reticence to articulate the truth you know in your soul. Divisiveness.
And illegal immigration – is that “divisive” too? Road funding; casinos to cover our debt-load?

Or how about Foie Gras? Charging airlines a tax to fly over the land of Lincoln? Is that more your baileywick? That’s where you’ll take a stand and hold the Peoples’ sword high?
Twirl my finger in the air, and whoop-dee-doo, Braveheart.
A divisive issue. Is that all it takes to scare off the Republican party? Is that all it takes for Democrats who are pro-life to not dare to even mention it on their websites?
What’s the matter? Partisans got your tongue?…
“Hope is not a strategy” to get things done, is it? It’s going to take bold, honest persuasion by some Legislators to finally end the senseless convenience-killing that’s been literally robbing our society of good people.
1973 was the year. If nothing else, imagine all the young energetic and optimistic campaign volunteers you’d have to choose from if 3,500 people a day weren’t being slopped into the trash cans and intermingled with other souls’ earthly bodies. They’d be 24 years old today and out of college. As a campaign manager, that’s the ideal age to recruit optimistic young idealists who want to change the world for the better. They’re not here, folks.
Look around your next GOP convention… count how many folks you’ll see who are 24 or younger. They’re not here.
The trepidation of our elected leaders to address “divisive issues” for fear of electorate reprisal is precisely the evidence we have to prove two main points: Legislators and would-be legislators are far more interested in a career in politics than achieving change; and that partisanship continues to replace citizenship as the driving force in our capital cities….
Those who stood up and finally took a stand on “divisive issues” ended slavery. Those who overcame the fear of losing power and chose rather to lead the People ended fascism in Europe and obliterated a tyrannical empire in Japan.
Power and leadership are mutually exclusive, folks. Lead and you may gain legitimate power. Impose your power upon others and you may be called a leader; however the leadership is illegitimate. Run from the divisive issues and you’re no leader at all….



It sounds like the Obama campaign “the issue of abortion and gay marriage” are just divisive issues…
..just like the Massachusetts legislature blocked a referendum question on gay marriage(170,000 people signed) that would’ve appeared on the 08 ballot.
they said the issue was too divisive to put on the ballot…
You know what I notice about opponents to gay marriage?
All they focus on if OMG TWO MENS IS HAVING TEH BUTT SEX. They never, ever acknowledge the fact that two men or two women can be deeply, deeply in love and desire to spend the rest of their lives together. For conservatives, you sure put a lot of emphasis on sex.
Erin,
Are you telling me that two men in a ‘permanent” relationship, are not going to be having sex?
We don’t emphasize the “sex” part…the “sex” part is what defines homosexuals as homosexuals. Homo.
Sexual. If there were no sex involved, they would just be platonic friends.
sex also refers just to gender. So until you get married and have sex, your relationship with your fiance is simply a platonic friendship?
Erin,
Yes. You would perhaps call it a romantic relationship, but you certainly wouldn’t call it a sexual one. Would you?
Definitions of Homosexual on the Web:
* A person who is sexually attracted to and/or has sex with someone of the same sex
http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/aidswomen/AID_glossary.html
* A person who is sexually attracted primarily to members of her or his own gender.
http://www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary/Glossaryh.htm
* One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the same sex.
http://www.thehardnessfactor.com/exclusives/glossary.html
* A person who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted or committed to members of the same sex.
http://www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html
* A person whose sexual orientation is toward members of the same gender.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072986360/student_view0/chapter15/glossary.html
* a person who romantically desires another person of the same sex.
http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/winter02-glossary.cfm
* Of or relating to persons who experience a sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex.
http://www.state.mi.us/msp/cjic/ucr/ucr_m.htm
* A person who is attracted to individuals of the same gender.
my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2953_489.htm
* someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex
* sexually attracted to members of your own sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Homosexuality may refer to:* A sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity.* Sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of sexual orientation or self-identification.* A sexual identity or self-identification, which may or may not imply exclusively homosexual behavior or attraction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
Why does honest love between two people of the same gender intimidate you so much?
Please Erin,
Think about it. Do the people in the gay pride parades dress in business suits and below the knee dresses? Do they need to get married if they aren’t going to conjugate the marriage?
