Weekend question: If Obama thinks gays are born that way, will he sign legislation making it illegal to target them for abortion?
Time magazine says the “most dramatic” question asked of President Obama at the October 14 MTV townhall event was: “Do you think being gay or trans is a choice?”
Obama’s response:
I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love. And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.
The most obvious follow-up question: “Mr. President, if a gay gene is ever identified, will sign legislation making it illegal to target gays for abortion?”
Keith Riler at American Thinker recalled:
President Obama once opined that pre-born babies, and specifically their humanity, were “above his pay grade.” Something has changed, possibly his pay grade, because the President recently offered an opinion about the pre-born, specifically about their sexuality….
Now that pre-born issues are within the President’s pay grade, perhaps the abortion question should be asked again and the President’s relevant policies revisited.
President Obama repeatedly extols the use of science over ideology but seems to selectively apply that standard. There is no doubt about the humanity of a pre-born baby. A baby’s heart begins beating about 20 days, hiccups begin 52 days, and organs function eight weeks after conception.
There is some developing but inconclusive research about the biological basis for sexual orientation, focused on brain structure, hormones and twins/siblings. The settled science about babies’ humanity influences the President less than the developing science about sexual orientation. Might science simply be a tool in service of the President’s ideology?
What are some follow-up questions you would like to have asked President Obama based on his answer to the homosexual orientation question?
[HT: Robert King]
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.
Do you think being an alcoholic/drug addict is a choice?
I don’t know if Obama will change his view, but I’ve got to wonder about some of the hard right folks out there – I’m guessing there would be some pushes to test and abort.
“We don’t make determinations about who we love. ”
This statement is HUGE in its ramifications. Think about it from a theological perspective. If whom we decide to love is not a choice, then what exactly is the point of the human existence? Simply put, every honest Christian should be deeply offended by this comment.
“Love your enemies”
“Love the Lord, your God”
“Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
….
“Sorry Jesus, but I don’t make determinations about whom I love.”
———————
Calming down… Ok, let’s give BO the benefit of the doubt here – perhaps what he meant to say is that we do not choose to whom we are attracted. That’s fine – but BIG difference. Confusing love and attraction is EXACTLY what has this nation, especially Christians, in a total state of confusion as to how to address homosexuals.
———————–
To get more on point, though – I think we all know BO uses science as a discretionary tool. We do too, to our own degree. Let’s face it – with very limited exceptions – we all have our ideological beliefs, and it’s going to take an incredible amount of science to knock us off those systems. Science could prove certain people are predisposed to homosexuality, and people would still assert that it is a choice that you make. Science could prove that humans retain memories, thoughts and feelings in utero, and that wouldn’t budge pro-choicers. More of the same, is all I have to say.
I don’t think there are pro-life “ramifications” much. We’ve discussed this before and the consensus was that protecting and defending all unborn children means all of them, regardless of whatever other categories they may or may not fit into. I have forgotten who said it, but that quote about “continuing to oppose abortion even if a test is developed that identifies democrats in the womb” has the same idea attached. People have the right to life because they are human. There is no other reason. So I can’t see what homosexuality being a choice or not a choice would matter to the pro-life movement. Last I looked, gays were humans.
That said, I do agree with Riler that Obama is clearly muddling which science is settled and which is still the subject of debate. I would have liked to follow that question up with, “Would you support legislation prohibiting abortions sought on the basis that the child is gay?” Let him chew on that in the public eye.
“Would you support legislation prohibiting abortions sought on the basis that the child is gay?” Let him chew on that in the public eye.
That would be something to see.
There is as yet absolutely no way to determine whether a fetus will become heterosexual or homosexual. Children do not know anything about sexual preference when they are little. If there ever is, I hope that no parents will ever choose abortion if tests show that a fetus would be if born.
The idea that this could happen is frightening. Remember the movie Gattaca?
Saying that the fetus is “human” is meaningless,ditto that life begins at conception.
This will never stop women from having abortions. A desperately poor women who lacks the means to take care of a child she is bearig couldn’t care less whether her fetus is”human” or not or when life begins. Poor pregnant women don’t want to see their children growing up desperately poor and lacking indecent food shleter,and medical care. This is a traumatic experience for a mother.That’s why they have abortions.
Obama,unlike anti-choice politicians,has the intelligence to realize this.
Praxedes: I really hope you’re not comparing GLBT people to alcoholics and drug addicts, because if you are, it’s completely counter-productive for the civility of this site.
Alex: Not that I like Obama, but given the context it’s obvious he was talking about romantic love. While people can decide what to do once they realize they’re in love with someone, no, you don’t get to pick and choose who you fall in love with.
Obama may be a crappy president, but I don’t think he’d be quite foolish enough to sign legislation making it illegal to abort gay unborn babies. How would anyone determine which ones were gay or not? He was talking about what he thinks about why people have a sexual orientation, not claiming that he can prove it.
But, yeah, ignoring the proven science of when human life begins is despicable.
Yes, I should have prefaced that question with an “If a biological or genetic test is developed…” since that was what I was aiming at. My bad.
Marauder, I love alcoholics and drug addicts as much as I love GLBT people. I really hope you do as well.
I don’t understand why, if there is genetic evidence for inheriting a predisposition toward alcoholism, or obesity (tell that to Michelle Obama, cuz there’s more evidence for THAT than there is for homosexuality), those things should be treated differently.
I’m not trying to be a jerk about it, but I really am curious as to why we treat those issues as “societal problems,” but not homosexuality. I’ve never understood it, and I mean that sincerely, with no malice toward those who identify as homosexuals.
If someday some a scientist identifies “a certain makeup” for pedophilia, will we cease to “discriminate” against or prosecute pedophiles? If they’re “born that way” how could we expect them to behave differently? No doubt NAMBLA would rejoice.
This is the natural result of distorting our sexuality and trying to blame it on genetics.
We don’t make determinations about who we love.
Huh? So Jesus Christ saying “Love your neighbor as yourself” is meaningless – because it’s impossible to make determinations about who we love?
Wow.
How can Barack Obama make any statement claiming he’s a Christian when he outright denies what Jesus calls us to do?
My $0.02 worth…
I rather suspect that a main reason behind the “will you abort/not abort if a ‘gay gene’ is found?” question is to force politically liberal people to confront an apparent absurdity in their common position: “protect liberal sacred cows [including homosexuality] at all costs” vs. “never allow any limitations on abortion”. It’s a way for the pro-life argument to get a foot in the door, so to speak, of the pro-abortion house; a typical liberal would be hard-pressed to say “yes, it’s okay to abort for any reason, including an individual mother’s repugnance for homosexuality”, I’d think… and the resulting attempts to reconcile the two ideas would be… interesting, to say the least.
Marauder,
People seem to hate the comparison to alcoholism and obviously it’s not perfect. But it expresses an important distinction. People are born with all sorts of tendencies. Some are healthy, some are not. How those tendencies manifest in any given individual is a mystery of genetics and other unknown factors. A tendency does not define a person – all people are loved by God and should be loved by their fellow man. But that does not preclude us from identifying certain behaviors as harmful whether that behavior is alcohol/drug abuse or homosexual behavior. My intention is not to engage in a debate about that here, but just to explain a distinction that gets ignored. Think about how many people in your life do things that you think are wrong or harmful – you still love the person.
Ex-GOP – a true pro-lifer would never target anyone for abortion.
I would have simply asked why when life begins is above his pay grade but how homosexuality begins is not.
(And BTW there is a false dichotomy going on here: It’s not just between is it a choice or is it genetics. Aren’t we forgetting nature vs nurture here? I believe very few people would willingly choose to be homosexual because of all of the terrible struggles they have to deal with. But that doesn’t automatically mean they were born that way. Environmental factors in the child’s growth could have a lot of impact on the development of sexual identity and attraction.)
Marauder:
I put it to you that romantic love is also a choice. If it isn’t a choice, I think its wrong to refer to it as love. You can refer to it as an emotion, an attraction, a feeling, a tendency, “liking”, or a desire. But “to love” remains a decision that I can make – romantic, brotherly, familial etc. Using the word love any other way bastardizes the term.
Follow-up question to President Obama:
Could you please cite studies which support your viewpoint?
~ ~ ~
Paladin,
I agree with you. I doubt a discussion between pro-lifers and pro-choicers would get very far, because when pressed for a logical argument, it always comes down to the illogical: ”It’s a deeply personal decision, a woman’s choice”. Pro-aborts are equal-opportunity life-destroyers.
I have no idea if President Obama would change his stance or not. Hopefully, the culture will change, though, to accept all people, GLBTA or unborn, as equals.
Assuming that there is a gene that determines if an individual is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or asexual, I’m not sure that he would enact legislation hindering abortions- there is no law, for example, hindering abortions for gender reasons or if the baby has a condition like Down syndrome (that I know of). I speculate that he would push for more social change as opposed to legal change, because abortion is a slippery slope. I should hope that there would be no abortion for such a reason, but I doubt that it is genes that cause a man or woman to love “differently.”
Homosexuality, for example, is not limited to humans. It happens in several species, including chimpanzees, who are very closely related to us (genetically speaking). It happens. And many cultures have recognized it as a neutral thing, a negative thing, or a positive thing. There’s nothing horrible or sinful about it.
—–
On a sort of unrelated note:
I’m studying gestation in primates right now (I study odd things, I know). Large brains and high intelligence are staples of primates, especially apes, which is what humans are. My anthropology book discusses gestation time- apes, and especially humans, live long lives and spend the first few years of their lives growing massive brains. That’s why we have long gestations- the brain takes time. In humans, our gestation is actually cut short by the fact that we have narrow hips (for walking upright) and large heads- if the baby continues to grow in the womb past nine months, their brain is too big to fit through the birth canal.
And the brain is growing until twenty-something years past birth. Just something to chew on.
I should not have been so quick on my response earlier – this is one of the better questions we’ve had in a while. I think the issue could cause divisions on both sides:
– You’d have pro-choice folks who put abortion rights over other liberals who would say that the discovery doesn’t matter.
– You’d have gay rights folks who are pro-choice, but as a secondary issue. They could push for legislation saying you can’t have an abortion based on sexual preference, but then how could they argue without bringing gender, physical and mental handicaps, and even race into the discussion? Could be the start of the decline of abortion.
– You’d have the pro-lifers who put pro life ahead of everything else and would use it as an opportunity to push for an outright ban.
– You’d have pro-lifers who would support camp number two – a limited ban on abortion – because making that first step would be a big step.
Follow-up questions? Probably none – though I’d ask him if it gets frustrating to essentially step into a situation where a bunch of thugs have set a house on fire, and then sit back and criticize you for not putting out the fire fast enough and with the tools they like best. But that is probably an argument for a different post! :-)
Ex-GOP,
Spraying gas on a fire is not a good idea if your intention is to put out the fire.
Not going to get into why I don’t think homosexuality is wrong or harmful, as we’ll just go back and forth over and over and no one’s mind will change anyway. Consider it a standing objection. I’d also like to just mention that non-recovering alcoholics and drug users tend to be very manipulative, something that’s not characteristic of GLBT people on the whole, and that while you can be GLBT and be a virgin, you can’t be an alcoholic if you never drink alcohol, pre-disposition or not.
