Grayson calls pro-life opponent with no exceptions “Taliban Dan”
I noted last week a remarkable number of current GOP candidates are pro-life without a rape/incest exception. HuffPo reports the Republican National Coalition for Life agrees “there are absolutely more candidates this election cycle” who are pro-life sans exceptions. It has endorsed 63 of them – and it doesn’t endorse otherwise.
Pro-aborts are alarmed. Once they lose this previously reliable wedge that has kept many compassionate Americans from outright opposing abortion, they know they don’t have many other emotional appeals up their sleeve.
Pro-aborts also know pro-life legislators without exceptions aren’t pliable. They don’t succumb to pressure or arguments.
So Democrat big mouth pro-abort Rep. Alan Grayson, who previously accused Republicans opposing Obamacare of wanting sick people to “die quickly,” has a new attack ad out calling his opponent “Taliban Dan Webster,” in part because Webster is pro-life without exceptions…
Grayson accused Webster of having the same mindset as Muslim fanatics for daring to quote well-known Scripture. “Hands off our bodies – and our laws,” states Grayson’s ad. Sorry, but abortion wasn’t legalized by law. It was only legalized by a liberal Supreme Court decision, speaking of fanatics. More on the the misleading ad and Webster from the Orlando Sentinel:
Grayson has attacked Webster for sponsoring a bill 20 years ago that would give couples the option of entering a “covenant marriage” in which divorce would be allowed only in cases of adultery….
Webster stands in stark contrast to his opponent. He is the low-key owner of an air-conditioning business who spent 28 years in the Legislature, serving as House speaker and Senate majority leader before being term-limited out in 2008.
While Grayson has released an internal poll showing him with a 13 point lead (and which totals 101%), RealClearPolitics is saying this district “Leans GOP,” and Grayson didn’t sound so sure of his victory in a recent meeting with Nancy Pelosi, as reported by Politico September 22:
Pelosi was confronted last week by concerned members who wanted to know what the party could do to match the groups on the right. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, saying that he was being hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads from a senior-citizens group backed by the drug industry, used the freshman class’s regular meeting with Pelosi last week to ask what the party was doing to respond.
Help get rid of a real slime dog, and get a solidly pro-life good guy in the process. Donate to Webster’s campaign.
[HT: Hot Air]
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.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I’m about to criticize an IDEA though it may seem like I am criticizing a person. Disinformation happens on so many levels because there ARE so many levels within communication. Is it wise to let your opposition define you? The subtle message, supported by the Huffington Post statement, is that Sarah Palin is the ultimate in conservative “mama grizzlies” and the GOP as a national entity is growing more conservative on the abortion issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though a strict Pro-Life plank exists in the GOP platform, the candidates that the party actually SUPPORTS have nothing to do with the platform. (Scott Brown)
In her own life, Sarah Palin may indeed live Pro-Life convictions, but with her actions in office, and her statements to the press, she more closely resembles the “Choice” position.
http://prolifeprofiles.com/sarah
If more individual candidates are not supporting exceptions for rape and incest, it CERTAINLY is not being driven by the political example of Sarah Palin. One only needs to look at who she has recently endorsed. If the Tea Party has done anything, it has persuaded more people to look at INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES and not the party LABEL. “Coat-tails” (in either direction) should be a thing of the past.
I have been in constant contact with the Webster campaign. In fact, I volunteer for them on behalf of the Tea Party movement.
Here’s what you need to know:
Daniel Webster will run this campaign like he has all his other campaigns: honorably and by not smearing his opponent.
Grayson needs to worry. His little MoveOn.org minions have sent me two emails in the past 72 hours begging people to step up and help out his campaign.
This district is indeed a primarily conservative district. He only won his seat two years ago by 51-52%, depending on the source. in other words, it was Obama’s coattails that cruised him in.
The progressive freaks reside mainly in Orlando. The rest of the district are not
about to endure another two years of this charlatan.
My inside sources tell me this race is within the margin of error. What’s going to put Webster over the edge is turnout, plain and simple. And that’s what we in the Tea Party movement intend to do.
That’s the best he’s got?? Name calling??
Go Daniel Webster!!!
Have you ever heard a mama say to her kids “grow up to be abortionist politicians”?
They are child killers and liars.
Not exactly paragons of virtue and decency.