Google gay pride parade and then check the images button…try to tell me these people are not celebrating the “sexual” part of their inclinations.
Erin,
It doesn’t intimidate me in the least. Sexual love between members of the same sex offends me on a spiritual level. I have a relationship with God. I love Him. He has made it clear that homosexual relations are not pleasing to Him. When you love someone you hate seeing anything that hurts them. If it hurts my Father to see His creatures abusing the gifts He gave them, then it hurts me. I also don’t believe that they do have an “honest” love between them. I believe it is a dishonest love based on physical and emotional elements. There is no spirituality and if that is missing then I don’t believe the love can be honest…whether hetero or homo sexual.
Why are you so intimidated because we don’t embrace this sort of relationship?
Because none of you have ever experienced it. Imagine falling desperately in love with the person of your dreams- only to realize that society will never allow you to be together on the level that you both want. It intimidates me that people try to regulate things that they don’t understand. If you’re straight, you can’t ever really truly understand the issues that a gay man or woman faces. I don’t claim to understand them- but I know that they are human beings the same as us and that many of the issues being addressed in the GLBT movement are the same types that were addressed in the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s. I hope that it goes the same way.
So MK, because I am not spiritual, I can never have honest love for a person?
Sexual promiscity is pretty popular among a lot of heterosexuals too, you know. Gay Pride is an example of people celebrating the culture they follow. Not all gay men follow the same exact beliefs, just like not all heterosexual people do. I have a wonderful friend who is gay who has never gone all the way with another man because he’s saving it for someone special. He also dislikes the mainstream generalization about the gay community. He’s also a Methodist. If God really knows and made everyone, he wouldn’t have made Josh gay just to make him suffer his entire life. Josh knows and trusts what he is because he believes that God created him and loves him, and trusts God too much to believe that he would have made him gay only to tell him he was wrong.
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-32
http://sg.yimg.com/i/travel/trv6/images/BN2289_3.jpg
http://www.downtownvancouver.com/directory/2006-vancouver-pride-parade/
So what you’re proposing is that these guys are just regular joes, involved in honest, loving relationships that don’t necessarily involve sex?
Okay. Whatever.
MK, have you ever worn a bikini?
These are people celebrating who they are. They aren’t naked having orgies on the streets. Scantily clad, maybe, but that’s in every movie, magazine, and TV show, and it’s just FINE when it’s heterosexually based. Promiscuity is not a solely homosexual inclination.
Erin,
You’re friend is not the norm. If the only gay people in world were ones that were saving themselves for their one true love, I doubt there would be so much hoopla.
God didn’t create your friend “wrong”. He created him perfectly. But he placed challenges in front of him to help him grow in holiness. Just like he places challenges in front of us all. The trick is to meet them.
And why do you say society won’t let your friend and others like him live out their relationship. What exactly is stopping him?
As to whether or not you can honestly love someone without a spiritual component. No, I don’t think you can. I think the love will always be flawed in some way. I think anything you do is flawed in some way if it isn’t give back to God. I don’t expect you to understand this, it’s just what I believe.
Actually Erin,
I have a problem with promiscuity and sex for the sake of sex wherever it is found. I guess I thought that you had figured that out by now. I don’t care for bikinis myself. I won’t even let my daughter wear a two piece bathing suit.
I don’t read sexually explicit material, I flip channels when it comes on TV, I don’t go to movies where I know extreme sexual content will be shown, I don’t like the idea of ANYONE, hetero or homo sexual having premarital sex, and I can’t believe you haven’t gotten that yet. It’s not that homosexual persons are bad. They aren’t. They are exactly as they should be. It’s the sexual acts that are offensive. We’ve been over and over this. Were’nt you here then? If not I apologize. I’ll explain further if you want. But if you were here then you know that I have no problem with homosexual identity. But homosexual acts are as much as a sin as the fact that my son is sleeping with his girlfriend out of wedlock. No more, no less. I don’t love him any less, but I hate what he is doing.
