First ever March for Life pro-life protest at the White House
UPDATE, 1/23, 9:41a: Well, I have to say the “mini-rally” lived up to its name. Disappointing turnout, maybe 200-300 people. It appears the decision by organizers to hush publicity for fear crowd size would eclipse the permit allowance of 3k prompted a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too bad. It would have been far better to have had the opposite problem.
Still, rallying for the sanctity of human life with the White House as the backdrop was a productive experience for me personally. I hope the March team does it again….
Standing with like-minded pro-lifers while mulling Obama’s policy decisions and radical pro-abortion staff appointments of this past tumultuous year was disturbing yet energizing.
Was Obama there? Did his girls glance out a window and wonder what was the commotion? Or did the Obamas keep them on the other side of their 3rd floor apartment to avoid an uncomfortable conversation?
1/21, 6:33a: March for Life hasn’t publicized this too much because its permit is for only 3,000 people.
But tonight in Lafayette Park, on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, March for Life is sponsoring what it is billing a “mini-rally” to “bring the Life Principles to the President of the United States….”
I laugh at the term “mini-rally.” Pro-aborts would call a gathering of 3k an historic event of epic proportions. Recall the December 3 Stop Stupak Rally, which pro-aborts advertised for weeks but could only scrape up somewhere between 500-1k.
But I digress.
The March for Life “mini rally” will be from 6 to 8p. Attendees are encouraged to bring flashlights. No candles allowed.
I’ll be there and will post pictures later.
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.
I laugh at the term “mini-rally.” Pro-aborts would call a gathering of 3k an historic event of epic proportions. Recall the December 3 Stop Stupak Rally, which pro-aborts advertised for weeks but could only scrape up somewhere between 500-1k.
lol, very true.
Looking forward to pictures!
I humbly suggest it might be more efficient to bring a new president who already posesses ‘life principles’.
Who knows, that unknown president in waiting might be one of those 3,000 who will attend tonites assembly in Lafayette Park.
Sec. of Homeland Security missy Incompatano will probably dispatch enough undercover agents to mingle with the crowd that the United States Park Service and capitol police will calculate that the gathering has exceeded the proscribed limit and shut down the event.
With all these conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage, pro second ammendment, christians, and current and former Boy Scouts in one place, Incompiatano will conclude there has to be at least one domestic terrorist in their midst.
Jill, better have ‘your papers’ available.
You may be ordered to produce them.
If you want to avoid all that hassle you could just don a burka and recite some prayers in Arabic and wear a Rainbow or pink ribbon.
You might even be invited to attend a White House State dinner or be nominated to a job in the B.O. administration.
yor bro ken
This just in:
Former U.S. Senator and former presidential and vice presidential candidate John Edwards explains what led to his canoodling with a campaign staffer.
“I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure.”
“All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You’re invincible. And there will be no consequences.”
—————————————————
How coud Edwards ever have allowed himself to fall prey to such an patently absurd idea?
Where could he ever find a contemporary example to support such a farfetched fantasy?
Surely Edwards must have been under the influence of drugs or alchol when he even contemplated such insanity.
Are you B.O. devotess paying attention?
yor bro ken
The MSM will probably only take pictures and focus on a small area of the large gathering,and claim that that’s the WHOLE crowd….typical of them.
It makes me sad every year to think that my birthday is on such a horrible day as the 22nd.
Happy Anniversary Roe v Wade. I’m old enough to remember the “good old days” when women, who rejected their god given repsonsibility to happily bear issue, went off to back alleys or did things like douche themselves with chemicals. (Great scene in “Revolutionary Road”) Yeah, good time. But if these women ended up dead or maimed, no big deal, right? They deserved to be punished for ignoring the dictates of a mythical Middle Eastern sky god. But I am looking forward to seeing the life march which always has some redeeming amusement value. Hopefully, Randall Terry will engage in his usual brand of street theater and hijinks. Ah, good times.
And Ken, what is with You’re Broken? Is that some kind of homophobic thingie or just some anti-aborts code talk?
“…if these women ended up dead or maimed, no big deal, right?”
—————————————-
Artemis..if that’s what you really think this whole issue is..then you’re in for a very rude awakening.
We fight to protect the life of the unborn AND the women who carry them.
Unfortunately, you won’t get it cuz there’s no ‘amusement’ in that, right?
“We fight to protect the life of the unborn AND the women who carry them”
These women neither want nor need crazed zealots “fighting” for them. And that’s because they’re “big girls” who are fully capable of making their own decisions regarding their own bodies, thank you very much. But keep on fighting because your fight just galvanizes those on the other side, thank you very much. And your “street theater,” with the signs and the plastic fetus necklaces, is really quite amusing.
