It’s not easy being conservative on the Left Coast
A conservative filmmaker friend in Hollywood sent me this report and photo:
Hi Jill,
As sad as it is, I thought you might get a kick out of this. Here is a sign I made with the kids Saturday morning.
I had to because “they” keep stealing our McCain signs. So, I made this and nailed it to the tree.
Already, the flag has been ripped off and I had to replace it.
Kudos to my friend for staying strong in the face of adversity and even retribution for the stand he and his family take. They may not see it in the short run, but they are making a difference.
Nov.04, 2008 4:15 am |
Industry watch, Obama, Political anti-life bias |
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.
It’s like George Orwell’s 1984. About the only thing the liberals can’t steal these days is your thoughts. But don’t worry they’ll take that too once Obama gets in and religious and moral “thinking” is gradually outlawed!
When I was twelve, a bunch of church men gave me and my friends 5 dollars each to go and remove all the clinton signs from people’s yards…
Funny how things haven’t changed.. It isn’t just this election..
McCain/Palin will win.
I have to say, anyone who tears down signs is just childish. However, it happens on both sides.
I know of someone who had his car keyed with McCain 08 Obama Sucks because of his yard sign, so it isn’t just one party or another. I hope that wasn’t the intent being made, and it doesn’t appear to be, but I wanted to share that story :)
P.S.
A reminder to everyone:
GET OUT AND VOTE!
I cast my first ballot around 750ish EST. First time I’ve gotten up in the 6AM hour in a few months ;).
But don’t worry they’ll take that too once Obama gets in and religious and moral “thinking” is gradually outlawed!
Posted by: Patricia at November 4, 2008 6:30 AM
can we tone down the rhetoric?
Speaking of rhetoric, don’t Hal and Doug speak of induced abortion as a woman’s right?
That sign needs some grammar help – from the wording it seems like McCain has been stealing vote signs.
Good point, Yo La. At least the difference in font sizes helps a little.
Lol Yo La, darn that pesky McCain!
But seriously, I’d coat the sign in pepper spray so if someone does try to remove it they’ll be rendered incapacitated. Wait, is that illegal? Well whatever do it anyway because they shouldn’t be stealing your stuff.
Dan: “I have to say, anyone who tears down signs is just childish. However, it happens on both sides.”
Agreed. No one should be pulling that crap.
Speaking of rhetoric, don’t Hal and Doug speak of induced abortion as a woman’s right?
Jon, “rhetoric” is a word that has quite a few meanings, and shades of meanings.
Hal and I want women to retain the rights they have now, yes. Elective abortion to viability, Hal – correct me if I’m wrong.
Anyway, that’s about it….
translation: Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now. Force them to abort unless the violated dependent is old enough to survive on machines, cow milk, or whatever else does not require the body of his mother.
translation: Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now.
Jon, that’s not any “translation,” that’s just you making up false stuff.
In no way is a woman ending an unwanted pregnancy necessarily wrong. I know you don’t like it, but at the most this is your opinion against mine (and against that of the pregnant woman – and I’m going to go with what she wants before I’ll go with what you want).
The “force them to abort” comes from your mind, not from Hal or me. Anybody that wants that is as anti-choice as you are, and Hal and I are Pro-Choicers.
Doug said, “[A]t the most this is your opinion against mine.”
It certainly is my opinion against yours.
It is similar to and derives from God’s truth against Satan’s lies.
It really is not my opinion against the mother’s. Fundamentally, it is her dealing with God and her child. And the job of God’s minister, the civil government, is to hinder her from killing her child. The child is actually God’s property, bearing the traces and potential of His likeness.
I also am a “pro-choicer” of sorts:
God said to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.
“Son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what you are saying: “Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?” ‘ Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’ “ Ezek. 33:7-11
Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now. God urges them to repent of their murderous thoughts. Repent, Doug and Hal! The choice is yours.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to post twice. When I submitted my comment, I got a “movable type” error, so I refreshed the web page.
And, Doug, as you well know, pro-lifers are only against abortions that are forced. I am only against abortions that are forced.
A woman succeeding at a healthy pregnancy needs to be forced to abort. Basic biology demands that some sharp metal instrument or toxin be introduced to sever her from her child.
“Pro-choicers” are for forced abortions.
Doug said, “at the most this is your opinion against mine.”
Jon: It certainly is my opinion against yours.
Yup – we’re agreed there.
….
It is similar to and derives from God’s truth against Satan’s lies.