Hi Erin,
what to do if you are heterosexual and fall deeply in love … with your father; … your brother; … the family pet; someone who is ‘unreachable’ like a priest or monk … are their lives not important or just YOUR desires … how about someone 3 times your age????; or, someone who is already in a relationship with another; let’s pretend you are a 28 year-old basketball coach … would you follow your desires and have a gang bang with the basketball team. Everyone, curtails their sexual desires. If you don’t you will be placed in jail or a psychiatric ward … and there, they will not ‘care’ how strongly you feel.
What turns people off ‘gay-ness’ is the indiscretion in the inhibition.
MK- the issue of marriage. I believe that it should be regulated on a church by church basis. Imagine never being able to validate your relationship with your husband to the world. To never be able to declare, “we’re married” or “we’re engaged”. Marriage is not soley a religious institution- it existed way, WAY before religions did. It’s a validation of the permanent nature of romantic commitment.
Oh, not again.
John- the difference is that it’s two consenting adults. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who, if they were with a person of the opposite gender, wouldn’t get a second glance. It’s NOT all about the sexual desire! It’s about ROMANTIC ATTRACTION. Gay men aren’t going out and having sex on the street corner any more than straight couples. What’s important is giving viability to their emotions. The emotions between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Not a child, not an animal, not someone unwilling. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.
MK,
You are making generalizations…
Erin, would you mind if I married the twins next door? we all love each very much. We want to get married. I don’t think our marriage will have any effect on yours.
Pip,
In what way?
Pip, John and Erin,
We are playing a game on the “No Name” post.
If you’ve played it before please don’t spoil it for everyone else. If not, then please join us. Jill is out of town for awhile and sometimes things come to a standstill here when she’s gone. I thought this might keep it interesting. Read all the posts about it before you begin playing…
If you want to play that is…
Hi Erin,
the age of consent in the US is 16 (I believe) … in Canada it’s 14 so legal-sex can be engaged in many years before you are allowed to booze; before you can vote; before finishing high school [before ending Gr 10]; BEFORE GETTING A DRIVER’S LICENSE … on & on. Just two CONSENTING ADULTS … who’s the prude? Is it OK to have the ‘hots’ for your teacher and act on it? If he gave an ‘A’ if you had sex, but ‘B’ if you did not …. is this not consent?
Side note:
I was at a fancy restaurant and my boyfriend’s mom knew the main chef. He brought out all these nice creations for us to try (we didn’t order or pay for these little treats, it was just his way of being nice).
Anyway, he brought out some foie gras seasoned and pan grilled on a toasted baguette with some tomato and vinaigrette. It was really fantastic. Felt bad, but I hear from my vegetarian animal rights activist friend that the foie gras you get in the US is typically not from very abused animals.
In the US, we trick geese and ducks to eat more than once a day by manipulating lighting and shortening their circadian rhythms. France is famous for force feeding.
John, the age of consent varies by state. My state (Oklahoma) is 16, others are 17 or 18. I think 14 is only the case for a couple of states.
Regardless, the fear of the queer (Lee Edelman’s words, not mine) seems to be a result of a fetus and child centric worldview. He points out that because being gay is different, we associate it with being bad and act so strongly because we fear it will harm children.
Doesn’t sound so biblical or holy anymore.
But that’s just his opinion. For more, read his book, No Future.
Autism is different. Blindness is different. Midgets are different. Don’t see any aversion from us to them do you?
That’s because it’s not fear that motivates us. It’s morality being abused. Which starts to sound biblical and holy again, no?
You guys just can’t seem to accept that we don’t have a problem with gays. You desperately need us to so we can fit into your “Christians are so smug and self righteous” view. Sorry, no can do. I don’t know how many times I’m gonna have to say this, but I’ll try again: WE DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALS. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ILLICIT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OF ALL KINDS!
Wow Jen,
That came across loud and clear. Sorry. It never looks as formidable when you use all caps until you post it…then something happens and the words seem to take on a life of their own!
MK- no matter which way a monogamous gay couple chooses to have sex, it’s immoral to you. That’s my problem. You believe that it’s immoral for two gay men who love each other to express that love in a physical manner. That’s the problem. It’s not the fact that you don’t like gay people. It’s the fact that you believe that their lifestyle is innately sinful because by your standards, it is impossible for them to express their love physically in a pure manner.
Yes.