“The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.”
Dr Warren Hern, MD
artfullymixed
yor bro ken = you are broken/your brother ken
[we’re all broken in some way or another.]
Free spirits like you don’t seem to mind attaching other words to ‘sexual’ as in metro-sexual or bi-sexual or trans-sexual or heterosexual so when I use the term homo-sexual it must be the word ‘homo’ that you find offensive.
If that is the case then how is it permisable for you to attach ‘homo’ to ‘phobic’ when referring to me?
Wouldn’t gay/lesbian phobic be more politically correct for you?
But we all know who and what we are talking about whether we use gay/lesbian/queer/dyke/fag/faggot or homosexual.
These are all terms the homosexual community uses to refer to themselves.
The same way some abundantly pigmented humans refer to themselves as niggers, negroes, colored, or black, but woe be to the person who is pigmentally challenged who uses those words, especially a conservative, even an abundantly pigmented conservative.
[National Assocaition for the Advancement of Colored People, The United Negro College Fund, Black Entertainment Television]
If you doubt me about the use of the word ‘nigger’ then spend a little time at your county jail.
If you doubt my word about the use of all those colloquialisms for homosexual then go to a gay pride parade and if you have eyes that see and ears that hear your innocense/naiveté will be shattered.
yor bro ken
Artemis = A completely blinded to the truth pro-abort with poor reasoning skills and the inability to defend the killing of unborn children using sound logic or science.
Why continue to feed the troll?
“These women neither want nor need crazed zealots “fighting” for them.”
——————
What about the unborn, then, do you think they want to die?
Where’s their “CHOICE” in the matter?
Or are you also thinking the unborn as just blobs of tissue ?
“Or are you also thinking the unborn as just blobs of tissue ?”
Uh, that’s exactly what the “babies” in petri dishes are. If “science” universally declared that “human” life begins at conception, then the law should prohibit in vitro and subsequently close down the labs. Good luck with that. And that’s exactly what the material of a miscarriage is when it ends up in the toilet. If it were “life,” shouldn’t the woman, who just had the miscarriage, bottle up the stuff in the toilet and take it to the nearest “pastor” so it can be baptized? Science does not presume to define when “human” life (as defined by the anti-aborts) begins so good luck with changing the law. And re the unborn “not wanting to die” – they have no cognition abilities to form that thought. Nice try, though. I guess in the world view of the anti-aborts, the fetus has all the rights. The fetus carrier – not so much!!! Fetus worship must be so comforting.
Artemis:
Why do you continue to deny the existence of non-religious pro-lifers? WE’RE RIGHT HERE.
And I’m sorry, Artemis. I didn’t realize you must’ve sprung fully-formed from your father’s head like Athena. I suppose you somehow missed that phase of human development. Far be it from the great and powerful you to ever have been some disgusting blob of tissue!
The SCIENTIFIC FACT that every single person posting now on this blog was at one point in their lives that “blob” tells me all I need to know about when human life begins. You go on and on about the women desperate and crazed enough to mangle themselves just to get to their babies so they can kill them, but you can’t think for one second about the baby losing their life permanently for whatever temporary thing their mother thinks is drastic enough to kill them over? Personally, if I was at another’s mercy and forced to get my care from them and them alone unless I die, I would want to be nurtured and protected. I just think it’s sad that at this point in human civilization we would need a law created to mandate that rather than it just coming naturally.
Artemis,
If human life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? Now think a little bit before you answer with something ridiculous.
“shouldn’t the woman, who just had the miscarriage, bottle up the stuff in the toilet and take it to the nearest “pastor” so it can be baptized”
Baptism if for the living, not the dead. You don’t baptize dead humans.
“Science does not presume to define when “human” life (as defined by the anti-aborts) begins”
Actually, yes it does.
“And re the unborn “not wanting to die” – they have no cognition abilities to form that thought. Nice try,”
I’ll pass on the greater philosophical problem with your above statement and I’ll keep it simple for now. I have several patients I care for who fit the description you just described. I guess it would be ok to kill them as well. I guess infants are prime killing material as well.
“I guess in the world view of the anti-aborts, the fetus has all the rights.”
I’m sure you know this isn’t the case. You just like to blather on with the same tired arguments. The baby and the mother have the same value and each has the same right to life. In your world,
only some humans have the basic right to life.
xalisae: *SNORTS* That’s funny (the comment about Athena. I’ve been reading the Percy Jackson book series and its all about Greek Mythology coming to life in the 21st century).
A basic biology lesson is needed for ANYONE who claims the unborn baby is NOT alive. What kicks? What hiccups? Does a baby magically become a baby at birth? Two seconds before birth? Please enlighten us.