Assuming that there is a gene that determines if an individual is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or asexual, I’m not sure that he would enact legislation hindering abortions- there is no law, for example, hindering abortions for gender reasons or if the baby has a condition like Down syndrome (that I know of). I speculate that he would push for more social change as opposed to legal change, because abortion is a slippery slope. I should hope that there would be no abortion for such a reason, but I doubt that it is genes that cause a man or woman to love “differently.”
I agree, I don’t think the discovery of a hypothetical gay gene would lead to any legal action. (I don’t think it’s a gene, either – I think it’s probably related to either hormones in utero or some other aspect we don’t yet understand.) Obama and most vocal pro-choicers are so entrenched in the idea of abortion on demand for any reason that they won’t want to make any exception.
“We don’t make determinations about who we love” – unless you’re an unborn baby who is inconvenient-then we determine to murder you before birth. No double standard there, eh?
Actually Jill – I don’t see a double standard. Is it any different than when liberals slam conservatives about being 100% pro-life while bombing other countries?
Ex-GOP Voter October 16th, 2010 at 10:12 am
“I don’t know if Obama will change his view, but I’ve got to wonder about some of the hard right folks out there – I’m guessing there would be some pushes to test and abort.”
===============================================================
Now let me see…What kind of folk would be most likely to kill their own pre-natal children based on a test result that indicated the child was or would be disposed to homosexuality?
Why it would be the same kind of folks who are aborting their heterosexual children
when there is a test that indicates they are the wrong gender, or not perfect enough.
The same kind of folks who abort their child if they suspect he/she may have Downs Syndrome.
I am pretty sure the folks who recognize human life as something precious would be highly unlikely to kill their homosexual child en utero.
The majority of bigots are left of center politically, socially and spiritually.
Try interviewing self identified democRATs if are really interested in the answer to your question.
Robert Berger October 16th, 2010 at 10:22 am
“If there ever is [a test to identify a gene for homosexuality], I hope that no parents will ever choose abortion if tests show that a fetus [with a gene for homosexuality] would be… born.”
“Saying that the fetus is “human” is meaningless, ditto that life begins at conception.”
==============================================================
Bergrer,
Your statement was a little garbled, but based on your past musing I believe I have clarifed what you meant to communicate.
What difference does it make what the ‘pregnant woman’s motivation is if in your view the fetus is not human.
How is choosing to have parasite removed ‘wrong’ if you are motivated by the illusion that the parasite has an attraction to parasites of the the same gender?
Who really cares about justice for parasites?
Would identifying a pregnant cats unborn litter as ‘feline’ be meaningless.
I can see how you might view it as redundant, but identifying the species is not ‘meaningless’ thought it is a distinciton that is lost on you.
If tumors are not ‘alive’ then why do oncologists work so hard to ‘kill’ them.
There is no dispute that a new life begins at conception.
To claim that it does not is to refuse to acknowledge a clearlly proveable scientific fact.
Bigots seem to have problems with facts that contradict their bigotry.
Obama is pro-abort period. Any reason is a good reason to stop a ‘burden’.
Dear Ms. Stanek,
If you’re concerned about the potential for the widescale abortion of the gay unborn, why not create an environment where gay individuals don’t feel devalued?
If the rash of youth suicides in recent weeks is any indication, hate speech is starting to get to our nation’s kids. I expect the crazies on this website to mumble some nonsense about phases teenagers go through, the homosexual agenda, the sexualization of children, blah blah blah. Go tell that to Seth Walsh’s family.
What was that? Protection of preborn and postborn innocent life? Ah no, probably just the wind.
It’s becoming more and more apparent how very little you care about anything besides unborn babies. Besides token support for “crisis pregnancy centers” (which would benefit A LOT if you advocated for stronger social programs and policies), you do very little to help make life better for women and the children they bring into this world.
Sincerely,
Megan
Megan,
How does abortion make life better for women and the children they bring into this world? How about the children they snuff out before they draw their first breath?
I really don’t see how a person who advocates the deliberate murder of unwanted preborn children has any right to call the rest of us “crazies,” especially when she has murdered one of her own children.
To “blah blah” the homosexual agenda and the sexualization of children in TODAY’S society is to stick your head up your rear. Amazingly, it appears you can still hear the “wind” in there.
It is sheer insanity for the gays to make an alliance with the abortionists and to support the Democratic Party. If they develop a prenatal test for homosexuality, having abortionist Democrats in power will lead to the destruction of the gay community’s future.
Hillary is against sex-selection abortion. Almond and Eklund (Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census”) documented this in the United States, with 2000 census data. And we are about to get 2010 data.
If people will abort a child because it is a female, why would we expect no one to abort upon getting some evidence a baby genetically seems to be same-sex attraction?
Ninety percent of babies detected as being Down Syndrome are aborted, and the tests have a five percent error rate: therefore, five percent of the time, a non-Down Syndrome baby is aborted just for suspicion of having Down Syndrome.
People abort because they have plans to go to college.
What makes anyone think that, if a genetic profile for same-sex attraction could be determined, that people would not use it to abort?
As a society, we apparently do not care a whole lot anyway, and we will abort for any of a multitude of reasons.
As this stuff gets into the public discussion, we “progressives” and “liberals” will change our minds. We act like we are on the side of the down-trodden, the voiceless, the powerless. The disAbility movement and the same-sex rights movements will become leaders against abortion. Just like a lot of African-Americans are waking up to figure out the “liberal,” “progressive,” “democrat” leaders are just using tehir demographic group to make a victim class, but are all-too-happy to see black babies aborted at a scary rate, compared to white babies.
The democrtic party is getting fractured right now, this election season. Abortion is front-and-center one of the reasons. It was THE glitch in the final health care reform maneuvers, and still the left tried to avoid giving it airtime because they know how damaging the issue is, if brought into daylight.
The demo party will have more and more trouble bossing people around to voice half-way compromise vague position statements.
Megan’s point is well-taken. Christianity’s backwards ideas about homosexuality account for a large part of the rationale for why anybody would even consider having an abortion solely on the basis of knowing in advance, through some kind of testing in utero, that their child would be predisposed towards homosexuality. Speaking as a Christian, we all need to step up our game and do our part to make Christianity something that is fully compatible with a modern, civilized society. I think President Obama is a good example of what the modern, compassionate Christian should be; hopefully future generations will benefit from his example.
joan, Is it also Christianity’s backward ideas about females and the disabled that account for the large part of the rationale for why anybody would even consider to have an abortion solely on the basis of knowing in advance that their child will be female and/or disabled?
“I think President Obama is a good example of what the modern, compassionate Christian should be.”
Too bad it’s not about what you think. It’s about the Truth. Something you and Obama have a problem telling.
You cannot step up in a game you are unwilling to learn anything about. But I’ll keep praying for you to be open to becoming fully compatible with Christianity. (:
joan
October 16th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Speaking as a Christian, we all need to step up our game and do our part to make Christianity something that is fully compatible with a modern, civilized society.
That is not speaking as a Christian at all. I will let Praxedes and others who wish go into details, and I will simply say Galatians 1: 8 and II Peter 2, in its entirety.
Years ago, before medical science could prenatally screen for Down Syndrome, Down kids were born to all sorts of people. Today ninety percent of Down babies detected are aborted. Does anyone know how this might have changed the demographics of families with members who have Down Syndrome? I’ll bet a disproportional number of Downs kids are now born to distinctly pro-life parents.
If they ever develop a genetic profile for a predisposition to homosexuality…You can bet it will be the same group of people that are aborting Downs kids today that will be aborting homosexually inclined kids…and the people not aborting them will be the pro-lifers.
Since the number of people claiming a prolife identity is growing…the future of both Down Syndrome and the homosexual community should be secure. (Unless, perhaps, if a “cure” is found.)
Joan, both you and your fearless leader Barack Obama blaspheme the Holy name of Jesus Christ when you insinuate that our Saviour would not grieve over these desperate mother’s and slaughtered children. Society’s legalization of the killing of unborn children is an abomination. Tell me the part of Christ’s teaching that lead you to you justifiy ‘modern’ Christians commiting abortion?
Christianity’s backwards ideas about homosexuality …. Speaking as a Christian, we all need to step up our game and do our part to make Christianity something that is fully compatible with a modern, civilized society.
Joan – Are you serious? You are saying Christianity is backwards as compared to today’s society. You are suggesting we lower our morals to fit with society? Have you really looked at society today? How about creating a modern civilized society that’s fully compatible with Christianity?
“Maybe we’ll discover the gene that makes people right-to-lifers. Then we can selectively abort them!” -Nick at 9:12pm
Hummm, it follows that if a gene were to make one a right-to-lifer then the absence of that gene would clearly leave one a defective disabled pro-choicer. And these poor souls would be safely protected from discrimination in a pro-life family.
Because we do unto others as we would have it done to ourselves.
Funny how in the minds of some, sexual orientation (a term I have major issues with anyway) supposedly exists before the value of the life that it is attached to. Yeah, I’m the ‘crazy one’… ;-)
Joan – “Christianity’s backwards ideas about homosexuality”
…like using your male or female sexuality the way it was intended? How ‘backward’ is that? If Christianity is incompatible with any part of today’s society, Joan, guess which is wrong?
I think President Obama is a good example of what the modern, compassionate Christian should be; hopefully future generations will benefit from his example.
Yes, truly, compassion is aborting a child and leaving it to suffocate because the mother paid for a dead baby, and a dead baby is what she’ll get.
Every time I post the YouTube link here, it gets ignored, but here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgB74Y4c8YA&feature=related
Kel – Obama is standing on the political fence. He won’t give his opinion of when life begins (though science tells us it’s at conception), because he doesn’t want to anger the prochoicers. Without them, he has little backing.
As for adding an addional doctor, I’m not sure what he was referring to, but it sounds like it was a second opinion doctor who would give his opinion on viability? If so, that’s really sad that he would allow a viable baby to be killed, just to protect the decision of the woman and her her doctor.
Why would he need to, Jill? Are you going to start a movement to find the gay gene and promote the abortion of all gay and lesbian fetuses?
KM, Haven’t you noticed that Jill is part of the movement that will stop the killing of all unborn?
Wow. Your barking up the wrong tree here if your looking for a group to go along with your support of killing any unborn human for any reason to say nothing of your additional plans to kill specific groups like females, blacks, handicap humans and GLBT humans.
Why would he need to, Jill? Are you going to start a movement to find the gay gene and promote the abortion of all gay and lesbian fetuses?
…You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Kel,
There was existing legislation that would have mandated treatment of any baby Ms. Stanek supposedly found in a utility closet. BAIPA is a duplicate of the Baby Doe laws, and mandates that hospitals provide acute care to all patients. BAIPA was really just an overt attempt to chip away at abortion rights.
I doubt Ms. Stanek’s story. If she did find a child in a utility closet, shouldn’t she have brought the baby immediately to the NICU instead of holding it in her arms for 45 minutes? This doesn’t make sense.
I’ll repeat it again, for everybody’s benefit:
If you want to protect gay kids, stop the fearmongering, the ridiculous condemnation of gayness, the hate speech. Create an environment where kids feel loved and not compelled to commit suicide because of their sexual orientation. If you truly care about gay kids, and not just fetuses.
Heaven forbid one of your kids doesn’t turn out to be a raging queer, Kel, or Praxedes, or Carla. I’d be really amused to see that outcome. What would you do, pray it out of them? Beat yourselves up for having somehow encouraged it? Kick them out of the house? Do gay kids even COME from good, Christian families????!!