Joe – Um no one has because there is no such thing as a, what did you call it… abortionist politicians? There are just politicians, and they all have different stand points they take on different issues. I don’t think anyone has ever heard any parents say “Son I want you to grow up to be a Pro-Gun Control Politician”, but I hear lots of them tell their kids they can grow up to be president if they want to. I pretty sure we have had Pro-Choice Presidents in the past so…..
As far as being virtuous and decent, I find it down right disgusting to lie to children and fill their heads with fear of consequences from a fictional entity to get them to think the way you do even though all tangible evidence is to the contrary. To indoctrinate children with lies before they are even old enough to discern what’s right and wrong for themselves, or even if the Easter bunny is real or not.
This is Christian life as we know it. This generation of Home schooled children will be the dumbest generation of Christians yet…
Those who live in glass houses should not read books that condone slavery, see black skin as a punishment from god, and advises us to stone gay people.
“…see black skin as a punishment from god…”
I won’t mention the problems with the other things you said, but this one is from the Book of Mormon, bro.
“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”
Alma 3:6
I would say men telling women what to do with their own bodies “like they own her” is very Taliban-like. It reduces women into commodities or property.
Bobby – Oh I am sorry, are Mormons not Christians anymore? Mit Romney seems to think they are? All of Utah seems to think they are Christians? Does the Bible not say we should stone gays? Leviticus isn’t it? You know the biggest arguments against Christianity come right from your own book…
Bobby – Also I was referring to the story about Noah and his son seeing him drunk and naked, and the punishment that follows…. I did mention that my god father is a Baptist minister right?
“Oh I am sorry, are Mormons not Christians anymore?”
No, they aren’t. They never have been. That doesn’t mean they are bad people, but it does mean that they have an invalid baptism and a fundamental different notion of God than orthodox Christianity does.
” Does the Bible not say we should stone gays? Leviticus isn’t it?”
Yes. It seems to me that many people have tried to explain the difference between the old and new covenants to you, but you don’t seem to care. I would be happy to explain it to you and how the old law has been fulfilled through Jesus, but I have no reason to believe you really are interested in it.
“Also I was referring to the story about Noah and his son seeing him drunk and naked, and the punishment that follows”
This?
“When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
Where does that say that black people are cursed?
“I did mention that my god father is a Baptist minister right?”
Not that I know of.
Actually, let me be a bit more nuanced. You said that “…[we] see black skin as a punishment from god…” Where does it say in that bible verse that the punishment from God for “seeing Noah naked and drunk” is black skin?
I am quite convinced, Biggz, that you simply repeated some stuff you’ve heard against various religions, got it confused with stuff against the LDS, and are now trying to cover your tracks.
Dude, it’s okay to make mistakes, it’s okay not to know everything, it’s okay not to act like mister-cool-know-it-all-big-shot on the internet. That is everyone’s MO. So it’s fine. If you have substantive, well-thought out objections to Christianity, than I’m happy to discuss them, but simply repeating stuff without giving it any thought or looking into it on your own is simply unimpressive.
The taliban stones rapists don’t they? And probably rape victims too. So killing over adultery, rape etc…killing over sexual sin is pretty much what pro-aborts do only they kill their children and not themselves. Sounds pretty much like the taliban.
Biggz: It reduces women into commodities or property.
If I recall correctly – this is precisely the argument position many pro-aborts make regarding “the fetus”. And bodily autonomy is concerned with “property rights” complete with fenced-off locations – such as her womb. Which makes it about her body being property. And the child is within those bounds – thus it’s okay to kill the intruder.
So claims for property ownership work for you when applied to supporting abortion, but you’re against property ownership when you take it way out of context concerning a marriage?
I’d have an argument with you, but you’re too busy arguing with yourself.
And the sad part – you’re losing.
“I did mention that my god father is a Baptist minister right?”
Are you attempting to argue from some sort of authority?
I’m just waiting for CAIR and some of the other pro-islamic groups to beat down on Grayson for defaming Muslims. Oh, wait! That won’t happen to Grayson, because the Dems will keep them in check. That will only happen to conservatives and Christians. See how the double standards work?
Chris, I am shaking my head at your argument. Unless you can elucidate it a little further/clearer the conclusion I have to draw is that you are complaining that a woman having ownership/possession/rights/power in regard to HER own body is unjustified because of the opinion that it is bad for others to attempt to have ownership/possession/rights/power over HER body?
Are you saying that a woman is not allowed to have ‘ownership’ of her body because other people can’t have ‘ownership’ of it?