Artemis,
Here is a whole plethora of quotes from scientific texts which confirm that human life begins at the moment of conception. If you can find any scientific (not philosophical) quotes from scientific texts which deny that life begins at conception, then I would be happy to look at them. But here is the science.
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. … The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.” (O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
“the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.” (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
“every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.” [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
– Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.
In addition, biologist Gerard Nadal has just written his third in a series of scientific blog entries at his blog Coming Home http://gerardnadal.com/ titled “Pro-life Biology: Cells I,II, and III” It’s all scientific, and it needs to be addressed before any unsubstantiated claims of “life does not begin at conception” are to be taken seriously.
epic!
awesome!
Are the Obama’s going to be around to see this?
Wonder what Michelle is telling her daughters?
This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
And if that individual is gay, should he or she have the right to get married some day? or only the right to get born?
what would be the point Hal?
do you KNOW the difference between a man and a woman?
how are they biologically compatible?
just because you get born doesn’t mean you have the right to do whatever the heck you want?
if he has some genetic condition that predisposes him rape, will he have the right to rape?
This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
And if that individual is gay, should he or she have the right to get married some day? or only the right to get born?
Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 8:25 AM
If I say “Yes, they should have the right to get married.”, will you agree that every potentially gay individual should have the legally protected right to be born, Hal?
You know I’m just rarin’ to tell you that I think homosexuals should have all the same matrimony rights as heterosexuals, right?
Xalisae, if we can get Bobby on board with this deal, then perhaps. Your abortions positions are at least defensible, the anti-gay prejudice is just horrific. (see angel @ 8:29 a.m., comparing gays to rapists)
hmmm…wonder what happened to Artemis?
Can’t face the facts?…..typical.
no Hal – YOU did that!
What I am saying to YOU: I’m am not prejudiced against gays.
Same-sex attracted persons cannot marry. To PRETEND that they can is a fantasy.
Marriage is special and unique between one man and one woman, for life.
I believe that gay people should be treated with respect and dignity. They should have the same rights as other persons. They should be treated fairly in society.
However, marriage is not a right. Just like abortion is not a right.
Let’s be consistent here.
You support abortion “rights” believing that no baby dies in abortion. FANTASY. Every abortion kills a human person whether you believe that or not. It is a FACT.
You support gay marriage. FANTASY. Gay “marriage” is not marriage. They cannot consummate their “union” because biologically they cannot unite. Their desires are disordered – it is a psycho-sexual disorder that was considered treatable until homosexuality became politicized like abortion. FACT.
Live in that fantasy world of yours all you want Hal. But eventually you will have to face reality – if not in this life, then definitely in the next.
I’m done with you. Have a nice day. ;)
marriage is a right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. ”
HAL………………..
EXISTENCE + SURVIVAL = MARRIAGE + PROCREATION
Marriage alone does not guarantee our existence or survival. Gay marriage does not procreate, therefore it is not fundamental, nor a “basic civil right”.
Gay marriage is a basic civil right.
Gay marriage is a basic civil right.
Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 11:35 AM
ah, yes we needed the enlightened progressive LEGAL minds to tell us what use to be perversion is now a right (abortion AND homosexuality)
give me a break…..pulease…..
You should live on Fantasy Island Hal. You’d fit right in.
So is not being killed in an abortion, Hal.
Personally, I don’t like state-recognized “marriage” as it stands now. I think we all should be given civil unions which grant us the same rights we have now, gays included, and we can take those state documents to any church we like and have a marriage ceremony performed (or not. I also think any church should have the right to “discriminate” against any couple it feels is not in line with its theological teachings)
Gay couples get the rights they want, churches can still have the freedom to tell everyone how wrong they think it is, and a religious ceremony is no longer being manipulated by the government.
TA-DAH! Problem solved.
So you admit that it is wrong to deny someone of their basic human right to live simply because of their age?
*deny someone their basic human right
xalisae, agree with you on marriage/civil unions.
HAL,
This whole concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is not about equality or rights.
It is about a ‘forced’ approval even endorsement by goverment and by extension the people who give their consent to be governed, of a behavior that is repugnant to most humans and detrimental to those who indulge in it.
Homosexuals and their fellow travelers do not merely desire our acceptance, they are demanding our ‘blessing’.
We will not bow down to them, to you or to their god.
I am confident in saying that it has never been God’s will, perfect or permissive, that two people of the same gender engage in sexual intercourse with one another.
It has never been God’s will, perfect or permissive, that homosexuals attempt to be joined together sexually.
Therefore it can never be said of a homosexual couple, ‘what God has joined together’.