Megan, It is really hard to understand why you begrudge the compassion Jill showed to a child that you support the killing of. You say, “This doesn’t make sense.” How long have people tried to tell you that same thing? I’ll tell you again, Megan: Abortion doesn’t make sense. Jill would not have been put in the sad situation had an abortion not been attempted. This is not rocket science.
“Heaven forbid one of your kids doesn’t turn out to be a raging queer, Kel, or Praxedes, or Carla. I’d be really amused to see that outcome. ”
Is a raging queer different than someone who is just gay? What I find really amusing is the assumptions you have made about my family.
Megan,
All children are much better off in good Christian households. Christian households teach loving your neighbor. Love is Christian. Tolerance is Christian. Lust is not Christian. Lust for somebody of the same sex is disordered. God created Adam and Eve to procreation. God gave men [anuses] to deficate not so other men could have sex with them.
Megan,
I am quite sure that if we look at the people who bully other kids, we will find that they don’t come from ‘practicing’ Christian families. Obviously bullying is against Christ’s teaching on love thy neighbor. Obama is not a practicing Christian. He knows of Christianity as much as I know of giving birth. Meaning he knows the theory but he hasn’t personally experienced IT. Can he? I believe so, but his choice for the moment is to pay lip service. This is the attitude that creates a hateful environment towards the weak, such us unborn people, homosexual people, etc.
I don’t know why people chose to have a homosexual lifestyle. One of my best friends embraces it and although I will always consider him a friend (will help him if he needs me) his current choices have made me distance myself from him. He changes sexual partners every three or so months and he always looks for younger and younger men. I know of good traditional Catholic families that had to deal with that issue. What those families do? They pray for the conversion of mind and heart and they show acceptance to the family member as a child from God. However this doesn’t mean that they accept their lifestyle, which is not healthy in many ways. Just look at all the HIV infections among homosexual men, which make for most of the people infected with HIV in the US.
Megan I pray that you may convert and embrace the Truth and the Way of Our Lord Jesus…Stay close to Him!
Bullying is as old as the human race. Children have been and are bullied for being too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, for being a “different” race or religion. Adults bully each other. Gay people are by no means singled out as victims. Bullying is someone’s power trip and I believe we have all been guilty of it sometime in our lives.
I agree Mary. From what I see at the middle/high school levels, overweight and special ed. students are bullied far more than any other group of students. Some of these bullied students commit suicide as well.
All bullying is wrong.
Truthseeker,
I cannot help but take such issue with your comments that children do best in Christian households. Based on your previous comments, I imagine that to you the ideal home is one conservative Christian man and one conservative Christian woman. The ideal family has a nice home in suburbia and at least three children. Fine. That’s your ideal. I cannot change anything in your beliefs, nor can we afford to all think the same- variations in thought and belief are what make up that elusive, enigmatic concept known as human nature. Okay.
But I take issue with your sentiments that this model- one conservative Christian man and one conservative Christian woman- is best. That isn’t fair. What about Jewish parents? Or Muslim parents? What about two men? Two women? What if the parents are atheists or feel that their children can only believe in what they feel is right on the inside, even if it means choosing Buddhism or Hinduism? Are you going to argue that these parents are not as good or that these children will have worse childhood?
This is what makes a good family: love, in all of its forms, but most importantly, unconditional love; acceptance, emphasis on intelligence, open communication, variation, respect, mutual understanding, boundaries, a sense of place and culture, and a balance between individualism and family. That’s what is necessary for a healthy family, though this isn’t easy. But it’s my ideal. You can provide these things as a Jew, a Hindu, an atheist, a Christian, a single parent, adoptive parents, or lesbian parents. It doesn’t matter what you are. It matters who you are.
Again, I can’t change your mind. But I can voice my objections, and as a pro-life individual, hope work for change in society to accept all families in all of their forms. This would help women in crisis pregnancies- they won’t be slut-shamed for being single mothers or not fitting the Leave It to Beaver ideal.
I think we should start tallying up the number of minutes we spend discussing homosexuality on this site and find something productive to do with that time instead.
Off to make doll clothes for the already-born kids at the homeless shelter I volunteer at. You know, those already-born kids I don’t care about.
‘And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong’.
But death on the basis of not being wanted is ok, Mr Obama? Know that you are in my prayers, that your eyes will be opened to the TRUTH about unborn human life.
Marauder,
How neat! What sort of clothes do you make for the dolls? :)
“find something productive to do with that time instead.”
Marauder, thanks for disparaging love for truth about human biology as being something unproductive. Those who have left the homosexual lifestyle (and therefore the risks associated with it) would probably beg to differ. I don’t want to discuss this for any great length of time either, but when you expect blatant misuse of the human body to pass by unchallenged, even if this blog is mostly about pro-life issues, I think you need to reconsider.
Marauder 2:00PM
Amen and thank you. As someone who has no feelings for or against gay people I agree with you. How many crimes and perversions are committed by heterosexual men and women as well as gay? Have we not heard of some of the sexual escapades of our straight sports figures and politicians? What kind of messages do these antics send to young people? How many hetersexual parents aren’t fit to care for dogs? I remember reading the very moving account of gay people adopting and raising children who are drug damaged and/or infected with AIDS, thanks to their heterosexual parents.
I’m just confused about one thing Marauder. I thought once abortion was legal, there would be no social problems such as homeless children. You are to be commended for you volunteer work.
Mark Rabich,
I respect your perspective on this. I would recommend reading accounts by prostitutes of every strata in this country if you want to discuss the blatant misuse of the human body. Their customers are mostly married heterosexual men who’s kinkiness and perversions are limited only by their imaginations.
Er… Mary, I hate to joust with you again, but: the fact that heterosexuals sin sexually (which no sane and observant person would deny) has nothing especially to do with Mark’s point about homosexuality being a derangement of human sexuality, one way or the other.
I second Mark’s point: it’s true that this blog is mainly about stopping abortion; but it’d be myopic (at very best) to think that all other derangements of human morality (especially when dealing with human sexuality) are verboten. All derangements of human sexuality are more closely intertwined than we think, in fact: anything which seeks to vivisect human sexuality with “pleasure/emotionalism/sentiments” on one side and “procreation of children/morality/self-control” on the other will inevitably lead to the culture of death that we see before us.
I’m not advocating for every thread to be dominated by the topic of same-sex attraction disorder, mind you; but I don’t think it needs to be crushed underfoot, every time it appears on a thread on this forum, either.
Paladin,
I’m bringing up the point that derangement of human sexuality is not limited to homosexuals. I’m not disputing Mark’s point, only that perversion is not limited to homosexuality. If we’re going to discuss sexual perversion then let’s cover every aspect of it.
Since time began humans, homosexual and heterosexual, have found many a way to get their deviant sexual thrills both inside and outside the bonds of marriage.
There’s a reason why prostitution is the world’s oldest profession!
Mary,
I can’t argue there. Wow… shortest joust in history! :)
Hi Paladin,
Darn, and I was rarin’ to go! :)
Vannah said:
“I imagine that to you……”
Vannah, lets bring this discussion of Christian love out of your imagination and back to reality for a while. Maybe you could keep yourself in reality long enough to respond to tell me which specific part of Jesus’ teachings and example of love for one another you imagine to be unhealthy for children to be exposed to. And then tell me which loving tenet of the Jewish or Muslim or atheist “faith” that Christian makes you imagine Christian parents children are nneglecting to teach their children.
Vannah said:
“I imagine that to you……”
Vannah, lets bring this discussion of Christian love out of your imagination and back to reality for a while. Maybe you could keep yourself in reality long enough to respond to tell me
1)which specific part of Jesus’ teachings and example of love for one another you imagine to be unhealthy for children to be exposed to.
2)which loving tenet of the Jewish or Muslim or atheist “faith” makes you imagine Christian parents are neglecting to the detriment of their children.
I never said that Christians make poor parents or that being a Christian parent is detrimental to children. I said that it is unfair to declare that children do best in Christian homes. Children do best in loving homes, regardless of the religion of the parents- the parents can be Jewish, atheist, Christian, Hindu. What matters is who you are.
And you don’t have to put “faith” in quotation marks. Muslims are faithful; Jews are faithful; Christians are faithful. It’s not “faithful.”
A parent’s religion informs how he/she raises his/her child, yes, but you can’t declare an upbringing better because the parent is Christian. Being a Christian doesn’t guarantee a great upbringing anymore that it guarantees a poor upbringing. It’s the same with all beliefs (well, technically atheists and agnostics lack belief, but you know what I mean).
“I said that it is unfair to declare that children do best in Christian homes.”
I think it is unfair to declare that Christians believe that, “The ideal family has a nice home in suburbia and at least three children.”
“Being a Christian doesn’t guarantee a great upbringing anymore that it guarantees a poor upbringing.”
But being a faithful Christian does.
“A desperately poor women who lacks the means to take care of a child she is bearig couldn’t care less whether her fetus is”human” or not or when life begins. Poor pregnant women don’t want to see their children growing up desperately poor and lacking indecent food shleter,and medical care. This is a traumatic experience for a mother.That’s why they have abortions.”
If this were true, we wouldn’t have young, single, poor, mothers having multiple kids out-of-wedlock.
Mary,
:) Yeah… my lance is getting rusty, too! Oh, well…
“Homosexuality, for example, is not limited to humans. It happens in several species, including chimpanzees, who are very closely related to us (genetically speaking).”
Chimpanzees are not “very closely related to us (genetically speaking).”
They are just closer than anything else. Semantically this sounds like splitting hairs, but genetically there is a chasm, not a pothole, separating humans from chimpanzees. Lions and tigers are very close genetically. They can interbreed. Humans and chimpanzees cannot because the genetic distance is huge.
I’m not a geneticist, so I’m not sure how close that the relation is, but chimpanzees are closer to us than other species like gorillas- that’s what I meant. It was poorly phrased, though. Sorry. I think that I was watching a video on YouTube and typing at the same time.
I’m very fascinated by apes and other primates for the time being. It’s my current topic of interest. I was watching videos of bushbabies earlier. Yeah…
Vannah said:
“And you don’t have to put “faith” in quotation marks.
Vannah,
Notice that the list you gave and I repeated included atheists’. You must have imagined that atheists was not included in the list, thus you did not see any reason for the parenthisis around faith. And as you stated yourself later in you response “It’s the same with all beliefs (well, technically atheists and agnostics lack belief, but you know what I mean).” So you are arguing with me about a quote around the word faith but you but you understand agnostics and atheists don’t have faith. Ugh
And I agree that raising children to be Christian is no guarantee of how a child will turn out as a person. But that is because we all fall short as followers of God. And the tenets of Christianity as taught by Jesus are fundamentally present in the actions of all good peoples and should be taught to children in the all homes wether they confess Jesus as their Saviour or not. I attribute this to the Holy Spirit who transcends all faiths.
Truthseeker,
That’s my error. I missed the word atheist. I only saw where you mentioned Judaism and Islam and so that’s my mistake. Sorry!
“A desperately poor women who lacks the means to take care of a child she is bearig couldn’t care less whether her fetus is”human” or not or when life begins. Poor pregnant women don’t want to see their children growing up desperately poor and lacking indecent food shleter,and medical care. This is a traumatic experience for a mother.That’s why they have abortions.”