I know Grayson is a tool and most of us here want him out.
But imagine how much fun he’ll be if he’s re-elected and finds himself in a House minority…
It’s funny how pro-aborts have no regard for the ownership rights of the unborn to their bodies.
Last time, people – if someone is a separate being with unique DNA, they are not part of your body. In your body, perhaps, but that’s like saying that if someone puts your finger in their mouth they have the right to bite it off.
And if you think you can do anything you want with your body, tell that to a lawyer or a judge and see what they tell you. Or someone who’s in prison for drugs and prostitution.
cranium : Are you saying that a woman is not allowed to have ‘ownership’ of her body because other people can’t have ‘ownership’ of it?
To clarify – I’m drawing an analogy, using common bodily autonomy arguments of abortion-choicers. Most concede the child within her is a human being, but the child’s location within her violates her bodily boundaries. For abortion-choicers the whole argument turns on that sense of body ownership and property bounds: the child within may be destroyed to re-instate a liberty of the mother’s body (being without a child).
The argument – while appearing valid, actually goes circular: a claim is made for the woman, which is rejected for her child. There are also several other fallacies introduced which are avoided by focusing solely on the woman including: begging the question on the mother child/relationship (moving the child to another location doesn’t change the dependency/her obligations as a parent of the child); the question begging rejection of equal human protections the mother enjoys denied for the child (the failure to uphold an obligation to protect the innocent from the powerful); the desire is to destroy the child, not merely remove, because the parent/child obligation must be nullified.
In fact – every salient claim of the mother on human bodily rights is denied with the willful destruction of her own child.
As for other’s claims to her “body”, her full obligations as the female parent are studiously avoided, because scrutinizing those exposes the invalidity of her claims. Motherhood itself is rejected.
Submisson to a husband is to accept the full consequences of unity in that relationship. Of course, abortion-choicers distorted sense of relationships falsely frame marriage as a master/sex slave relationship. That’s a perverted view of relationships outside the context the biblical passage actually describes.
They avoid discussing the terms and conditions a bond of marriage would entail. Sexual intercourse is seen as a fulfillment of that unity – killing their child is a rejection of that bond – that covenant. Thus, the Judeo-Christian view that sexual intercourse be confined to within a sanctified & legally acknowledged union due to consequences of that relationship – children, is a more complete understanding of sexual intercourse. I’m sure you’d reject incomplete understandings of behaviors when considering the moral principles of those acts.
Infidelity is the number 1 moral issue in the US today – sexual affairs outside the marriage introduce another person between the husband and wife – one who is not there by the consent of both. However a child, conceived through the union, when killed by consent of either or both parents is completely innocent of their circumstances that brought them into being. This is another aspect of the bodily sovereignty argument that is avoided.
One cannot make claims to and about properties of their own humanity while simultanously rejecting those same claims by another human being – that’s irrational – and absurd.
Biggz
September 27th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I would say men telling women what to do with their own bodies “like they own her” is very Taliban-like. It reduces women into commodities or property.
Oh, so is it Taliban-like to tell men not to rape women? After all, that’s telling them what they can or can’t do with their own bodies.
Bobby – Oh I am sorry, are Mormons not Christians anymore? Mit Romney seems to think they are? All of Utah seems to think they are Christians?
The Mormons added a third testament to the Bible (the Book of Mormon) which they use as the interpretative authority over the Bible. It completely contradicts they teachings of Protestant/Evangelical Christianity and is not the same religion. They don’t even believe that Jesus is God, which is the very foundation of true Christianity. They follow a false Christ. Just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who’ve rewritten much of the Bible, again to change Jesus’ status as God in the flesh, to merely a man.
Does the Bible not say we should stone gays? Leviticus isn’t it? You know the biggest arguments against Christianity come right from your own book…
That would be an argument against Judaism, not Christianity. Christians live under the New Covenant (the New Testament) and we are no longer under the Judaic Law. Yes, the New Testament also says that homosexuality is an abomination to God, but nowhere in the New Testament will you find any commands to stone sinners. In fact, Jesus stopped a group of Jews from stoning a woman caught in adultery! He said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” After all the men had walked away, he said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
HotAir.com has an update on just how badly the Grayson camp distorted what was actually being said by Webster here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/video-the-context-behind-graysons-despicable-taliban-dan-ad/
The question I have is “How low will Grayson and his followers go?”