And tho two homosexuals may be joined toether sexually, they can never become ‘one flesh’ as evidenced by their biological children.
It is a biological impossibility and will never be attained with out technological tinkering by some other humans.
HAL, good lawyer that you are, write a contract that will provide homosexuals who desire a ‘license’ which ‘formalizes’ their mutual love and concern for one another and protects and preserves their mutual interests.
Homosexuals can already find a religious order which will ceremonially solemnize their union.
It will only be an academic exercise for the vast majority of homosexuals because their union will only last as long as their next urge to mate.
With that in mind be sure to include a ‘dump button’ in the pact that will make the canceling of the contract as convienent as deleting an unwanted document or flushing the toilet.
yor bro ken
Ok, now how about the age discrimination you’ve taken part in yourself? Will you now apologize for your past transgressions?
“It will only be an academic exercise for the vast majority of homosexuals because their union will only last as long as their next urge to mate.”
charming. I think the same can be said for hetero marriage.
Ken,
Great idea, Hal could write his own version of a marriage contract. He doesn’t need god for a valid civil contract.
Hal @ 1:56,
Charming, but true. It’s just a piece of paper……… according to about half of the American population who divorce….
Why do gays want to marry when they’ll pay more in taxes like the rest of us marrieds? As ken said, it’s for validation from the rest of us. I don’t care what they think about me, why should they care what I think of them….. charming, I know…..
Hey prolifers ever think about when the pro-aborts cannot get their point across and they are frustrated with justifying baby mutilation and murder then they come up with the “why can’t gays get married” argument to take you off topic? Don’t you find that ironic. It is called “bait and switch”. I find that their diversion is really laughable, “Let’s not talk about baby-killing right now, lets talk about the promotion and legalization of (I am going to be graphic here and list what we are discussing here) anal-penile, anal-oral, oral-genital, genital penetration with implements and sex toys, fisting, urination on another person called “wet games”, fecal sexual activity, sado-masochism, etc. It is NOT about wanting to embrace or honor marriage it is about destroying and redefining hetero-sexual marriage and it’s about breaking down Judeo-Christian moral standards so marriage means absolutely NOTHING. The word marriage means uniting or bringing together anatomically, physically, emotionally, hormonally, psychologically and spritually the only two REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS that are DESIGNED to fit together, a female vagina and a male penis which has the possibility of resulting in the creation another unique human being- A BABY. Read “The Homosexual Agenda” by Alan Sears and Craig Osten (Broadman and Holdman Publishers) excellent expose’. NO, not Politically Correct but the truth and NO I don’t hate or fear anybody and I am not homophobic. YES, Jesus loves and I love homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, etc. but Jesus abhors sin in me and you too.
Back to March for life- the topic of this thread….
I’m listening to EWTN’s coverage of the March, the variety of speakers on the FULL spectrum of life issues is awesome!!!
Please pray for those who are contemplating abortion, the unborn, and those who work in the abortion industry. Pray that pro-lifers will take action in their communities.
This is a sad day in history, but the energy today is uplifting.
God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and He will prevail!
Prolifer L,
So true! Getting back on track. You beat me to it! :)
God bless.
“It is called “bait and switch”. – yeah, typical tactic.
Heniways…was there any coverage of the White House pro-lifers’ gathering from last night? I don’t think so.
If there was 100 pro-aborts there, it would surely be covered, right?
It’s so they’ll be entitled to benefits that any other spouse would be. They can do just as much (sometimes more…I had to have one when my husband was deployed) with a mutual power of attorney, but they’re not entitled to health insurance and certain other things.
I would think being able to deny gays marriage services in your church would be enough for you guys, really. No one would be making you give them “validation from the rest of us”…if anything, allowing a church to object to providing services would vociferously and emphatically show otherwise. You all wouldn’t allow others who are fine with it just let it happen and be content to remain a part of institutions which opposes such practices?
But…this is all just a distraction on Hal’s part, anyway. He was feeling uncomfortable, so he decided to shift the focus to something else that most of you guys feel strongly about to make him feel better about his indefensible stand on abortion. Whatever. I shouldn’t have expected any better from a lawyer. *spits*
*institutions which oppose such practices
xalisae,
I’m with you on the distraction part. Really, abortion is such a Bigger issue!!! Glad to be on your side!!
I was going to mention… but you guys beat me to it. Notice how the topic was changed from abortion to gay marriage right when the pro-abort side was faced with hard questions?
Traditional marriage can be defended with arguments from logic, philosophy, jurisprudence, anthropology, history…etc. There’s no “homophobia” or “hate”(buzzwords) involved.
Same sex so called marriage is a different topic for a different thread and at a different time.