What desperately poor women? In the US? Are you high?
We have minimum wage laws, welfare, Medicaid, etc. There are no desperately poor women.
“Heaven forbid one of your kids doesn’t turn out to be a raging queer, Kel, or Praxedes, or Carla.
Hi Megan,
Don’t you mean DOES turn out to be a raging queer?(Is that what homosexuals prefer to be called btw??)
Hmmm. I have a feeling that you would find it hilarious! :)
My children know that nothing they ever say or do would change my love for them.
No worries. They have all been properly indoctrinated. Muwhahahhahahaha
Good discourse. I love Jill’s response to BHO’s comment “We don’t determine who we love, unless we are an unborn baby…” and Becca’s reponse “But death on the basis of not being wanted is ok, Mr. Obama?” You guys rock. On the homosexual “gene” they have still not been able to PROVE that it is in the “genes” and not the “jeans”. LOL. Probably good to note that we pro-lifers stand for life regardless of the race, socio-economic status, cultural background, disability or sexual orientation of all babies. What did Dr. Suess say “A person is a person no matter how small”. Life, what a beautiful choice. We don’t believe in following the mandate of Margaret Sanger the founder of PP by getting rid of “the unfit, human weeds”.
hippie
October 17th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
What desperately poor women? In the US? Are you high?
We have minimum wage laws, welfare, Medicaid, etc. There are no desperately poor women.
Then who are those women I see on the street all the time when I go downtown? The city keeps removing the homeless shelters, and rejecting plans for new ones because of the rich jerks of the city and the city council with their NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) responses, since they claim the shelters will lower property values around the area.
People keep claiming that there is enough to help the poor in this country. However, Mother Teresa came to our diocese and scolded our bishop, saying that there weren’t enough programs or people helping the poor here. She said the poor here were the poorest poor she had ever seen. The bishop asked how much a person should give, and Mother Teresa answered, “Give until it hurts,” then stuck a pin in his hand to prove the point.
I agree that no kid should be bullied. But an effective strategy to curb bullying is to touch on the root of the problem: size-ism, classism, racism, homophobia. It isn’t enough to tell kids to “play nice,” but to tell them WHY their speech is hateful and misguided. Also, I find it interesting that CHRISTIAN groups like “Focus on the Family” are blocking anti-gay bullying in schools. http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-bullying-schools-txt,0,4777448.story
Doesn’t seem very Christian, but what do I know compared to the deep insight and erudition of the faithful like Truthseeker, Praxedes, etc?
My question is: why do you care about gayness, if you’ve all so carefully indoctrinated your children to choose otherwise? (Don’t be so sure, Carla; eldest son is looking a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitle effeminate. Better strap on that football helmet, and quick!). HIV is obviously a huge concern, but gay men responded to the crisis and demanded access to better prevention efforts and widely-available treatment. Safe sex efforts have helped curb the epidemic. And really, anybody having sex should be cautious. Oh wait, unless you’re a married woman.
(Also, in arguing that “gay men” are at a higher risk for HIV than other people: maybe you could offer some insight into the issue of HETEROSEXUAL women contracting AIDS at a rapidly-growing rate, many from their partners or husbands: http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=90775
Or comment on the fact that women who primarily have sex with women get fewer STI’s?)
Oh hay Truthseeker, few quick questions:
Does God have anything to say about the specifics/logistics of marital sex? Like, which positions aren’t kosher? What about role-playing, does that not fly? What if a married woman initiates anal sex–does God frown upon that? Or what if a woman only has procreative sex but never gets preggers–is her infertility a curse or something?
Respond quickly, thanks!
Megan
If you want to protect gay kids, stop the fearmongering, the ridiculous condemnation of gayness, the hate speech.
First of all, I don’t hate gay people. When I read about the suicide of the young man who had been bullied because he was gay, I was appalled, and moved to tears. I have gay friends. Many have struggled to leave that life and one was even ostracized by certain churchgoers I know. And I cried with my friend, because he was hurting. Later, when he came back to church after a long absence, he was telling me about the destructive relationship in which he was involved. I did what any friend would do – listened, cried and prayed for him. So you have no right to accuse me of “hate speech.”
Create an environment where kids feel loved and not compelled to commit suicide because of their sexual orientation. If you truly care about gay kids, and not just fetuses.
I’m betting it wasn’t “Christian” individuals who bullied these gay kids to their deaths. And I care about all kids, including those yet to be born, which is more than I can say for you, Megan.
Heaven forbid one of your kids doesn’t turn out to be a raging queer, Kel, or Praxedes, or Carla.
How exactly is using the term “raging queer” NOT dehumanizing or defamatory? Calling a gay person by that term, to me, is really hurtful. And it came out of YOUR mouth, not mine.
I’d be really amused to see that outcome.
Why exactly would that amuse you, Megan?
What would you do, pray it out of them? Beat yourselves up for having somehow encouraged it? Kick them out of the house? Do gay kids even COME from good, Christian families????!!
I’d probably react the way many parents act upon receiving that news, Christian or not. The mother of one of my gay friends (she was an atheist, btw) told me she grieved when she found out he was gay because she had hoped for grandchildren. She grieved it, but she also had great love for him. My husband and I went to her wake when she died from complications of a stroke. We went to support my friend. Even though he is an atheist and I am not, I have a great deal of love for him. You don’t know me, Megan. Your hate and mocking, toward Christians AND gays, are absolutely palpable in your post.
Mary 5:04 – so true!!
Megan,
Just throwing my two cents. Read “The Good News of Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. It will be a good start for the questions you have. Personally I don’t see how a woman initiating anal sex will make her feel loved. I believe that most women want to be slowly discovered and are more interested in connecting with their spouse than in positions, role-playing games and such. I really don’t know why would someone put more emphasis on such things that are not that quite important. But that is just me.
Don’t be so sure, Carla; eldest son is looking a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitle effeminate. Better strap on that football helmet, and quick!
I’m waiting for Marauder to call you out on this hideous comment here. You do know not all gay men look “efffeminate,” right?
Can I call this “hate speech?” Huh? Can I?
I thought the term was ‘raging queen’ not ‘raging queer’, or is it ‘screaming queen’? I can’t remember. Or is that just the ‘hair bears’, I dunno. I like the fact that my gay friends know the best restaurants and are very generous and hospitable.
Anyway, to get back to the start. I don’t think that many people with a pro-choice mindset would want to abort a planned pregnancy if they found out the fetus could turn out to be a gay person. It could be ironically amusing that some (just some, with a certain mindset) may be horrified at the chance of having a gay child but would not accept abortion under any circumstances. What a dilemma!
Yes Kel,
I would call that hate speech! All Megan has is hate speech. Especially for Christians. So much for tolerance, eh Megs?
Cran,
So you think proaborts would NOT abort if they found out their fetus were gay?
Interesting.
Good morning, Megan, 11:08a:
1. You wrote: “There was existing legislation that would have mandated treatment of any baby Ms. Stanek supposedly found in a utility closet. BAIPA is a duplicate of the Baby Doe laws, and mandates that hospitals provide acute care to all patients. BAIPA was really just an overt attempt to chip away at abortion rights.”
This was President Obama’s reason #3 for opposing BAIPA while a state senator (http://ow.ly/2V5Q7). Response: IL AG Jim Ryan found Christ Hospital was breaking no law. BAIPA is certainly not a duplicate of Baby Doe laws. BAIPA merely defines that a born baby – no matter what gestational age or reason for birth – is a constitutionally protected human being. There were no penalties attached to BAIPA. If BAIPA were a duplicate, then it would not have passed unanimously in the US Senate (including pro-abort Sens. Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.), or on its 5th try in the Democrat controlled IL General Legislature – and signed into law by Democrat pro-abort Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Although BAIPA was put forward to protect babies against infanticide, I say, so what if it were introduced to chip away at abortion laws? Are you saying you support abortion to the point you support infanticide?
2. You wrote, “I doubt Ms. Stanek’s story. If she did find a child in a utility closet, shouldn’t she have brought the baby immediately to the NICU instead of holding it in her arms for 45 minutes? This doesn’t make sense.”
The baby I held was between 21-22 weeks old, too young to resuscitate. If I were lying, why has Christ Hospital never sued me for defamation? But Christ Hospital admitted it aborted babies alive. Chicago Sun-Times, 3-31-01: “A spokesman for Christ Hospital’s parent, Advocate Health Care, said it provides ‘compassionate care’ for its patients and estimated that between 10% and 20% of fetuses with genetic defects that are aborted survive for short periods outside the womb.”
Thanks, Megan.
“Carla; eldest son is looking a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitle effeminate.”
Perfect example of who the bully here really is. If you were at the high school I’m at and I heard you say this, we’d be making a trip to the principal’s office and making a call to a parent. I have zero tolerance for ANY bullying.
Your attempts at turning the tables doesn’t work. Your hate still comes out loud and clear. Try to stop projecting your hate onto others Megan.
*rubs sleep from eyes*
Vannah: Right now I’m trying to figure out Barbie doll clothes patterns, because those are the dolls the shelter has that have different outfits. (There are some baby dolls too, but their clothes don’t come off.) Most of the current Barbie doll clothes are older ones that people donated, so they look kind of funky in an early nineties way. I finished knitting a little pink scarf last night and I’ve got a purple dress cut out that hopefully I can have sewn together in the next few days.
Mark: No matter who’s right and who’s wrong, discussions about the causes and morality of homosexuality have always been completely futile on this site. No one ever changes their minds and everyone on both sides just repeats the same arguments over and over again.
Mary: It’s interesting, because by the time families leave the shelter, they’ve got a new place to live arranged by the housing coordinators who work there. Fewer homeless kids without making it fewer kids, period.
Megan: As much as I disagree with some other people here about homosexuality, I can’t imagine any of them ever kicking a kid out of the house for being gay. I don’t know if your “effeminate” comment was meant to be mocking or sarcastic or what, but it sure as heck wasn’t civil, polite, or helpful to anyone, including you.
Perfect example of who the bully here really is. If you were at the high school I’m at and I heard you say this, we’d be making a trip to the principal’s office and making a call to a parent.
Agreed. This is the sort of thing that bullies say to kids. http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=91MFC1NU
Oh hay Truthseeker, few quick questions:
Megan, the quick answer is that scripture and the the Holy Spirit are the guides for Christian conscience (and like Carla recommended to you; Christopher West did a lecture series on this topic based upon Pope JPII’s teachings on the matter). You could listen to some of it and find out what the Pope taught as guidance for Catholic Christians.
Just because a poor young person killed himself and it went on fire in the news media doesn’t meant we should treat homosexuality like a sacred cow, which is what is happening today. What makes ANY person feel so hopeless they want to kill themselves? That’s what needs to be addressed. Is the so-called straight person who feels hopeless some how less of a person because he or she has not experienced gay bullying?
And megs, abortion is the ultimate form of bullying.
So, Mr. President, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “place of residence?”
Obama: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love. And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.”
So, he actually admits inadvertently here that certain types of elective abortion would be wrong. If it could be proven there was a gay gene and some people began aborting fetuses with the gay gene, this would be “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” which Obama says “is wrong.” So, what about sex-selection abortion and aborting fetuses with special needs and/or physical disabilities? That sounds like discrimination, too. Are these abortions “wrong,” as well? We must take everything to its logical conclusion. Obama suggests (by association) that aborting prospective homosexuals would be “wrong” but he still supports elective abortion. Does this mean he supports certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances? If so, how is that not a self-serving double standard?