BTW – This looks like a case of Balaam told to curse the Jews but ended up blessing God’s people instead. When voters see what Webster was actually saying – Webster not only doesn’t look anything like the Taliban – but the exact opposite, there’s a far greater likelihood of their voting for him.
A woman gives up bodily autonomy every time she has sex. After all, the man is inside her. Can she engage in consensual sex and kill her husband while they make love? I’d like to see what a judge would say to her if she argued she had the right because he was in her body. Its such utter nonsense.
Thankfully the pro-life movement is gaining ground. Now the pro aborts are on the defensive. However this is only the start. Abortion must be outlawed. Lets all remember this statistic: One billion unborn babies killed so far by the abortion holocaust worldwide. One billion= One thousand millions=1,000,000,000. Just think of all these unborn children snuffed out.
Human Life International (HLI) estimated 1,600,000,000 (One Billion Six Hundred Million) human beings destroyed by abortion violence around the world since 1965.
These were ALL human beings, every last one. They all had human DNA, each one entirely unique. They were all products of human reproduction with a human father and human mother. When two living beings reproduce they reproduce ONLY a member of their own kind, another member of their same species. It is biologically impossible to produce any other type of living being.
Every one of them, barring any unforeseen circumstances, would have been born and would have grown up to be as we all are. They were human in every way and were living their lives exactly as required by their very nature and in exactly the way that all of us did when we lived through that same stage of existence (and every one of us lived through the unborn stage).
Opponents of unborn human rights do NOT have ANY arguments. Let me repeat:
Opponents of unborn human rights do NOT have ANY arguments.
Their “arguments” are all fallacies and outright falsehoods. They have, it would appear, a psychological and cultural need to have this violence available to make their lives easier. They appear unconcerned about the huge number of human beings they have killed. They are willing to twist and distort logic, tell lies and do violence to the English language to further their inhuman agenda. Their intellectual dishonesty and deceit appear not to trouble them.
They systematically dehumanize the tiny helpless innocent victims of their frightful and inhuman violence, calling them “fetuses” and showing no regard for their worth and inherent value as human beings.
If it is the last thing we ever do, we must defeat totally this evil movement and stop their unjust destruction of our fellow members of the human family.
Chris –
I was going to post the link to Hot Air too. I am not surprised at how Grayson twisted that quote and when it gets out to his constituents it will come back to bite him.
Bekah Ferguson – First you discount the Mormon 3rd testament and then try to say that your 2nd testament is of higher standing because it’s been around longer? Then I would say by your arguments that if Mormons are misguided Christians, then Christians are misguided Jews? Also I have never heard the book of Mormon described as an “interpretative authority over the Bible” I am pretty sure it’s another saga in the story of Jesus Christ himself, his continued adventures in the America’s if you will. You could learn a lot from Jesus when it comes to condemning people. That’s what the Anti-Choice movement does. Whereas we believe in equality and freedom for all people, and no a tiny blob of cells is not a person or even a human for that matter, not yet. Just like an egg is not a chicken, not yet.
Sydney M – That is the worst argument I have heard in a long time… Once again you are ignoring the obvious differences between an adult male “or his body parts anyway” and a tiny clump of cells. Your point about the judge or possible court case just doesn’t make any sense so I will leave that one alone…
Show me one picture of an Embryo whose face is smiling at me or in any way resembles a human being… You can’t because it’s just a tiny clump of cells and that’s the simple truth you guys will never be able to cover up with your emotionally driven fervor of disinformation.
Biggz
September 28th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Bekah Ferguson – First you discount the Mormon 3rd testament and then try to say that your 2nd testament is of higher standing because it’s been around longer? Then I would say by your arguments that if Mormons are misguided Christians, then Christians are misguided Jews?
Biggz,
The reason I and all other evangelical Christians discount the Book of Mormon is because it completely contradicts the New Testament. The New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament – it is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah who was prophesied about all through the Old Testament. Thus, Christians are “followers of Christ.” Jewish Christians are “Messianic Jews.” The Book of Mormon is completely illegitimate in relation to the Bible. It is a new/different religion altogether and incompatible with evangelical Christianity.
But anyway, back to the humanity of the preborn…
Whereas we believe in equality and freedom for all people, and not a tiny blob of cells is not a person or even a human for that matter, not yet. Just like an egg is not a chicken, not yet.
First of all, the majority of abortions take place between 7-13 weeks gestation (according to the CDC). These are fetuses, not zygotes or embryos. By this stage of development, the fetus has visibly developed arms, legs, fingers and toes, a face and a beating heart. These are the majority of abortions.