But…this is all just a distraction on Hal’s part, anyway. He was feeling uncomfortable, so he decided to shift the focus to something else that most of you guys feel strongly about to make him feel better about his indefensible stand on abortion. Whatever. I shouldn’t have expected any better from a lawyer. *spits*
Posted by: xalisae at January 22, 2010 2:50 PM
I’m not uncomfortable with the abortion debate. I already said I understand your arguments and they’re defensible. Other than that, we really don’t have to argue about it much any more. I’m much more interested in talking about the hate and bigotry towards gays. ;)
” I’m much more interested in talking about the hate and bigotry towards gays.”
I guess you will have to do the talking because I don’t “hate” gays and neither does anyone I know in the pro-life community. “hate” “homophobia” and the like are buzzwords meant to play on emotion and distract from reasoned and principled debate.
You have to do more than make broad statements about “hate” towards a group of people. How about some actual evidence?
HAL,
I know B.O. says it is a sign of desperation but I want you to pull out the ole dictionary and look up the definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ and then give us some examples of ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ in this thread directed towards homosexuals.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 11:35 AM
“Gay marriage is a basic civil right.”
—————————————————
I believe the citation you gave to support your contention that ‘marriage’ is a ‘civil right ‘had to do with a law that prohibited ‘interracial marriages’, not marriage between two homosexuals of a different race.
It is interesting to note that your citation avoid addressing the issue of homosexual marriage.
‘Gay marriage’ or ‘homosexual marriage’ are oxymorons because the long established definition of marriage is between a male and a female.
You want to change a definition simply because it does not suit your preferred view.
Words mean things. You cannot write a contract without some agreement on what the words in the contract mean.
If the defintions are so vague that they are subject to monumental or even incremental change the contract is worthless. [Depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.]
Then there is concept of ‘good faith’ when negotiating the agreement. This is not a religious concept but sincerity in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement based on common understanding and with no intent to deceive or defraud.
‘Homosexual marriage’ is deceitful at best and fraud at the worst because it is contract that is impossible to fulfill if the definition of marriage is a agreement between a man and a woman.
yor bro ken
(So much for redirecting the conversation back to pro-life issues. Hal, you’re good.)
Hal,
I’m just curious. Is it a “civil right” for a parent to marry their child or any other pairing up of people?
“(So much for redirecting the conversation back to pro-life issues. Hal, you’re good.)”
And I bought right into it! This is supposed to be about the March for life. I am going to enjoy looking at footage of the event and listening to any audio that is available.
Hal, I’ll engage the “gay marriage” debate at another time. In the meantime you may want to drop the all to predictable “hate” argument. It’s predictable and fallacious just like arguing that “choice” has anything to do with abortion.
Hello mods. Just a question. Why was my post around 2pm deleted? Was what I posted too graphic? If so I do apologize but I do think my point is well taken that pro-aborts try to play bait and switch when they get frustrated trying to justify baby-killing and when someone tries to equate heterosexual sex (the uniting of male and female reproductive organs that fit together anatomically and physiologically which have the possibility of creating a human life-A BABY) with homosexual sex that involve sexual behaviors which have been documented to involve unhealthy, dangerous, risky sexual practices anatomically and physiologically I felt the need to speak up.
xalisae: *SNORTS* That’s funny (the comment about Athena. I’ve been reading the Percy Jackson book series and its all about Greek Mythology coming to life in the 21st century).
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at January 21, 2010 10:29 PM
To go off topic for a moment, I love those books and everyone should read them, if you have not already. The Artemis one meets in that series is, quite unfortunately, nothing like the one on this blog, though.
Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 1:56 PM
“charming. I think the same can be said for hetero marriage.”
——————————————————
The later great Wilt Chamberlin not withstanding, the average number of sexual parters for homosexuals is many times more than for heterosexuals.
The long established definition of marriage implies a monagamous relationship.
The hyper promiscuity associated with the homosexual lifestyle is antithetical to the concept of mutual trust, respect and fidelity.
HAL,
You want to believe that the only differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is their preference in regards to their partners.
All the available data argues against that view.
Every pathology is many times higher in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community.
That is not hateful or bigoted. It is a demonstrable, observable fact.
Why do you think that is?
Could it be that homosexuality itself is a pathology?
yor bro ken
Back to March for life- the topic of this thread….
I’m listening to EWTN’s coverage of the March, the variety of speakers on the FULL spectrum of life issues is awesome!!!
Please pray for those who are contemplating abortion, the unborn, and those who work in the abortion industry. Pray that pro-lifers will take action in their communities.
This is a sad day in history, but the energy today is uplifting.
God is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and He will prevail!