Excellent point, Bekah.
Nick, it is not a gene that makes people right-to-lifers; it is the Holy Spirit.
I don’t know about that, there are prolife people that are Jewish, Hindu, and even atheist.
Megan, you say that Jill does nothing about the social problems that lead to abortion. How do you know this? Do you know her personally?
As for Obama — even my liberal Jewish ex-husband is turning against him. He’s just not an effective leader. There’s a good chance that he might be remembered as “Jimmy Carter Jr.” It’s a shame, because people had such high hopes for him.
Romans 2:13-16-
For it those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Amy said,
“Then who are those women I see on the street all the time when I go downtown? ”
I am guessing they are mentally ill. Because if they weren’t they could just get a job and a roommate or two and make ends meet like lots of other people do. People with no money move to the US. They can’t even speak English and they manage to get jobs, apartments etc. Use your brain. A normal person can get a job and apply for food stamps etc if they need it. It is drug addicts and mentally ill folks that can’t stay employed and off the street.
Just because a poor young person killed himself and it went on fire in the news media doesn’t meant we should treat homosexuality like a sacred cow, which is what is happening today.
Right. Gays are no better (or no worse) than anyone else. They shouldn’t be demonized, but they shouldn’t be put on a pedestal, either.
Treat everyone with dignity and respect!
Hi Carla, yes I do. I don’t have any data to back my opinion but I honestly believe if I had a look it would support what I’ve said. Liberals versus conservatives maybe?
People who are pro-choice are probably more likely to support gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, gay adoption and would be comfortable with their child having an openly gay teacher.
People who are anti-choice may be slightly more reticent about these matters.
Therefore, if a pro-choice person chooses to have a baby and finds out during their pregnancy that the fetus may turn out to be gay, they may not be as ‘alarmed’ or ‘disappointed’ as some elements of the anti-choice people. Dichotomous really.
Wjhoever here said that we do not have a lot of poverty here in America,and for that reason,women should not have abortions is totally out of touch with reality.
In fact.,there is a great deal of poverty,and many anti-choice politicians want to
to get rid of all or most government programs for the poor and think that this will make everything hunky dory. What idiots ! This is a recipe for catastrophe in America,and a much higher abortion rate,more and more women dying from illegal abortions,children being left without mothers etc.
Yes,some women on welfare have a lot of children by different fathers and this is very bad for society. But many poor pregnant women don’t get this, and there isn’t even remotely close to enough help for them in the private sector.
And adoption might work in some cases,but it’s not a cure all.
We have to provide much more help to poor pregnant women and the poor in general to lower the abortion rate. Stopping abortion altogether is a total impossibility.
What you follks here at jillstanek.com advocate is poison for America.
America is now in dire economic straits,mostly because of the disastrous economic and social policies of the Bush administration. And we may be electing politicians who will be far worse soon. This does not look good for the abortion situation.
Robert: Why are you so fixated on poor women and abortion? Many middle class and wealthy women have abortions too.
And who said that social programs for the poor should be eliminated? Not everyone here is a conservative Republican.
Phillymiss,
What would the connection be between conservative Republicans and eliminating social programs? I know of no conservatives, Republican or otherwise, who do not agree that those legitimately in need of help should be helped. As a conservative I give to a number of charities that I personally know and trust. Keep in mind that trillions was spent on the gov’t run “war on poverty”. Need I say more?
Also, it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were determined to keep black Americans ignorant and dependent second class citizens and Republicans who fought them every inch of the way. Black Americans themselves fought the obstacles set up by Democrats to establish schools, businesses, prosperous neighborhoods. churches, and farms.
Also Phillymiss, its been my experience that those anxious to see poor and/or minority women on the abortion tables are not conservative or Republican.
Eobert Berger,
Would you please name and directly quote the “anti-choice” politicians who want to get rid of social programs for the poor?
BAIPA:
"(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards."
And, according to “generally accepted medical standards,” set forth by the Baby Doe ammendment, an order of no resuscitation is permissible when:
” (i) The infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose; (ii) The provision of such treatment would merely prolong dying, not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant’s life-threatening conditions, or otherwise be futile in terms of the survival of the infant; or (iii) The provision of such treatment would be virtually futile in terms of the survival of the infant and the treatment itself under such circumstances would be inhumane.”
You’re right. BAIPA wouldn’t have actually done anything to prolong this infant’s life, since “generally accepted medical standards” do not recommend resuscitation for infants born < 22 weeks gestation
(More guidelines: http://www.aap.org/nrp/pdf/2005ilcor/ethics/Ethics.JG.07Dec04.FinalA.pdf).
Since BAIPA didn’t lower the gestational age/birthweight qualifying an infant for aggressive treatment, and the law didn’t contain a provision for the creation of a perinatal palliative care program, the law does nothing…except, of course, continue to demonize abortion.
How many women actually underwent the intact dilation and extraction (before it was criminalized)? Less than 1% of women seeking abortions each year. And for what reasons? Clear and present threat to the woman’s health, death of the fetus, or severe abnormality–most of these pregnancies having been wanted. Imagine the traumatic loss of an infant, and then the doctor telling you they can’t deliver the fetus intact because of some anti-choice legislation outlawing D&X. That’s compassion?
Ah, a clever jujitsu. Now I’m intolerant because I strongly dislike conservative Christian rhetoric. Clever lot you are.
Christianity has a lot to offer humanity, but not when its teachings are selectively interpreted to suit a conservative agenda. Corinthians prohibits homosexual acts? Well, Corinthians also gives fathers control over their virgin daughters, allowing them to decide whether these girls can marry or not. Among other (impossible to enforce) regulations of sexuality.
I reserve the right to speak out against Christians when Christian interest groups to to effect public policy. Focus on the Family opposes anti-gay bullying legislation. While nobody should be bullied in schools, our wider public culture condemns gayness and denies gay people material resources, like the right to adopt, marry, etc. There is more force behind a racist, sexist or homophobic remark because the deprivations asociated with this bigotry are real and material.
My gay cousin his estranged from my good Catholic aunt and uncle because they refused to accept his gayness. No, they didn’t outright excommunicate him from the family, but relations turned frosty when my cousin refused to “renounce” his gayness. He now lives halfway across the country with his long-term partner, making good money as an engineer. But his relationship with his parents is a wound that will never heal. My family will never reap the benefits of having raised such a good kid because they allowed this one aspect of his identity to overshadow everything positive he has/had done.
I speak from experience when I say that Christian ”tolerance,” i.e. “love the sinner but not the sin,” is a way to cloak revulsion and holier-than-thou attitudes in supposed compassion. I also love when parents act like gayness is a death sentence, or are upset because “they’ll never have grandkids.” If you’re worried about your child’s safety, PROTECT them. Hear out their fears of living in a society that hates gayness. Talk to them about practicing safe sex. And as far as visions of a perfect family–rework your expectations. How selfish can you be as a mother/father/potential grandparent? Adopted children should be just as much as a blessing to a family than biological kids.
And for the record, I am close with local queer communities and queer communities from college. Many of my friends are gay. Gayness doesn’t begin to capture any person’s wonderful spirit, personality, preferences, interests. It is one facet of identity. Parents need to chill out–gay hysteria is ridiculous.
Imagine the traumatic loss of an infant, and then the doctor telling you they can’t deliver the fetus intact because of some anti-choice legislation outlawing D&X. That’s compassion?
Megan,
Sorry to say, but you are very confused. Click on the link, “Obama”, at the right for the facts on BAIPA.
Hi again Cranium,
IF they discover a gay gene that can be detected in a fetus by amnio you believe that proaborts will become prolife?
Megan,
Since you have an issue with Christian groups affecting public policy what do you think of Dr.Martin Luther King leading a civil rights movement from the church pulpit? What do you think when the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson are giving their input?
Does this cross all religious lines? For instance, can Jewish groups have any say? How about Muslim or Hindu? Do you have an issue with the fact that Quakers were so active in the anti slavery movement and were the first to organize against slavery?
Religious groups have a long history of affecting public policy in this country. When should they keep quiet and when should they speak up?
I think we are at obtuse points Carla.
If a pro-choice person falls pregnant, their first question would be ‘did I plan this? If not, do I want it?’
If they decide to proceed with the pregnancy they will undergo the usual regime of tests possibly including gender. If there is a test for ‘gay’ they may decide to have that test just so they know, the same as gender tests. Or they may decide that they’ll be happy with what they get, the same as with gender.
You appear to be alluding that a planned abortion may be stopped if they find out the fetus is gay. If they plan to have an abortion I don’t think they’d know or care if it is gay or not.
So no, pro-choicers won’t become anti-choice.
‘Colonel Harumph’ on the other hand, who is anti-choice, homophobic and extremely socially conservative all round; may find himself in a difficult conundrum.
Marauder: “everyone on both sides just repeats the same arguments over and over again.”
The difference between you and me is that I answer your arguments whilst you ignore mine. Explain to me again why this site – which presumes to tell the truth about abortion – should censor the truth about homosexual behaviour?
The irony you cannot see that many of your frustrations with the pro-choice side you are in fact mirroring precisely when the subject shifts to this. You are willing to discuss what abortion is in detail, but not homosexual behaviour. But truth is what it is. Homosexual behaviour is unnatural to the human body as is terminating a pregnancy.
Megan: “Now I’m intolerant”
No, those who are anti-Christian are usually the intolerant ones, nothing new here. That’s been going on for centuries. Christians generally like peace and conversational persuasion directed by the Holy Spirit, as is described in the Bible and Jesus exemplified. Violence has occurred, but this is not sanctioned by God, nor is it as common as your bigotry.
“selectively interpreted”
There is not one single endorsement of homosexual behaviour in the Bible. Not one. And plenty enough of commands not to do it (although you would only need one, especially in the New Testament). Who is being ‘selective’ here? Oh, that would be you.
“I reserve the right to speak out against Christians when Christian interest groups to to effect (sic) public policy.”
You must really hate many of the founding fathers of the USA then. Funny how the freedom won for you you abuse by denouncing the source of. Your argument is almost as invalid as saying “There is no such thing as absolute truth” but apparently that sentence would be absolute then…
On a more general note, I really advise people to rethink how they speak and think of homosexuality. The Bible does not recognize sexual ‘orientation’ beyond being male and female. Homosexuality or heterosexuality is something you do from your sexual identity, so it cannot logically be identity. So many sentences here (even from those who argue against it) contain this faulty assumption:
For example:
“Last I looked, gays were humans.”
“making it illegal to abort gay unborn babies.”
“whether a fetus will become heterosexual or homosexual.”
“all gay and lesbian fetuses”
“protect gay kids”
“aborting their heterosexual children”
“Gay people are by no means singled out as victims.”
etc.
If you are paying attention carefully, you will realize that the presumption of identity neutralizes any condemnation as it becomes personal attack on self rather than for what it actually is – a statement about the immorality of certain behaviour. Addressing just the first example above, the valid response is that whilst it is true that some humans engage in homosexual behaviour, humans are not made to engage in such activity. What is wrong is to respond, “Of course they’re human…etc.” That admits the fallacy without challenge and the argument is effectively over.