Now you’re going off on a different track. There is no agreement about any such thing, and you have no proof of it.
…..
Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now.
No, Hal and Doug know that your opinion of “wrong” isn’t the end-all of the deal. Many people feel it is wrong to try and force women to obey your will rather than their own will in the matter. You are not the one pregnant, after all.
…..
And, Doug, as you well know, pro-lifers are only against abortions that are forced. I am only against abortions that are forced.
We’ve been down this road before, but what you want is policy change – you want women to not be free legally to have abortions, you want the attempt of legal force against them in order to get what you want.
…..
A woman succeeding at a healthy pregnancy needs to be forced to abort. Basic biology demands that some sharp metal instrument or toxin be introduced
Oh my gosh, so we “force” people to recover from heart attacks, we “force” cancer treatments, we “force” the stitching of wounds….wow, man, cosmic….
Yes, abortion is a medical procedure…but that is not the issue.
Bravo for your last Worldnet article! I’ve been telling people for the last few months that if professing Christians acted like Christians in the voting booth, McCain would have won by a landslide.
Bravo for your last Worldnet article! I’ve been telling people for the last few months that if professing Christians acted like Christians in the voting booth, McCain would have won by a landslide.
Bravo for your last Worldnet article! I’ve been telling people for the last few months that if professing Christians acted like Christians in the voting booth, McCain would have won by a landslide.
Doug concluded, “Yes, abortion is a medical procedure…but that is not the issue.”
The dead child is the issue.
The dead child is what issues. Sharp metal instruments or toxins are necessary to separate him from his mother. He is dead whether he emerges intact or in pieces.
The abortion is forced, not natural.
The mother is forced to abort.
The abortionist forces her to abort.
The civil government is supposed to counter force with force.
Pro-lifers are against forced abortions.
“Pro-choicers” are for forced abortions.
Doug concluded, “Yes, abortion is a medical procedure…but that is not the issue.”
Jon: The dead child is the issue.
Nonsense. There’s no agreement that “child” even applies, there.
Meanwhile, it’s a premise that the life ends in abortion. It’s not at issue, it’s a given, Jon. Call it anything – but that “human” and “alive” and “an organism” etc., are in effect is already agreed upon.
…..
The abortion is forced, not natural.
I understand what you are saying, but then by your logic we’d be condeming all sorts of medical procedures. “Forced to cut my fingernails…” “Forced to treat the heart disease..”
…..
The mother is forced to abort
That’s like saying somebody is “forced to have a cavity filled” at the dentist. The real issue here is not what occurs, or how it occurs, but that you don’t want it permitted as a matter of policy, and (of course) that many people disagree with you.
….
The abortionist forces her to abort.
Heh – yeah, just like another doctor “forced” somebody to have a cancerous tumor removed.
No, Doug. A dead human being issues, not an adult but a child. Fingernails never cut themselves, but a pregnancy can terminate naturally. A cavity doesn’t ever naturally fill, but an expectant mother can naturally abort. And her child is not a cancerous tumour.
Jon, it’s at least as correct to say it’s not a child as it is to say it is.
No, fingernails don’t cut themself, and that’s why it’s the same thing – we’re “interfering with nature,” looking at it like that.
If we object to surgical procedures on the basis that they wouldn’t happen by themselves, then the same objection applies to taking out the cancerous tumor as it does to having an abortion.
Your reasoning is even more applicable to the kind of force you wish to imply, Doug. Forcing a woman to “continue her pregnancy–as if she needs to be forced!–is no different than forcing a child to continue his education or an employee his job. Or to use your examples, forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy is no different than forcing a child to have his fingernails cut, or the dental patient his cavity filled, or a cancer patient his tumour removed. Now if you really want to find a person who needs to be forced to continue a pregnancy, take a look at you or me. It just won’t happen, not naturally anyway.
Here’s the point. We usually use the word force to imply compulsion and especially, violence. Cutting fingernails, filling cavities, and cutting away tumours–and even an amputation or mastectomy–are done for the health of the body, to heal it. But pregnancy is not a disease. The woman’s body is doing perfectly well what the woman set out to do (she had sex). Forcing herself to abort, she violates her own body. And, obviously, anyone who invades her most private part in order to force the abortion also participates in the violence.