Posted by: Janet at January 22, 2010 2:12 PM
any ideas on numbers???
I see that CNN was claiming “tens of thousands”
Prolifer L,
I am not sure what happened there with your post but I put it up.
Hi Hal: Same ol’, same ol’.
Hi Artemis: Same ol’, same ol’.
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Probably about the same size as last year, 75-100,000.
You notice the abortionist pigs didn’t march yesterday? Aby Johnson was there, and she was ausom! She is now on our side, and she is exposing pig parent hood… I mean planned parent hood! RJ
discrimination based on age? denial of basic human rights based on age? please give me a break and think about your arguments before you make them. someones first birthday is the year after they were born. meaning that they are 1 year old exactly one year following their birth (not 3 months). meaning that before that, you would consider them to be some sort of negative time old, which is not an age. meaning that its not discrimination based on age, when the fetus does not have an age, because the counting of age undeniably begins at birth. so if you want to defend your ridiculous and discriminatory anti-women stance, you are going to have to do better than “age discrimination” against a fetus.
also, as soon as marriage became a legal matter, it was no longer about “god” and therefore is subject to the same rules about discrimination as anything else and should be a right for EVERYONE. you do know that interracial marriage used to be illegal right? and now it isnt, because, as with same-sex marriage, it is a civil rights issue. dont go to a church that approves of same sex couples if you dont want to deal with same sex marriages.
and abortion is a legal right, despite your wishes.
and the moon is made of blue cheese
wow, really using all of the “logic” and “scientific reasoning” that your sad cohort claims to have on its side.
maybe try forming a coherent argument if you want to disagree with what i said?
oh wait, you cant, because even though you dont agree with my points, you know that they are all true. including the part about women being legally entitled to an abortion, if that is what they choose.
like it or not, the law is the law, and abortion has been recognized as a private decision for a woman to make with her doctor.
The notion of a birthday has absolutely nothing to do with how long a human being has been on this planet. See, back in the day, a woman couldn’t tell exactly when her child came into existence, so judging age by birth – a date she would certainly know – was much easier. It is a cultural thing – in fact, some cultures do not celebrate or even recognize birthdays. And what about the people who don’t know when they were born? Are they in the gray area as well, disposable property of whomever supports them? No… birthdays do not dictate true age. That, my friend, is scientifically proven to be at fertilization.
Read a textbook.
I myself like to think all human beings deserve the same basic rights. Don’t you?
Oh, and by the way, just to counter all of your other garbage, I am a pro-life atheist, who believes in gay marriage and is, indeed, young and female. What now?
age is described by years one has been alive since birth. do you add gestation time when telling people how old you are or when filling out a job application or resume? have you ever heard anyone do that? so what this means is that using the term “age discrimination” with regard to a fetus is ridiculous. age is not “scientifically proven” to begin at fertilization. congrats on your atheism and views on same-sex marriage, but you couldnt be more wrong about your approach to science.
read a textbook? do you have a particular textbook in mind, or did you just think that trying to sound academic would somehow validate your inane argument?
i believe that you are denying a woman her basic human rights by forcing her to bear a child that she doesnt want, especially in the cases of rape, incest, and abuse.
How much force is involved in a pregnancy? How does one force a child to grow in the womb?
Oh and when someone says that abortion is between a woman and her doctor I always wonder if you mean between the woman and the abortionist?? He didn’t look at me or talk to me and was angry and cruel. Do you mean him? When it has been between my friends and their abortionists one yelled at her to shut up, one ordered another friend to be held down, and one molested another friend.
Actually, I do get one insight from L’s comments. As Abel said, normally a mother does not know the exact date of her child’s conception, and his birth is, of course, a momentous event for both her and him. Still, if I have children, I think I will teach each to track his age from the approximate date of conception (add nine months). Doing so might confuse teachers and friends, but it will help to advance a pro-life culture.
Gr. 5 teacher: How old are you, Jon?
my son Jon: 10
Gr. 5 teacher: When were you born?
my son Jon: July 1, A.D. 2000
Gr. 5 teacher: Then you’re still 9, Jon. Ten years ago you weren’t born yet.
my son Jon: But I was alive already!
In some cultures, they DO calculate one’s age from the time they began gestating, l, so is abortion only wrong for them? (abortion is legal there, btw)
If you had an ultrasound machine, and were looking at a fetal human in the womb at 3 pm, and the fetus was removed by birth at 6 pm and you were looking at the resulting baby, is it not the same entity you were looking at at 3? If so, your argument holds no water, because WHERE WE ARE HAS NO IMPACT BIOLOGICALLY ON WHO WE ARE OR WHAT SPECIES WE ARE. If a fetal human is indeed a specimen of the human race pre-birth, and in every other instance under our law the law protects humans from coming to harm incurred to them either at the behest of or directly by their own parents, why should abortion be any different? I was still the same me when I was gestating in my mother as I am now…my children were still themselves when they were inside me…Please explain to me how stopping your child’s life cycle prematurely at any stage other than the fetal stage is acceptable, and I might listen to you about this abortion thing.