If you consider homosexuality wrong, you should not continue to use the language of the activists because it skews the game in their favour. You will forever look evil to them because they can paint it as rejection of someone rather than something someone does – like breaking a window. Someone who engages in homosexuality actually has nothing to fear from someone who condemns the behaviour because they only do it out of the knowledge of what human dignity is supposed to look like – and that doesn’t include anal sex.
Now, I’m sorry if some find my tone a little acerbic – it is not my intention to offend – but I bristle when people hide behind slogans to condemn the very actions they are themselves engaging in – ie. intolerance, coercion, lies, hatred, insults, etc. Megan is a poster child for such tactics. I have been threatened at work merely for writing a short letter to the newspaper upholding the family unit as the cornerstone of society – not a controversial statement really, but apparently it was to my boss who took exception to it the next day and read me the company policy on such matters. fyi, I don’t care that much what people do behind closed doors – they have that freedom – but I do care very much when it gets shoved in my face to change public policies and institutions without justification. Or becomes a thinly veiled threat in my job. Megan, you are plainly avoiding talking about the reality of homosexuality, which is that it is infertile and often unhealthy. It is not ‘neutral’ nor remotely ‘positive’. (to Vannah) People who think that such activity is immoral should not be forced to pay for that freedom abused to act immorally. Let them pay their own bills – unless I already have a personal relationship with them (or a specific calling). But let not the government make it policy. In this respect, it is not much different than abortion.
Jill’s original topic highlights the problem when truth is ignored on any issue. The lie just keeps getting bigger and more complicated and lives are affected in many ways. This is a pro-life site, and I want to respect that, but the foundation of this site must be truth if it is to be effective about pro-life issues. Allowing obvious major errors about anything else to proliferate – especially when they actually have a strong link in terms of the misuse of sexual behaviour – would be extremely incongruous.
Thanks for reading, sorry about the length, but I think it was required.
I don’t understand why, if there is genetic evidence for inheriting a predisposition toward alcoholism, or obesity (tell that to Michelle Obama, cuz there’s more evidence for THAT than there is for homosexuality), those things should be treated differently. I’m not trying to be a jerk about it, but I really am curious as to why we treat those issues as “societal problems,” but not homosexuality. I’ve never understood it, and I mean that sincerely, with no malice toward those who identify as homosexuals.Kel
October 16th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Well, try wrapping your head around this concept. Maybe homosexuality is Not A Problem. Alcoholism and obesity are problems. I wouldn’t want my child to be an alcoholic or obese.. I wouldn’t mind one bit if my child were gay.
Or, Hal, perhaps it IS a problem, but people just don’t want to be politically incorrect and say so. The research is out there on how sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) is harmful, but you can just continue to ignore that and carry on with your life as you see fit. And I will do the same.
And how very interesting that you find alcoholism and obesity to be problems, but not marijuana use and not abortion. You know, abortion, the taking of innocent human life because it happens to be conceived at the “wrong time?” So glad you wouldn’t mind if your child were gay. You just mind if your child is conceived at an inconvenient time for you. Got it.
If you are paying attention carefully, you will realize that the presumption of identity neutralizes any condemnation as it becomes personal attack on self rather than for what it actually is – a statement about the immorality of certain behaviour….
If you consider homosexuality wrong, you should not continue to use the language of the activists because it skews the game in their favour. You will forever look evil to them because they can paint it as rejection of someone rather than something someone does – like breaking a window.
Thank you for pointing this out, Mark. I often fall into the pattern you mentioned without meaning to. And on one site, I was actually verbally assaulted because I dared to call homosexuality “a lifestyle.”
Cran,
It’s called eugenics. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.
I heard a comedian once. He said, “Oh yeah, I’m prolife. Except for those two times.”
Do not dig any farther and get yourself all worked up about what I am alluding to, dear Cran. Sometimes I just like to think and type out loud.
If a pro-choice person falls pregnant, their first question would be ‘did I plan this? If not, do I want it?’
If you are speaking for all prochoicers then I must say that is chilling. Really.
The difference between you and me is that I answer your arguments whilst you ignore mine.
What arguments? I’m done arguing about homosexuality on this site because it’s a waste of my time. At this point I’m just registering objections so I don’t feel as though I let this site give off the impression that pro-lifers are all opposed to homosexuality/bisexuality as well.
Regardless of whether you’re the horse led to water or I’m the horse led to water, it’s clear that neither one of us is going to drink.
“Or, Hal, perhaps it IS a problem, but people just don’t want to be politically incorrect and say so”
Kel, I agree.
Great post Mark.
In the same way that I reject the behaviors of those who lead young people into drug use or into killing the unborn, I also reject the sexual behaviors that caused a teen boy I loved to die of AIDS.
And I support the behaviors that also keep the young gay adults I know free from AIDS: protection, regular visits to the doctor, testing, and partner honesty.
Homosexual lifestyle? What is heterosexuality then but a lifestyle? I don’t support State involvement in promoting it, then. Get married all you want, but I don’t want the government to attach special benefits to the institution. Creates a privileged class.
No, the Bible doesn’t actively promote gayness. But it also enjoins women to be submissive to their husbands, to play the role of “helpmeet.” How many times in the history of Christianity has this passage either been interpreted too literally/used to perpetuate violent male patriarchy? I guess women of my mother and grandmother’s generations were just a bunch of whiners when they spoke out against the society engendered by the Biblical notion of female subordination. You know, that ideology that kept women from finding fulfillment outside the home, speaking out against oppression and domestic violence, accessing contraception, planning their childbearing, and generally being treated as first–not second–class citizens.
Megan,
Why are you always shoving Christianity down our throats??!!
Megan
October 18th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Well, Corinthians also gives fathers control over their virgin daughters, allowing them to decide whether these girls can marry or not. Among other (impossible to enforce) regulations of sexuality.
Please cite the Corinthian verse that says fathers can forbid their daughters to marry, because that’s news to me. :)
As for “impossible to enforce regulations of sexuality,” the Apostle Paul was not laying out a lawbook, he was laying out guidelines. For example: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). This is a choice that a Christian must make if they wish to maintain purity; they choose to flee from sexual immorality. Nobody is *enforcing* anything. :)
“And how very interesting that you find alcoholism and obesity to be problems, but not marijuana use and not abortion.”
I don’t find alcohol use or marijuana use (by adults) to be a problem. Alcoholism, or over use of marijuana can certainly be a problem. (Neither alcohol nor marijuana should be banned by the government, but that’s a different thread)
“The research is out there on how sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) is harmful, but you can just continue to ignore that and carry on with your life as you see fit.”
I would advise both heterosexual and homosexual people to avoid “harmful” behaviors. We might draw the line differently, but I think we basically agree with that. However,iIf you’re implying there is something inherently “immoral” about homosexual behaviors, then you and I disagree fundamentally.
Carla
October 19th, 2010 at 6:57 am
If a pro-choice person falls pregnant, their first question would be ‘did I plan this? If not, do I want it?’
If you are speaking for all prochoicers then I must say that is chilling. Really.
Carla, you hit the nail on the head. The chilling thing that IS happening is that EVERY pregnancy is somehow up for debate. Family members talk openly about whether the mother “ought to be having that baby at all.”
Jill’s original query was, would Obama be willing to compromise his super-duper-pro-abortion-on-steriods position in order to please his homosexaul political supporters?? It is an interesting question, that none of the pro-abortion advocates here have properly addressed. Instead they have set up their usual line of straw men to shoot down.
Still wondering how a woman “falls pregnant.”
Whoopsies. Slipped and fell and now I’m pregnant. What to do. What to do.
Hal, do you believe there is anything which can be considered “immoral?” Do you believe there are any heterosexual behaviors which are harmful and sinful? Is there such a thing as sin?
There is no thing as sexual sin, unless partners do not value mutual respect and honesty that would ensure the other partner’s safety.
Megan
October 19th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
There is no thing as sexual sin, unless partners do not value mutual respect and honesty that would ensure the other partner’s safety.
So, therefore, you admit there IS such a thing as sexual sin.
By your definition, any sexual activity that does not value mutual respect and honesty and the safety of the partner, is a sexual sin. I can think of countless sexual activities that would fall under such a definition.
Mary: first of all, I’m an Independent. I’m not crazy about either party. I am critical of both conservatives AND liberals. I dislike the way the Democrats take the black vote for granted.
I am sorry if I offended you, and I didn’t mean to insult ALL conservative Republicans, but there are SOME that do oppose social programs to help the poor, and are pretty insensitive and yes, I do think SOME are racist. You should read some of the comments on conservative boards I read about Obama — calling him monkey man, referring to his wife as a gorilla, etc. This is just uncalled for.
As for bullying — Hal mentioned that he would see it as a problem if his child were obese. Many people really, really despise fat people. Its the last acceptable prejudice. Obesity runs in my family (I have a brother who weighs over 300 pounds) and it’s not always as easy as “just stop eating.” Now that I’m older I have to really be careful about what I eat, because I have the genetic disposition to be overweight.
Obese children are often terrorized in school. One young man even killed himself over this. Isn’t this as bad as picking on kids because they’re gay? Yet, I don’t see any celebrities speaking out about teasing overweight kids, or any overweight child who committed suicide because of bullying on the cover of PEOPLE. Why is liberal compassion so selective?
Obese children are often terrorized in school. One young man even killed himself over this. Isn’t this as bad as picking on kids because they’re gay? Yet, I don’t see any celebrities speaking out about teasing overweight kids, or any overweight child who committed suicide because of bullying on the cover of PEOPLE. Why is liberal compassion so selective?
Great and very valid question. Perhaps being overweight isn’t currently considered as glamorous or “in” as being homosexual. Obese people just aren’t up on the trends, I guess…
But still the pro-choicers do not adequately address the simple premise: if people could choose to abort based on homosexuality, would Obama then agree to restrictions on abortion? Would you?
The pro-aborts have tried to brow beat straw men about tolerance and how wonderful gayness is. Megs, since there is no such thing as sexual sin, as long as a 40 year old guy is honest and sweet to a 10 year old boy, then its ok right? Or as long as a 30 year old man is honest and sweet to his 13 year old girlfriend and makes her hot cocoa after the coerced abortion, it’s ok right?
Answer the basic question, abortioneers, would you support restrictions on abortion if it were affecting babies that had the not-found gay gene?
Jill did not start a discussion about the merits or dangers of homosexuality but nice of you all to keep deflecting.
“Hal, do you believe there is anything which can be considered “immoral?” Do you believe there are any heterosexual behaviors which are harmful and sinful? Is there such a thing as sin?”
If by “sin” you mean violating a rule decreed by a divine entity, than there is no such thing as sin. I do believe there are lots of things that can be considered immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example. Lying, (in most circumstances) for another. Theft, murder, rape, etc. I’m sure we might find a lot of things we both consider “immoral.” I don’t see anything more immoral about homosexual activities than heterosexual ones. Both can be quite good, honest, loving and fulfilling. Both can be something quite worse.
“Answer the basic question, abortioneers, would you support restrictions on abortion if it were affecting babies that had the not-found gay gene?”
I would not support such restrictions. I also don’t think Obama is doing much of anything to suck up to the gay community. So, although I can’t speak for him, I doubt he would support such restrictions either.
Hal wrote:
If by “sin” you mean violating a rule decreed by a divine entity, than there is no such thing as sin.