There are others who violate their own bodies: homosexuals, who suffer the consequences of disease, a shorter lifespan, unfulfilling long-term relationships, loss of dignity, and a troubled if not terminated relationship with God. So we should not be surprised to find that women are emotionally scarred by abortion, or to learn that they become less able to begin and continue a pregnancy.
Induce abortion is violence against women.
“Pro-choicers” are for violence against women.
“Pro-choicers” are also for violence against children.
The issue of an aborting woman is a dead child. The dead child is what issues. Sharp metal instruments or toxins are necessary to separate him from his mother. He is dead whether he emerges intact or in pieces.
Ultimately, the dead child is the issue.
The abortion is forced, not natural.
The mother is forced to abort.
The abortionist forces her to abort.
The civil government is supposed to counter force with force.
Pro-lifers are against forced abortions.
“Pro-choicers” are for forced abortions.
John, the nature of surgical procedures really is not the issue. We all know about them.
What you want is the attempt of force against the woman, via legal means. You want a change in public policy, in the laws.
Is an elective abortion “interfering with nature” in some ways? Well sure it is, but that’s a given, just like cutting toenails, treating cancer, etc.
The civil government is supposed to counter force with force.
No it’s not, Jon, because you’re not qualifying your statement. In no way is the gov’t supposed to interfere with the rights of the people as far as surgical procedures, in general.
Doug said, “John, the nature of surgical procedures really is not the issue. We all know about them.”
Doug, you appear not to have read my entire comment. The purpose of surgery is to heal, but pregnancy is not a disease. Induced abortion is therefore violence against women.
I might note that the guillotine, an effective instrument of surgery, more truly dealt with a disease, i.e. the contagious madness in the heads of the French aristocracy. (They were also more guilty.) However, I would hardly refrain from calling even it violence.
Doug said, “In no way is the gov’t supposed to interfere with the rights of the people as far as surgical procedures, in general.”
I’m not a secular humanist, so I don’t hold to your presuppositions. I acknowledge God. But supposing we take your statement as true, then I suggest we follow it. Abolish prenatal dismemberment; it obviously violates the human right to life. The purpose of the civil government is to counter force with force.
And the purpose of a pregnancy is to develop a child. Pregnancy is not a disease. Children are not parasites. Induced abortion is violence against children. The dead child is really the issue.
Doug said, “You want a change in public policy, in the laws.”
Obviously. The executive branch of government can only act on legislation, and the legislation needs to be good. (There is also implied legislation, such as “Roe vs. Wade,” the interference of the judicial branch, reading into the Constitution a right to privacy, or a macabre distortion thereof).
I really don’t know why you keep on harping on this point of “wanting a change.” Pro-lifers have never denied wanting a change; they want the civil government to do its job. Apparently, most Americans want a change in civil government, but as they must realize with President Obama (assuming he’s eligible for office), change can be for the better or for the worse. On pro-life matters, I can only see a change for the worse.
Speaking of Mr. Obama, highly skilled in the use of rhetoric–except perhaps when describing a born-alive infant–I should again note that both Hal and Doug speak of induced abortion as a woman’s right. Every woman is entitled to a dead baby if her will has been perverted thus.
Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now. They acquiesce to forcing vulnerable or brutalized pregnant women to abort unless the violated dependent is old enough to survive on machines, cow milk, or whatever else does not require the body of his mother.
Doug said, “John, the nature of surgical procedures really is not the issue. We all know about them.”
Doug, you appear not to have read my entire comment. The purpose of surgery is to heal, but pregnancy is not a disease. Induced abortion is therefore violence against women.
The purpose of surgery is to correct an unwanted conndition, be it disease, be it a matter of appearance, or be it an unwanted pregnancy, etc.
If somebody wants to have a nosejob, they may get it. Same for having a cancerous tumor removed or an unwanted pregnancy ended.
…..
it obviously violates the human right to life.
That’s a false premise from you. The right to life has not been attributed to the unborn. You wish it were – you want a change in public policy in the matter.
…..
I really don’t know why you keep on harping on this point of “wanting a change.” Pro-lifers have never denied wanting a change; they want the civil government to do its job.
I mention it because you’re acting like your desires are somehow “externally true,” when they are not.
There’s no agreement the civil gov’t should take away the rights that women currently have – most Americans, for example, don’t want Roe versus Wade overturned.
…..
I should again note that both Hal and Doug speak of induced abortion as a woman’s right. Every woman is entitled to a dead baby if her will has been perverted thus.
It is a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy, just as it is to continue a wanted one. This is a matter of law, though I realize you wish things were different.