And what do you mean “age undeniably starts at birth”? Have you ever been pregnant and gone to the doctor for a check-up? They tell you how old your baby is! But…I guess that’s just if it’s a “wanted” baby, and only if you’re not going to a butcher abortionist calling themselves a doctor.
Abel…were we twins separated at birth? 0_0
Where’s BB? We need those college bio and embryology textbook citations, because apparently l isn’t very well-educated in the area of science or human development. He/she/it surely must have spent all their time studying semantics, what with all the talk about birthdays, and how irrelevant that is to the discussion. Do they give degrees in that subject, l?
Jon,
We did that with our children.
It caused some confusion at first, but once our children were mature enough to understand they were ‘alive’ from the moment of conception and their birthday was just the anniversary of their emergence from the womb, they were completely comfortable with the concept.
There are some cultures whose conventions have historically measured age from the estimated time of conception.
If there was an event that had a minimum age requirement and our child wanted to participate and we believed they were mature enough to benefit we would use their conception date to calculate eligibility.
I claimed our children as dependents from the date of conception on our federal tax returns.
They fullfilled all the criteria for a ‘dependent child’.
yor bro ken
then technically you were cheating on your taxes. because technically, age starts with 0 at birth. so teach your children whatever you want, but the law, and the social construct of this country, says otherwise. the funny thing is that, with my initial comment, i was merely talking about the way the argument was phrased, bc it is ridiculous given the legal way age is described in this country. a rational person would have seen that and elaborated with a more meaningful argument instead of grabbing onto and attempting to prove the validity of the asinine one.
there is force in pregnancy if the woman doesnt want to be pregnant or carry a fetus to term, but has to. you are completely blind if you cant acknowledge that, whatever your belief about abortion.
carla, im sorry that you had a bad experience, and that your friend had a truly terrible (and illegal, given the sexual assault) experience, but those instances are far from the norm with legal abortion.
people who perform abortions ARE doctors. they have been educated at medical schools, and they also deliver babies, give pap smears, etc. they have a wealth of knowledge and capacity for compassion far beyond that of any of you.
stopping the life-cycle is acceptable because it is not a child yet. it is not conscious, in the vast majority of cases (which are 1st trimester abortions) it doesnt even have developed organs/extremities, etc). not a baby and not a child. and if its wanted, fabulous, deliver it, love it, care for it. and if its not wanted, let the woman do what she wants with your body. it is not your job (and is sickeningly presumptuous and demonstrates your black and white thinking) to tell her or anyone what to do with their own body.
also, many abortions are of extremely desired pregnancies that would have been still-born/died shortly after birth. those women should not be forced to carry and deliver their dead children. they should be allowed to finish the pregnancy and grieve so they can begin to move on and try again. luckily, they are allowed this basic common decency, despite your wishes.
“Where’s BB? We need those college bio and embryology textbook citations”
Yeah, so I actually did post those quotes on this same thread at January 22, 2010 6:28 AM.
But the thing is, I posted those quotes to I about a month ago, and she gave this really bizarre response about how they actually proved her point. It was really, really strange. And she kept going on too, about how we look up evidence to support our position, and we don’t even read them and then they turn out to prove their position… I don’t know. I just don’t know how to deal with such an odd claim. It’s like, what do you say to someone who denies the law of non-contradiction? All rules of logic have been throw out the window at that point, so what can be done to convince them that that is wrong?
We choose to believe what we believe. Our desires influence our will and that controls us. Logic does not control us. I think I speak as a Protestant, however; Roman Catholics might differ. :)
l,
How many is many?
An abortion kills a living human child, not a child that has died in utero. Pretty basic facts.
If a child may die soon after birth it is desirable to kill them before they die? Is that it?