(??) All right… I’ll bite: how do you prove that objective claim?
I do believe there are lots of things that can be considered immoral.
I see. Do you have a rational basis for that belief, or is it a mere opinion/facet of personal taste (such as your taste for or against olives)?
Cheating on your partner, for example. Lying, (in most circumstances) for another. Theft, murder, rape, etc. I’m sure we might find a lot of things we both consider “immoral.”
That’s just it: “considering” something to be immoral doesn’t settle the issue, since many people consider such things to be morally licit (e.g. it’s okay to steal, kill or rape if you’re “getting back at someone who hurt/offended/’dissed’ you”, etc.; the Saddam Hussein regime had institutionalized rape rooms, if memory serves… so rape was apparently legal, and it was considered “morally acceptable”, provided that the target was hand-picked from state enemies). If you and I agree, it might have no more moral significance (or relevance) than would a mutual distaste for anchovies.
I don’t see anything more immoral about homosexual activities than heterosexual ones.
If one is a complete moral relativist, then that follows… though, such a person would have thrown out all basis for calling anything “immoral” at all (save as a euphemism for “I don’t like that” or “I find it icky”).
Both can be quite good, honest, loving and fulfilling.
Given a purely sentimental (and therefore faulty) definition of “love”, perhaps; otherwise, you’re quite off-base. Love is a CHOICE, not a feeling; love is a free choice to sacrifice of oneself for the best good of another person, no matter what the cost to oneself… and that requires knowledge of what’s truly the “best good” (and not mere opinion).
Seriously: on what do you base your morality? Rasmussen opinion polls? Supreme court decisions? What?
Paladin, if you don’t think gay people can “love” (using your definition) than you’re not qualified to offer any opinions on morality.
As to your other questions, there are philosophers who grapple with those sorts of issues. I have no real interest in the subject. Are you suggesting there is some objective moral code that would convince me that there is something immoral about gay people falling in love? (I’m sorry, making the choice to be in love) I doubt it. I do tend to think there is an objective, non religious, way to define morality. I think Sam Harris has a new book on the subject. He does:
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
. (haven’t read it. Like I said, it’s not a discipline that interests me)
Kel, I don’t support bullying of any type, of course, but it seems that some victims are more fashionable and acceptable than others.
Here’s an article about the subject. It’s kind of long but interesting: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/721233
Special ed. kids are often picked on. My son has learning disabilities and though he wasn’t directly bullied, these kids usually feel “different” — they go to school on a separate bus and kids now that there’s something “wrong” with him. The older they get, the harder it becomes for them. Perhaps that’s why he dropped out. My daughter, on the other hand, went to a creative arts school where there were quite a few “weird” kids, so nobody really singled them out. It was a great school.
I would like to know about bullying involving foster children. They too often feel different, especially when other children know that they’re foster children. Seventy-five percent drop out of school. isn’t that heartbreaking?
Well anyway, my daughter is a senior this year in college and she has a job interview today, so please pray that she gets it!
Hal wrote: I also don’t think Obama is doing much of anything to suck up to the gay community.
Biggest LOL ever. Had I been sipping my coffee, I would have spit it right out!
Right ninek, because sex between a 30 year old man and a 10 year old boy, legally nonconsensual, is absolutely the same as sex between two consenting adults. Gay marriage is legal in certain parts of the US now–is anyone trying to decriminalize pedophilia, or legalize marriage between humans and donkeys? You can trot out all the old slippery slope arguments, go ahead.
Ninek,
this is from current Newsweek:
Obama has now repeatedly angered the gay-rights advocates: first by refusing to undo DADT himself, then by vociferously defending the law in court, and now by appealing the ruling and asking for it to be stayed. “Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush administration,” says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.
Hal wrote: “I also don’t think Obama is doing much of anything to suck up to the gay community.”
That is not what b o’s ireggie says.
Definition of MORAL
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
Welllllll, if we promote homosexuality it will reduce the number of abortions.
That is what b o said he wants to do.
Observation: This one posting by Jill generated over 130 comments.
is anyone trying to decriminalize pedophilia
You’ve never heard of NAMBLA?
“Welllllll, if we promote homosexuality it will reduce the number of abortions.”
Except you can’t “promote” or “not promote” homosexuality. You can’t make more of the gays by “promoting” it. There will be the same numbers. maybe they’ll be more visible, but there wont’ be more of them. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you’ll have to work with the heteros. They’re the ones doing it.
The big Barry O. appointed a NAMBLA member to be his (gagging while I type this) School Safety czar. But that’s not all that made Hal’s comment so darn funny.
And megan, I’m not trotting out anything. Planned Parenthood has been protecting pedophiles for at least 4 decades by aborting the children of children and not reporting the malfeasance to the proper authorities. I wish those were slippery slope arguments. Unfortunately they are a daily reality. But, Megan, you still didn’t answer the question: would you restrict a woman from aborting her baby because it had the so-called gay gene?
Ninek:
The poet Alan Ginsberg was a member of NAMBLA. There is a movie about him called “Howl” from the name of his famous poem, but knowing this about him makes me not want to see it.
Also, I used to love the movie “Wizard of Oz” until I read that the author of the books, Frank L. Baum, hated Native Americans so much that he believed in completely exterminating them. I guess you have to separate the artist’s flaws, from his or her art, but I really don’t enjoy watching that film too much anymore.
Ninek, I don’t think Kevin Jennings was a NAMBLA member. If you have evidence of that, I’ll take a look.
Hal, if Jenning’s own words aren’t proof enough, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m sorry that I didn’t steal the membership card out of his wallet. However, abortion is still murder whether you like Jennings or not.
Phillymiss, I met Ginsburg shortly before his death. It was a shame about his particular bent, because he did have a gift for spoken word. Also, Judy Garland’s mother decided not to have an abortion even though the family was having a hard time when she got pregnant with her, so maybe that will soften the effect of the film. Baum was a real pro-woman guy, ahead of his time, but I’ve not read about his prejudice against native americans. I will have to look into that. However, a lot of writers have skeletons in their closets, so it’s a hard call. Creative people may or may not have a strong moral compass. I find it hilarious when actors and comedians expect us to espouse their political views simply because they entertain for a living.
“Right ninek, because sex between a 30 year old man and a 10 year old boy, legally nonconsensual, is absolutely the same as sex between two consenting adults.”
Megan, there was a time when a large percentage of the population totally believed that abortion would never become legalized.
Except you can’t “promote” or “not promote” homosexuality.
Baloney, Hal.
It’s a lot like the old question, if you could go back in time and shoot Hitler to prevent World War 2, would you? The question was meant to make people think about whether they would resort to murder or not.
This is similar. Homosexuality is beside the point, really. Would you allow a woman to abort a child that had characteristics that not all of us would find unpleasant? Some people have Down’s syndrome, and we’ve already heard from pro-aborts who think they’re better dead than alive. But gay? Now, most of us think that gay people can hold jobs, and be independent, so that makes them not a burden. But truly, if pro-aborts want a woman to have the right to kill her child for any reason, then they must accept it if she wants to abort a gay child. Otherwise, they are on the slippery slope toward being pro-life. Oh, the horror!
An aquaintence said to me (not knowing I was Catholic) that all Catholics would be pro-choice if the baby were the anti-christ. I corrected her, “The anti-christ is still a creature made by God, and as such, it is not our place to decide the child’s life or death. It is up to God, therefore the child must be allowed to live.” She turned about three shades of purple she was so mad!
isn’t it Massachusetts that has KINDERGARTENERS being read a book called “Heather has two mommies” or a similar book? That sounds like promoting homosexuality to me. I don’t think 5/6 year olds need to be exposed to that sort of thing.
Liz: Considering that Massachusetts has gay marriage and considering that there are lots of same-sex couples who have kids, it’s not realistic to think that little kids won’t be “exposed” to it. It’s like unmarried couples living together. You might not approve, but it’s not something you can keep away from kids.
If you want to know whether Heather Has Two Mommies “promotes” homosexuality, why don’t you read it?
Hi phillymiss,
I wasn’t insulted, just annoyed. Like you, I am an Independent totally disgusted with both parties. I did not elect my representatives to slap each other on the back in smoke filled rooms and shove their middle fingers in my face.
I have no doubt you have read many despicable things. That’s the world we live in and always will. What about liberal Democrat Bill Clinton suggesting to Ted Kennedy that Obama would have been serving him coffee? Think there might be a tinge of racist stereotyping there? Good grief phillymiss, do you see how conservative women are attacked and reviled by liberals? How viciously religious people are attacked? There’s one poster here who refers to them as “fundies”. I consider that the equivalent of calling Jewish people “hebes”. Sorry, but bigotry and racism know no boundaries.
I can remember how liberals howled when federal funding for abortions was cut off. Its so much cheaper to abort than to support a child for 18 years. What a taxpayer bargain. That’s compassion? I suspect, in fact I know, there was more than just a tinge of racism in all this liberal ”concern” for poor women because I heard it first hand.
Given the history of the Democrat Party phillymiss I can’t understand why they would have your vote, or any black American’s vote, much less be able to take it for granted.
Hi Ninek,
Your question is really dumb, that’s why I haven’t cared to answer it yet. But since you continue pressing, I’ll entertain you.
I don’t like the idea of sex selective abortion, but I am equally opposed to fighting for the rights of women at the level of other women’s bodies, because it defeats the entire purpose. Also, I don’t know how one could realistically–and lawfully–institute bans on abortion for certain reasons. Have women answer a questionnaire? Tap their phone lines in case they reveal the “true” and illegimate reason?
Additionally, the potential outcome of finding a gene that “codes” for gayness and being able to test for it in the womb would be dependent on the nature of the test. At which point in the pregnancy would the test be available? Makes a big difference in determining if women would abort, or be able to do so. And I’m sure the cost of the test–an elective procedure with no real health benefit–would be prohibitive, making the issue of sexual orientation-selective abortion a problem confined to certain societal sectors–namely those who could afford the test\, or would even want it performed.
“isn’t it Massachusetts that has KINDERGARTENERS being read a book called “Heather has two mommies” or a similar book? That sounds like promoting homosexuality to me. I don’t think 5/6 year olds need to be exposed to that sort of thing.”
Liz, would you feel this way even if the 5/6 year old already has two moms or two dads? Don’t you think they might already know. What it’s promoting is not homosexuality, but acceptance of homosexuality. Makes sense to me, especially to start young before the kids have formed irrational prejudices.
And what’s wrong with being “exposed” to loving couples raising children. My girls were “exposed” to gay couples since they were born. They both pretty into boys, nonetheless (too much, if you ask me).
Ninek, Jennings’ words were that a 15 year old boy who was having a relationship with an adult should “wear a condom.” He wasn’t a member of NAMBLA, and he said he should have acted differently. This was decades ago, and he admitted his mistake. You can disagree with his appointment I suppose, but spreading the NAMBLA lie is unfair.
Wow. Abortion rights uber alles. Well, good to know.
Personally, I like my babies alive, thank you very much.
Hal, he’s admitted it, but I’m not spoon feeding you. Obama certainly does suck up to all his campaign contributors.
If they discovered a liberal gene then libs would start aborting anybody who didn’t have it. But conservatives would not abort libs. Liberals do not respect the God given equality of all peoples. I don’t think thats a gene. Its more a lack of right-minded decision making abilities.