But that doesn’t mean that I fear them, or that I have a problem with sex. If we seem to be emphasizing sex it’s because it is a sexual issue. Not fear, not judging the persons, not disgusted…just offended because it is abusive to the true purpose of sexual relations. In my opinion. I admit that. But I’m not obsessed or focused on sex. Quite the contrary. I am not the one in a homosexual relationship or sleeping with multiple partners (regardless of sexual orientation) or sleeping with someone out of wedlock. I sleep with my husband, period. If that’s obsessed with sex, well, what can I say?
We have posted statistics here before showing that most homosexual men are NOT monogamous, have multiple partners and die younger than heterosexual men. I can post them again if you want.
We’ll Erin, don’t you believe anal sex is un-natural? I mean, sex between 2 humans wasn’t meant to be performed that way?
agree?
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf –
Studies implying gay monogamy is statistically rare
1. Consider the research of McWhirter and Mattison. These men interviewed 156 male couples and concluded that in these relationships “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior, but rather by their emotional commitment to one another” (The Male Couple; David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D.; Prentice-Hall, 1984; p 252). The researchers — a gay couple themselves — reported that two-thirds of the couples began their relationship with the expectation of sexual exclusivity, but that the partners became more permissive with time. They found that all the couples who had been together at least 5 years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. In fact, the authors concluded that “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together.” (McWhirter and Mattison’s work is summarized in the professional volume, Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj and Terry S. Stein; American Psychiatric Press, 1996.)
2. Two Harvard-trained gay men wrote a book giving a blueprint for using the mass media to normalize homosexual lifestyle (After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989). The book also acknowledges that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%…Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples” (p330).
3. In his book, Virtually Normal (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), conservative gay writer Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female marriages with same sex relationships and explains, “there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman” (p202).
4. According to a 1991 study of 900 homosexuals by Dr. Martin Dannecker, German “sexologist” who is a homosexual himself, 83% of the males living in “steady relationships” had numerous sexual encounters outside the partnership over a one-year period. (This study was seen at http://forever.freeshell.org/gayprom.htm and other web sites.)
5. A study of young Dutch homosexual men, published in the journal AIDS (May 2, 2003 p1029-1038) by Dr. Maria Xiridou, gives yet another indication that homosexual men tend to not be monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships. The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships (cited in a July 11, 2003 The Washington Times article; at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm).
jsaper- no, I don’t agree. There are several heterosexual couples that practice anal sex for mutual enjoyment. Homosexuality is also present in MANY animals.
MK, you are using GENERALIZATIONS. Not all homosexual men are the same. AIDS is NOT a primarily homosexual affliction. That’s simply incorrect.
At least none of you are going off on the ‘gay agenda’. I’d start to bleed from the ears.
“MK, you are using GENERALIZATIONS”
ah, no she’s not Erin, look at the evidence MK posted. I know it’s not PC, but the facts are the facts.
rest areas are a common place where they meet as well. Again, it’s not all gay people that do this, but many of them do:
http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=24425
..anyways this post was suppose to be about the lack of leadership on the evil practice of abortion, etc.
This has got to be one of the most poorly written prolife rants I’ve ever heard.
The thesis is seriously flawed and divorced from reality. Stating that something is a devisive issue is not evidence that a politician hasn’t taken a clear position on that issue. Without citing oddles of websites and resources, I’m going to comfortably take the opposing position here: All politicians are unequivically declaring whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.
I particularly like the end where he states power and leadership are mutually exclusive, but then in an attempt to support the claim by elaborating, he clearly demonstrates they are not mutually exclusive. It’s like he doesn’t even know what it means.
We always knew Jill’s writing skills, or lack there of, left much to be desired, but now we know she can’t even recognize what is poorly or well written.
Cam,
This is very easy to understand, why are you having so much trouble. Leaders, Republican or Democrat do not have the courage to deal with divisive issues, including the most deadly one of our time, abortion. Stating that your pro-life or pro-choice is not enough, action must be taken.
..and all you can do is criticize the writing.
Erin,
Here in Chicago we have Forest Preserves. Places that are protected from buildings and run by the park district. People go there to run their dogs, picnic, fly kites…a bit of nature in the middle of the concrete jungle.