Save your sorrow for me. Pat us on the head like Cindy Lou Who and say that most abortions are so much better for others. Too bad for those who regret it.
basically that is the case. just because you personally regret something doesnt mean that you get to force other people not to do it. if i regret having plastic surgery, that doesnt mean i get to make plastic surgery illegal.
dictionary definition:
A child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of “child” generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority. “Child” may also describe a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; it can also signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in “a child of nature” or “a child of the Sixties.”[1]
so while you may believe that abortion is taking a life, you are wrong to say that it is killing a child.
many (in the literature) ranges from 75-90 percent. and that is of less than 10 percent of all abortions (90 percent occur within the first trimester).
and bobby, reread our conversation and you will see that i was arguing that some conception results in an organism genetically incompatible with life. all of your text books were about 46 chromosome organisms, which is NOT what i was talking about. just because you know how to copy and paste clearly does not mean you are capable of critical thought or analysis. my point was that genetic anomalies can occur at conception, and be incompatible with life, and not meet the definition of being alive. it wasnt an argument about when life begins, but a statement on how your definition of when life begins is not universally true. this was supported by your quotes confirming that human life requires 46 chromosomes. what was bizarre was how you threw out those textbook quotes (which i doubt you have read in context) without even thinking about what we were actually talking about.
and, way to assume that im a woman just because you disagree with me. its obvious (by your comments and your stance on reproductive rights) you dont think women are intelligent or have any respect for them or their autonomy.
clearly logic does not control you or none of you would be on this website or use dr seuss quotes to support your allegedly “scientific” arguments.
I,
“reread our conversation and you will see that i was arguing that some conception results in an organism genetically incompatible with life.”
If that’s the case and I missed it, then I apologize. I completely agree that some products of oocyte and sperm do not result in an organism compatible with life (though I’m not sure it’s proper to refer to such a union as conception.)
“all of your text books were about 46 chromosome organisms, which is NOT what i was talking about.”
Again, if I was mistaken about the point you were trying to make, fair enough.
“just because you know how to copy and paste clearly does not mean you are capable of critical thought or analysis.”
I’m not really interested in arguing whether or not I am capable of critical thought and analysis. It is obvious that I am not.
“my point was that genetic anomalies can occur at conception, and be incompatible with life, and not meet the definition of being alive.”
Agreed.
“but a statement on how your definition of when life begins is not universally true”
I don’t see how it follows from the fact that some unions of sperm and oocyte do not result in a zygote that the PROPER union of sperm and oocyte (a zygote) is not a life. How does an improper union of two things undermine the essence of the proper union of those two things?
“this was supported by your quotes confirming that human life requires 46 chromosomes.”
Yes. 46 chromosomes. Necessary but not sufficient.
“what was bizarre was how you threw out those textbook quotes (which i doubt you have read in context) without even thinking about what we were actually talking about.”
Yes, it has been established that I am an idiot. How does it follow that the proper union of sperm and egg does not result in a human life? Or am I again confused about what you are trying to argue?
“way to assume that im a woman just because you disagree with me”
No, I assume you’re a woman because the email address that you provided has a name that is usually a woman’s name. True, there are men with that name. If you are a man, I apologize.
“its obvious (by your comments and your stance on reproductive rights) you dont think women are intelligent or have any respect for them or their autonomy.”
OK, suppose that is true. How does it follow that abortion is morally permissible?
“clearly logic does not control you or none of you would be on this website or use dr seuss quotes to support your allegedly “scientific” arguments.”
I am so confused as to what your scientific position is concerning the status of the unborn. We’re in agreement that not all unions of sperm and oocyte result in a zygote. But how then does that undermine the humanity of the zygote? You would agree that we all began life as a zygote, I think. So what exactly is your argument in favor of abortion because I’ve read a not-human-life argument, a personhood argument, and a bodily autonomy argument from you, no two of which is necessary if you can support any other one.
I have no idea, X – but I look for your posts all the time, because you generally say what I would have ;D Just decided to post this time ’cause I haven’t in awhile.
Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: \?-?bo?r-sh?n\
Function: noun
Date: 1547
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2 : monstrosity
3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: \?f?-t?s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful — more at feminine
Date: 14th century
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
Ooh, look at that! I can use a dictionary too! And the dictionary says not only that abortion kills, and is synonymous with monstrosity, it also confirms that a fetus is a developing human, which already has the basic structures of all other humans.
Abortion is not a basic right. It is a right only viable to pregnant woman – not men, not all women, not children, not the elderly. A basic right is a right we all can enjoy – i.e., life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No amount of inconvenience can trump that.
Oh, and if you want to talk about “botched” pregnancies, I think you have late-term abortion lies confused with general abortion lies. The likes of Tiller claimed he preformed most abortions due to that inane reason; however, over 90% of the time, the abortion is preformed due to the selfish convenience of a scared, misinformed woman.
So declares the pro-choice Alan-Guttmacher institute.
Not at all something worthy to be killed for.
Does anybody really care or pay attention to what the MSM says or does? Newspapers are going broke and television outlets are losing viewers in droves. I don’t like to see people unemployed, but there’s a reason why people don’t watch the network news or read the newspapers anymore.