…..
Hal and Doug want women to continue the wrongs they commit now.
No, we want women to keep the freedom they now have. We don’t want your wishes forced on them. We want them to be free, as they are now, to continue a pregnancy if they want to, or to end an unwanted one.
The “wrong” here (and the “perverted will”) is in wanting to take away that freedom.
Doug said, “The purpose of surgery is to correct an unwanted conndition, be it disease, be it a matter of appearance, or be it an unwanted pregnancy, etc.
No, the purpose of surgery is to heal disease. And when you say unwanted, you mean personally unwanted; otherwise the guillotine could be regarded as fulfilling what you regard to be the purpose of surgery.
But you do force me to be more careful to state carefully the context of my words. We are talking about physicians and hospitals. They came into existence as a result of the Church’s effort to show the love of Christ to those both within and without, not only in the healing of the soul but also the healing of the body. The Nazis performed experimental surgery on some of their victims. It was surgery, but it was wrongly used. It did not fulfill its purpose.
You speak of cosmetic surgery, such as a nose job. Doug, such surgery can be said to heal a disease, a disfigurement of the body. And if the surgery corrects no disfigurement, then I question whether the surgery is valid. If I were a cosmetic surgeon, I would never, for example, convert slit eyes to the more open type. I won’t fuss about earrings, but body scarification is wrong. People should not tattoo and pierce themselves in every conceivable place. That they do so is again another reminder of the perversion of sexuality in our world.
Pregnancy is not a disfigurement; currently the pregnant form seems even to be somewhat fashionable, to be clearly shown in public. Even if pregnancy is regarded as a disfigurement, it is clearly not a disease. It is a temporary condition, and all the agony and embarrassment are suffered for the joy–as the Bible says, referring to it as a given–that a child is born. Biblical morality produced a pro-life culture.
I was Anonymous at November 9, 2008 9:36 PM.
I had said that induced abortion “obviously violates the human right to life.”
Doug replied, “That’s a false premise from you. The right to life has not been attributed to the unborn.
No, the human right to life is not a false premise. Attribution to the unborn follows logically from the fact that the human fetus is a human being. You make the false premise that the current operation of the legal system and the driving legislation is an authentic application of the rights. The civil government has failed to uphold the right to life of all human beings. What you regard as women’s rights were also not supported in the past, but you have high praise for the changes that the feminists wanted.
I had said, ‘I really don’t know why you keep on harping on this point of “wanting a change.” Pro-lifers have never denied wanting a change; they want the civil government to do its job.’
Doug replied, ‘I mention it because you’re acting like your desires are somehow “externally true,” when they are not.’
They are externally true. You ignore God just as you ignore the reality of the prenatal child.
The heart of the controversy is whether the prenatal child bears traces or remnants of the image of God that Adam and Eve once had. As I have said several times on this thread, the dead child is the issue. God has clearly said that we may kill animals, but they may not kill us, nor may we kill each other.
I believe what I believe by faith. If you want to make desire the root motivation, then I desire God. John Piper wrote a book called Desiring God. Naturally we don’t desire God, but by His Holy Spirit, we can again. The image of God can be renewed.
I’m against all induced abortion, but not because of compassion for the child. If compassion for the child were my reason, I would end up as another John McCain, with no reason not to support embryonic stem cell research. I’m against all induced abortion because I want to be like God. According to God, ESCR is immoral.
As you have seen, I’m like you in that I like arguing. And we both believe in standing up for what we believe. I regard your “pro-choice” “stand” as evil. I qualify the words pro-choice and stand because they are generally regarded as being positive but induced abortion is evil. God is Himself pro-choice in that you can eventually get what you want, hell, where God is only present in His abhorrence and punishment of sin.
Thanks for debating with me. I could probably learn more from the example of Cary Christian, whose thoughts I’m sure you read on a more recent thread. I won’t be responding to anything more that you write here (at least I don’t think so, it’s always a temptation for me), but you’re welcome to have the last word.
I believe what I believe by faith. If you want to make desire the root motivation, then I desire God.
Okay, Jon, and well said. I’d just say that that is our motivation – it all comes from the self.
“The purpose of surgery is to correct an unwanted conndition, be it disease, be it a matter of appearance, or be it an unwanted pregnancy, etc.”
No, the purpose of surgery is to heal disease.
Oh man, I just gotta do this one. Not only disease. People have surgery all the time for other stuff.