They are notorious places for gay men to hook up. They pull into the parking lots and park backwards, as a sign to other gay men that they are open to a rendezvous. There are 10 to fifteen of them there at any given time. The woods themselves are littered with condoms, pornography, beer cans…
I have never seen heterosexuals go to the woods to specifically pick up a person of the opposite sex and then go into the woods and do the dirty deed.
I have seen heterosexuals rarely park in the lot and neck. But this is a predominantly male homosexual activity. It’s well known to those of us who frequent the woods here. While I hate the paraphernalia that goes with it, I do appreciate that I feel very safe their with my dog (providing the dog doesn’t yank me off my feet again) because I know that they are not interested in me. But it is awfully seedy just the same.
MK,
Maybe not the woods, but heterosexual couples go plenty of places for a hookup. Singles bars, night clubs, etc. These don’t count?
But I see your point. Matt Ridley, a scientific writer I’m very fond of, offers up a reason why homosexual males seem more sexually active or promiscuous. Because it’s still a taboo, the participants are more likely to indulge in excess. If homosexuality was truly accepted, the rates of promiscuity and activity would be the same of heterosexual couples.
So it looks like we’re the ones with the problem, not them.
Well,
Some of the studies did show that couples that actually had a ceremony appeared to be more monogamous than couples that didn’t, but in that study the couples hadn’t been “married” for very long.
I still say that for many, not for all, but for many
it becomes more an addiction to sex than an actual love for any particular member of the same sex.
As for the bar scene, I think that gay bar activity would cancel out heterosexual bar activity, leaving us with the ‘woods” scene.
I don’t honestly care one way or another. I have my opinion on the behavior, but it doesn’t affect the way I look at the “person” very much. The only concern I have is for the actual participants as I don’t veiw it as healthy, physically or spiritually. But live and let live. It is by no means on par with the abortion issue.
I mean good heavens, if we only hung out with people that weren’t doin’ anything wrong, we’d be pretty lonely. Not to mention, no one could hang out with me, either.
As I said, it’s just my opinion, and obviously has a lot to do with my religious beliefs. I don’t however like that the public schools expose young children to the concept. Of course I don’t like sex ed in the school system to begin with. I mean if it was an afterschool program that was optional (and think about it, what teen wouldn’t attend something with the word ‘sex’ in it) I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s just such a personal thing and teaching things that are morally unacceptable to half the population (if not more)seems a little out of line…
That is some sick, twisted thinking JenC
Jen C,
While I have no strong feelings for or against gay people, I have to disagree with your theory on male homosexual promiscuity.
You may be too young to remember San Francisco almost 30 years ago when the gay community was first out and very politically powerful. I remember seeing gay pride parades where participants would openly taunt police, who had no other option but to stand there and protect the marchers, they had their orders. Openness and political power did not end the excess, if anything it got worse. When straight couples complained of gays having sex in city parks in front of children, well too bad. No politician who wanted to keep his job was going to protest. The AIDS epidemic was just taking root at this time. Many gay victims of AIDS admitted to anywhere from 500 to 1,000 partners a year. Even with the AIDS epidemic, shutting down the bathhouses and curbing gay excess was not easy to do and gays were not being overly cooperative at first.
AIDS took a terrible toll, but I understand doctors were very concerned about a deadly disease of some kind taking root in all this promiscuity. They didn’t realize one already had and was spreading.
My gay friend is HIV +…. I am totally shocked! I have just read that the highest rate of HIV+ diagnosis has been found in heterosexual teenage females! This is what I have read. Not sure how factual it is. Bottom line, it’s out there, and everyone having casual sex is fair game. HIV does not discriminate.
Jill,
Thanks for posting my note, written as a response on IL Review, a Conservative forum where I participate from time to time.
If you don’t like my writing, I apologize. The “mutually exclusive” point was muddled perhaps, but I hope you got the point.
Further proof a graphic designer should stick to communicating with pictures, I suppose. (Was that a fragment? Doh!) My dad (valedictorian) would probably string me up for attempting prose, so please keep this column a secret.
While I go brush up on my Rhetoric 101, please go out there and SAVE a BABY TODAY!
;)
Peace,
John