Secondly, you are comparing an embryo to a unfertilized chicken egg. How would you feel if you ordered a fried egg at a restaurant and they brought you a fried chick?
And speaking of embryos . . . did you know that an embryo has a heartbeat by 5 weeks gestation? Hardly a “blob of cells.” 5 weeks is right about the time that a woman notices her period is late (that is, if she has regular periods) and considers taking a pregnancy test. A woman with irregular periods may not realize she is pregnant until she is already 7 or 8 weeks along, by which time the baby is a fetus, not an embryo. (Again, refer to the CDC stat.) Even if a woman has an abortion within a week or two of a missed period, it is a biological human being, with its own unique set of DNA and a beating heart that is destroyed. What do you call it when the human heart stops beating? Human death. Abortion is the death of a human being.
Show me one picture of an Embryo whose face is smiling at me or in any way resembles a human being… You can’t because it’s just a tiny clump of cells and that’s the simple truth you guys will never be able to cover up with your emotionally driven fervor of disinformation.
Again, the majority of abortions take place between 7-13 weeks gestation. These are fetuses, not embryos. An ultrasound would indeed show you a human face.
“A woman gives up bodily autonomy every time she has sex”
Haha, now you’re starting to sound like Andrea Dworkin! One word: consent? A woman can, at any stage, tell the penetrating individual to…get out.
I am a big “blob of cells.” Does Biggz want to kill me?
I’m glad I read this post. I haven’t been following that particular House election very closely, and when I heard of the “Taliban Dan” commercial I thought it was gratuitous and offensive. Now that I know Mr. Webster literally allows for no exceptions to his hard-line anti-abortion stance, I find the moniker “Taliban Dan” to be perfectly fair, because his position is certainly one that comes from a religiously extremist mindset that has no room for practical considerations or human compassion. What kind of callous or evil person would force a woman to carry her rapist’s baby to term?
Joan wrote:
What kind of callous or evil person would force a woman to carry her rapist’s baby to term?
Maybe someone who doesn’t think that an innocent baby should be dismembered alive, for the crimes of her rapist father? Maybe you could also ask Rebecca Kiessling? As it stands, you’re proving only that you’re impulsive and judgmental.
Megan, I think the point is that “bodily autonomy”, while real and just (within sane limits), has never been absolute, nor should it be. I have no right, for example, to punch my next-door neighbour on the pretext of “bodily autonomy” (wherein I can do whatever I wish with my limbs, heedless of all restraint). When one’s “bodily autonomy” collides with someone else’s right to safety and life, one might at least slow down and compare the relative weights of the “rights”… and think the issues through (using sane reason/logic, rather than emotions, bumper-stickers and slogans).
Joan – go check out this link:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/video-the-context-behind-graysons-despicable-taliban-dan-ad/
If your depth of investigation into an individual’s principles is that shallow and your judgement that easily swayed by false claims, then you only have yourself to blame when others find your opinions worthless.
Chris – I find your response to be a very poor analogy. A woman has the right to decide what goes into or comes out of her body. The premise is that an unwanted pregnancy is something that the woman does not want in her body, so she removes it from her body. The same as she can with a man’s penis or I might do with a proctologist’s finger.
‘In fact – every salient claim of the mother on human bodily rights is denied with the willful destruction of her own child.’ – it comes down to a choice between her already existing rights to her own body and an altered state due to conception. Yes, yes, I know you will scream about ‘the new life’ but what I have said is what actually occurs.
‘Submisson to a husband is to accept the full consequences of unity in that relationship.’ – not in the modern era.
‘Of course, abortion-choicers distorted sense of relationships falsely frame marriage as a master/sex slave relationship.’ – this is far from true. This only happens within certain, um, doctrinal contexts.
‘That’s a perverted view of relationships outside the context the biblical passage actually describes.’ – scripture is far from the only authority on marriage and relationships.
The ‘Judeo-Christian view’ which you describe is a belief that you have. It does not appear to be the majority view. Nor is it compulsory.
‘Infidelity is the number 1 moral issue in the US today’ – I disagree, and anyway, I thought abortion was?
‘One cannot make claims to and about properties of their own humanity while simultanously rejecting those same claims by another human being – that’s irrational – and absurd’ – not at all. One must either choose oneself or subjugate oneself to the other. The one who was there first generally chooses themselves first.
‘A woman gives up bodily autonomy every time she has sex’ – no, Sydney M. She allows the entry to take place via her control and ownership of her body.
‘Can she engage in consensual sex and kill her husband while they make love?’ – probably not, she made the choice to allow him in, unlike in an unwanted pregnancy.
Paladin – ‘Maybe someone who doesn’t think that an innocent baby should be dismembered alive, for the crimes of her rapist father?’ – but it’s ok for the woman to continue to experience ongoing effects from a crime of power and have to live with an unwanted reminder?
‘I have no right, for example, to punch my next-door neighbour on the pretext of “bodily autonomy”’ – that sort of statement really is a gross misrepresentation of the whole concept.
Biggz, now I know for sure that you are not telling the truth. No one whose father was a Baptist minister would slip up and quote from Mormon and then follow it up with another comment that trips over itself even more.
You have slipped up but good this time. I don’t mind honest disagreements, but you are not honest, therefore your disagreements are just nonsensical noise.
But I will still keep you in my prayers.
‘A woman gives up bodily autonomy every time she has sex’ – no, Sydney M. She allows the entry to take place via her control and ownership of her body.
‘Can she engage in consensual sex and kill her husband while they make love?’ – probably not, she made the choice to allow him in, unlike in an unwanted pregnancy.
Ummm, she DID make the choice to let the baby in, when she chose to engage in sex. Fact: pregnancy can occur after sexual intercourse. Fact: all contraceptives have a failure rate. Are women empowered and intellectually capable of understanding these simple scientific facts? Pro-lifers think women can. Pro-aborts think women aren’t smart enough, or strong enough or responsiblie enough to handle it.
And abortion is not the answer to rape either. Anyone who thinks killing an innocent child is the way to solve a problem is bring more evil into the world. It is heroic to give birth after rape – women should be celebrated for being responsible and adult and decent and LOVING. And rapist should be the lowest of the low in society. How does hiding the rape by aborting the baby do any of that?
Cranium, when you say a woman can remove an “unwanted pregnancy” from her body that is just trying to shield the truth. Why don’t you say what you really mean? That you think women can remove unwanted babies from their bodies through dismemberment.
No she didn’t Denise. It was an unplanned outcome which happened while she was engaging in act which does not exist solely for the purpose of perpetuating the species. Fact: humans don’t come into heat and partake in intercourse once a month or once a season. Our sexual physiology and neurology is significantly different to that of other species.
‘Are women empowered and intellectually capable of understanding these simple scientific facts?’ – one would certainly hope so and the evidence is that the majority do. Thus we have contraception and abortion.
‘Pro-aborts think women aren’t smart enough, or strong enough or responsiblie enough to handle it.’ – that is so far from the truth that its not even amusing.
‘How does hiding the rape by aborting the baby do any of that?’ – it’s got absolutely nothing to do with ‘hiding the rape’. It’s to do with assisting the woman to survive the experience and not suffer on an ongoing basis. If a rapist breaks a victims arm, should she not get it fixed? Or is that ‘hiding the rape’?
Hey prolifers Seah Hannity did an excellent expose on the idiot Grayson taking Webster’s comments completely out of context tonight. Hannity played the entire tape of what Webster said at the church conference and of course it was just the opposite of Grayson’s ad. LIES LIES and more LIEs. He said he was “NOT going to quote the scripture about women submitting which is in the Bible to the women but wanted men to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave His life for it”.
It’s not possible to alleviate suffering “on an ongoing basis” for all SA victims or to reverse all “unplanned outcomes” that result from the crime of rape. A woman who’s in a wheelchair or who can’t return to her profession because of her injuries is going to face daily reminders and “unplanned outcomes.” For proaborts, it isn’t about post-assault trauma, it’s about using some post-assault women as pawns for their agenda.
Interesting update, Prolifer L, thanks!
Yes yes, infidelity represents everything that’s wrong with America, pre-marital sex too, blah blah blah. It’s clear that Praxedes is pretty shell-shocked from some nasty decisions she made 20 years back and probably needs some continuing therapy.
If the standard of morality is “waiting for marriage–whether that be at age 15 or 29–to have sex” because of concerns about STI’s, heartbreak, societal woes, what have you, then we have pretty low standards, indeed. Are we so incapable of putting respect into practice that we have to repress all sexual urges until we can presumably unleash them on our spouse? Here’s an alternative worldview: men and women enjoying the myriad joys of safe sex as they choose, respecting consent and taking precautions to protect themselves and their partners from illness, and discovering a great deal about themselves and how to relate to other people in the process. An ethical “sluthood” can be achieved.
Marriage can also be profoundly isolating. I have the comfort of being in a long-term relationship (on great terms with my previous partners, mind you) with the luxury of coming home to a house full of close female friends. I have my own job and pay my own bills, and while I share many interests with my partner, I have my own (which, unfortunately, don’t revolve around kids and housewifery). I’d rather eschew “submission” and the “full consequences of unity” (what the heck does that mean? consequences of unity? procreation on demand??), if that’s what getting married right now would mean. Could you make the whole affair seam a tad LESS appealing?
(Oh no! Atheists godlessness feminism paganism radical lesbian baby killer!!!!1)
cranium – I’ll put you down as begging the question – you are simply restating your conclusion as a premise: ”The premise is that an unwanted pregnancy is something that the woman does not want in her body, so she removes it from her body.”
Your second point:
“it comes down to a choice between her already existing rights to her own body and an altered state due to conception.”
is simply a restatement of your first point with slightly different words. Restating an invalid premise over and over again doesn’t make it true.
“Yes, yes, I know you will scream about ‘the new life’ but what I have said is what actually occurs.”
You can pat yourself on the back all you want – but I’m still waiting for you to show some reasoning behind your statement.
“One must either choose oneself or subjugate oneself to the other. The one who was there first generally chooses themselves first.”
You completely avoid my statement which has to do with the law of non-contradiction. The pregnant mother wouldn’t want to be judged and destroyed on the basis of the criteria she uses to judge and destroy her child. She doesn’t want to be considered property or within the bounds of another – subject to their vicarious whims/fallacious logic. That’s clearly discrimination – it’s hypocritical. You are essentially espousing “might makes right” – which is another fallacy – an appeal to force.
For someone who strongly claims rationality and logic, you show very little clear reasoning.
Cranium,
Frankly, I don’t know whether talking to you would be a complete waste of time, or not; you’ve been wearing your “troll suit” on this forum for weeks, now, and your penchant for replying to questions with topic-switching, insults, snark, and virtually everything except a fair and reasoned (and well-mannered) argument shows it. I did note, however, that you settled down and expressed some remarkable (comparatively speaking) civility with Bobby, on another thread… so here’s the deal:
If you agree to be sincere, patient and civil, and not resort to your “troll bag of tricks”, I’ll discuss this with you as much as you like. If, instead, you decide to default to your common practice of throwing contempt and flinging verbal “incendiary grenades” in all directions, then I’ll wash my hands of any such attempt. Your choice, friend; I won’t lose any sleep, either way… but life is too short to play with trolls.
Wow Paladin great points, I wish you luck. I don’t think cran will take you up on it but I could be wrong. Hard to break the habit when you’re used to trolling.
If it’s about bodily autonomy, why does the baby get dismembered? Why no medical care after the eviction? Also, please explain proper procedure when a person doesn’t want her born child anymore. Is the child dismembered before being thrown off the property? or does the mother have a responsibility to feed and house that child until he or she can be safely handed over to another responsible party?
Chris, let me see if I can make this clearer.
A woman has possession/ownership/power of her own body.
No-one can tell her to have sex or not have sex. No-one can tell her to take drugs or not take drugs. No-one can tell her who she will marry or not marry. No-one can tell her what to wear or not wear.
That is the premise.
Now, if she suffers an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, on what basis should her status change? Why does she not have the right to refuse something encroaching on her bodily ownership, the same as unwanted sex or marriage? Why does an unwanted fetus suddenly have ownership of her body and overnight her bodily ownership rights are declared null and void?
Really Paladin? How about you re-read some of these threads and assess the language with some balance. While I don’t really care what people here say to or about me, an honest assessment would demonstrate exactly who is casting the aspersions. I have already repeated some of Dr. Nadal’s ‘descriptors’.
‘If you agree to be sincere’ I am sincere, that is why I am here arguing an opposing view and comparing the evidence. Disagreement is not insincerity.
‘patient and civil’ – I will admit that I have had to improve my approach and I have demonstrated this in recent threads. It does get a little difficult when people ‘bait and switch’ or repeatedly misunderstand or misrepresent what I have said and attempt to twist my points to other aspects.
‘and not resort to your “troll bag of tricks” – what, like arguing the point or providing evidence for my case. Just because I disagree and you don’t like it does not make it a ‘troll bag of tricks.
‘throwing contempt and flinging verbal “incendiary grenades” in all directions’ – I reject your assertion. As I said, take another look and see who’s doing this.
Perhaps Biggotz or Cranus can provide with some hard evidence that supports the notion that conservative christians are the equivalent of jew hating mass murdering muslim extremists.
Where are burqa babes, the beheadings, the stonings, the public canings, the blown up buses, trains, planes and automobiles?
Where are the pictures of the proud parents of children suited up in their suicide bomber vests or the photos of the parents of now dead suicide bombers holding their $10,000.00 check from the ‘moral majority’ consoling/rewarding them for their loss/sacrifice.
The you know the problem with young terroists?
They blow up so quickly!
Paladin, hello Paladin.
see ‘yor bro ken’s’ comment – I rest my case.
Like I said, I’m not bothered by what is said about me – the assertion re christians and islamofascists is another matter – but don’t accuse me of mud slinging.
cranium
September 29th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Now, if she suffers an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, on what basis should her status change? Why does she not have the right to refuse something encroaching on her bodily ownership, the same as unwanted sex or marriage? Why does an unwanted fetus suddenly have ownership of her body and overnight her bodily ownership rights are declared null and void?
Hi Cranium :) I know you asked this question of Chris, so, I hope he doesn’t mind my butting in.
The reason is simple, but I won’t deny it is a tough pill to swallow. An unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy is an extremely difficult thing to endure. There is no denying that. But the reason a woman should not have the legal right to kill her baby is because a fetus is innocent and has committed no crime. It’s as simple as that. In the case of rape and/or aggravated assault in which her bodily harm or even death is intended and deliberate, a woman may legally kill her assailant as a matter of self-defense. But in contrast, a fetus is not attacking his/her mother, nor is he/she trying to kill his/her mother. The self-defense card can not be legitimately used; it is only a smokescreen for convenience. Especially in the majority of elective abortions.
Now you may point out that a pregnancy caused by rape could be extremely psychologically damaging to a woman, and I will agree with you. A woman in such a case would need on-going therapy and a huge amount of emotional support. For some women, however, a pregnancy caused by rape might have the opposite effect of bringing healing to the trauma she has suffered. It could (and does) go either way. Abortion due to rape and incest, however, accounts for less than 2% of all abortions. So, for the sake of this discussion – bodily autonomy – I think we should stick to elective abortions for the time being.
You may also point out that a woman who develops a life-threatening condition during pregnancy may also find herself in a position of “self-defense.” But this too, like rape, is a whole other ball park; and again, accounts for an extremely small percentage of abortions.
So, acknowledging that the majority of abortions are elective and that the unwanted fetus is not attacking his/her mother, is not trying to kill her, and has committed no crime, my question for you is: Why should such a woman be legally allowed to kill that innocent and defenseless baby?
Cranium, give it up. A fetus is just a nine-month boarder. The lease start date is conception. He’s an ideal tenant, though: relatively inexpensive to provide for, doesn’t request any special cooking. Usually he leaves the place exactly as he found it when he moves out–tip-top shape for continued renting. But unfortunately the lease is binding. If he’s a bad tenant, there’s nothing landlady/mommy can do. Maybe she can take up charges for property damage (the desire not to be pregnant, stress morning sickness, fatigue, gestational diabetes, hypertension, placental rupture, Caesarian section, episiotomy, post-partum depression, etc etc) when he’s old enough to spell his name.
Bekah, the point under discussion was ‘property rights’ for women of their bodies.
Well done, Bekah, but I expect to hear nothing but crickets now as we all know the real reason the hard cases are trotted out. Pro-aborts don’t want people to know that for each one of those cases they want to argue about, they refuse to discuss what happens the vast majority of times.
I always find myself gravitating to the side with the most regard for the whole truth.
Sheesh… give a fellow time to get “real life” responsibilities out of the way, what? I’ll try to reply sometime this weekend, but here’s a summary:
1) Don’t snark.
2) Don’t dodge questions with a shower of your own questions; answer, THEN ask your own.
3) Think before you post; don’t just fire off knee-jerk replies.
Try those, and keep working on civility, and I’ll be happy to discuss. But “discuss” doesn’t mean point-scoring; it means a mutual quest for the truth, and presenting that truth to a respected person (even if that person is an opponent).
More later…