Hal, where does abortion fall on the liberal morality meter? Is it as bad as stealing or lying?
Megan
October 19th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Also, I don’t know how one could realistically–and lawfully–institute bans on abortion for certain reasons. Have women answer a questionnaire? Tap their phone lines in case they reveal the “true” and illegimate reason?
If it is agreed by liberals that aborting fetuses with a gay gene is “wrong” (however reluctantly they might agree) because it is discrimination against homosexuality, then it logically follows that they must also agree that aborting for sex-selection and physical/mental disabilities is discrimination as well, and also wrong. At this point, the question begs to be asked: Is it okay to kill human beings as long as they have no defects, the wrong gender, gay gene, etc? Would this hold up in court? “Ah yes, I killed my neighbor because he was so annoyingly normal and just plain inconvenient.”
But a pro-abort is never going to admit that abortion for reasons of discrimination is wrong. Why? Because then they would have to admit that a fetus is a human being and a person deserving of human rights.
It’s the slippery slope to being pro-life! :>)
ninek
October 20th, 2010 at 8:44 am
It’s the slippery slope to being pro-life! :>)
Truly the only logical position anyway. The mental gymnastics to maintain a prochoice stance must be exhausting…
Hal wrote:
Paladin, if you don’t think gay people can “love” (using your definition) than you’re not qualified to offer any opinions on morality.
(*sigh*) Hal, I know you have strong opinions on the subject… but would you please consider this reasonably? That sentence of yours was about as concentrated an example of illogic and pure opinion as I’ve seen in quite some time.
First: nowhere did I say that “gay” people can’t love in the true sense. When such a person self-sacrifices to help (for example) a parent or child in need, they may well be “loving” in that sense. But for you to suggest that sexual activity between two “gay” people can ever constitute “self-sacrifice for the best good of another” is nonsense… especially since you apparently find the “best good for another” idea to be an irrelevant mental dalliance. With no coherent idea on (or interest in) the topic, it’s rather presumptuous of you to try to “look down from on high” at me (or others) on that topic. No… you need to give some hard thought as to the “summum bonum” and what it means, or you’ll simply be blowing opinionated smoke.
Second: your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise; if (hypothetically) I thought that “gay” people were incapable of love (and I do not hold that at all; it was a wild assumption on your part), that would not render me incapable of moral judgments, much less make me “unqualified to offer opinions” (which was a stunningly arrogant claim of your own).
Third: the whole sentence was quite obviously your mere opinion.
As to your other questions, there are philosophers who grapple with those sorts of issues. I have no real interest in the subject.
See above. How can you consider your own opinions to have any weight, if you scorn all critical thought about the primary principles of the matter? It’s a bit like saying, “I will offer mathematical opinions, but I find the study of mathematics to be uninteresting and not worth my time.” Do you truly expect to be taken seriously on this topic, with an attitude like that?
Are you suggesting there is some objective moral code that would convince me that there is something immoral about gay people falling in love? (I’m sorry, making the choice to be in love) I doubt it.
I doubt it, as well; given a free decision to reject [x], not even the finest and most transparently obvious objective moral code in the world would convince you of [x]. You have no desire to accept such a code; therefore, you will not (regardless of its soundness)… especially since you apparently can’t be bothered to examine any such codes (since you find them so uninteresting). Convenient, that.
I do tend to think there is an objective, non religious, way to define morality.
That is most certainly true, and there are many such examples… most of them false. But I would politely ask that we restrict ourselves to moral definitions which are objectively *true*.
I think Sam Harris has a new book on the subject. He does: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. (haven’t read it. Like I said, it’s not a discipline that interests me)
Then I’ll trust you to read it sometime (if it ever interests you enough to merit such), and then we can discuss it. Until then, it seems rather a waste of time to bring it up.
Megan wrote, in reply to Ninek:
Also, I don’t know how one could realistically–and lawfully–institute bans on abortion for certain reasons. Have women answer a questionnaire? Tap their phone lines in case they reveal the “true” and illegimate reason?
Come, now. How would “hate crimes” be enforced? The answer would be similar, I’d wager. If you’re saying that the law wouldn’t be very good at stopping people who are dead-set on killing an unborn child (and are willing to lie in order to do so), you’d probably be right; the effects of the law would be largely confined to prosecuting the responsible parties AFTER the fact, and possibly in its deterrent value. The mere fact that some such cases would go undetected and unpunished is not to the point; that’s the case with all crimes (e.g. murder, rape, etc.).
Additionally, the potential outcome of finding a gene that “codes” for gayness and being able to test for it in the womb would be dependent on the nature of the test. At which point in the pregnancy would the test be available? Makes a big difference in determining if women would abort, or be able to do so.
Why do you say that (especially if you support abortion at any point in gestation)?
And I’m sure the cost of the test–an elective procedure with no real health benefit–would be prohibitive, making the issue of sexual orientation-selective abortion a problem confined to certain societal sectors–namely those who could afford the test, or would even want it performed.
You’re “sure” of that, are you? How expensive is a typical amniocentesis (which is used to help detect Down’s Syndrome, Trisomy 13, etc.), for example? Is it restricted to the “upper strata of society”? Is it denied to all except those who vehemently request it? I’m not sure your comments reflect the true cultural situation…
“But for you to suggest that sexual activity between two “gay” people can ever constitute “self-sacrifice for the best good of another” is nonsense…”
Oh brother. I’m talking about a loving relationship between two people of either the same or different sexes. In either case, I’m okay with a physical (sexual) component to that relationship. Why not?
Hal wrote:
Oh brother. I’m talking about a loving relationship between two people of either the same or different sexes.
I have no problem with a “loving relationship between two people” of any permutation; I hope that’s clear. I rejoice in, and celebrate, selfless love between friends, family members, and so on. Note: love does not equal sex; sex does not equal love.
In either case, I’m okay with a physical (sexual) component to that relationship.
Obviously. And I hope you now understand that this is precisely where we part ways.
Why not?
:) Ah. Are you finally getting ready to explore moral absolutes? That’s a requirement for the answer to your question, you know.
” Ah. Are you finally getting ready to explore moral absolutes? That’s a requirement for the answer to your question, you know.”
If you say so. You’re saying there is some moral absolute that condemns sexual relations between loving people if they’re of the same gender? Where’d you come up with that gem?
Hal,
Catechism of the CC may have something on the topic. Just a hunch.
“Catechism of the CC may have something on the topic. Just a hunch.”
I figured it was something I didn’t care about or acknowledge as important.
Don’t even answer, Hal. Paladin’s smarter than all of us and he’s got it all figured out. People of the same gender can’t share “selfless love,” whatever that means, because it doesn’t entail one man potentially knocking up one woman.
Megan and Hal,
Good. You’ve been paying attention after all.
~ ~ ~
Paladin,
Love your blog. Great quote of the day.
Megan, I think that might be where’s he’s coming from. Yikes.
Hal wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Ah. Are you finally getting ready to explore moral absolutes? That’s a requirement for the answer to your question, you know.”
[Hal]
If you say so.
Logic says so, friend. If you ask why an action is (or is not) morally allowable (cf. your question “why not?”), you need to allow discussion of objective moral standards, by definition. Now, if you were just tossing out a rhetorical question as conversational fluff, then that’s another matter entirely.
You’re saying there is some moral absolute that condemns sexual relations between loving people if they’re of the same gender?
Actually, I didn’t say that… yet. We hadn’t gotten that far, since you haven’t yet gotten “interested enough” in objective morality to find out whether it’s true or not. There’s not much point in teaching addition if one doesn’t believe in numbers, is there? Just so, with this; to speak of morality without “bothering your head about objective standards” is to speak without any meaning.
Where’d you come up with that gem?
Nowhere, yet; it was all yours, at this point in the conversation. Trust me, I’ll be happy to elucidate when you get “interested” enough to think about your standards; before that, it’d just be a pointless clashing of mere opinions against each other, which isn’t exactly something I enjoy.
Megan,
Are you just having a worse than usual day, or something? For the past few conversations with me, you seemed to be trying hard to engage on a logical/debate level, most of the time. Why the troll suit and flame-thrower, all of a sudden?
If you have a good response to my “why not?” let me know. Feel free to assume “objective morality.”
Janet wrote:
Paladin,
Love your blog. Great quote of the day.
:) You mean that neglected thing over at Blogger, which hasn’t seen my presence for 15 months? Thanks, though! (Maybe I should make an entry or two, sometime…)
Re: the quote: yeah, it’s one that got me out of some of my earlier complacency. St. Aloysius, pray for us!
Hal wrote:
If you have a good response to my “why not?” let me know. Feel free to assume “objective morality.”
Not so fast. I know the objective moral guidelines familiar to ME; but I haven’t the foggiest idea what YOUR standards are… and I’m not sure you know them, yourself (given what you’ve said). So again: on what do you base your standards of objective morality? It’d be silly to go even one half-centimetre further until we settle that.
N.B. Your cited author (whom you didn’t read) is in favour of torture under certain circumstances; do you really want him to defend your own moral code, given that (unless I’m mistaken) you disagree with him on that point?
I’m not in favor of legal torture under any circumstances that I can imagine. I’ll try to read up on Mr. Harris when I have some time.
I think most people construct standards and arguments that fit their world-view, not the other way around. You think gay people having sexual relations is immoral, so you come up with “objective morality” that would “prove” that. Someone else, more patient than I, could do the opposite. That’s why I have no use for philosophy.
“Your cited author (whom you didn’t read) is in favour of torture under certain circumstances”
Wow, didn’t see that one coming…
Here’s the article Bobby.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
Do you disagree?
Thanks, I saw it Hal.
Yes, I unequivocally disagree. It is a consequentialist ethic he is embracing, which I of course reject. Never do evil that good may come of it
I think I’m with you on this one, Bobby. If I’m ever in that situation, I’ll have to give it a little more thought. Until then, I’ll stay on the side of “no torture.”
Well, there we go, Hal. Some common ground to build on.
How bout from there we agree that Jesus is Lord? :)
Hal wrote:
I’m not in favor of legal torture under any circumstances that I can imagine. I’ll try to read up on Mr. Harris when I have some time.
All right. I’d add, though, that this highlights the importance of an objective set of moral standards (i.e. not simply a collection of whims, opinions and emotion-based personal tastes).
I think most people construct standards and arguments that fit their world-view, not the other way around.
I see. Aside from the fact that this is a sweeping generalization: do YOU do that?
You think gay people having sexual relations is immoral, so you come up with “objective morality” that would “prove” that.
I’m assuming (to give you the benefit of the doubt) that you’re using “you” in the generic sense, and not at me, personally…
In essence, Hal, you’re accusing most everyone on earth of being intellectually dishonest (i.e. trying to justify personal prejudices with cobbled-together “reasons”); that’s quite the bold claim! And again: do you exempt yourself? Are all your convictions mere personal whimsies for which you manufacture after-the-fact rationalizations?
Someone else, more patient than I, could do the opposite. That’s why I have no use for philosophy.
I’m afraid you’ll need to develop more of a taste for it, if you seek to presume to say what’s moral and what’s not, with anything weightier than raw opinion or momentary feeling. If torture is immoral, then it’s immoral above and beyond your particular distaste/intolerance for it (or someone else’s taste/tolerance for it). Unless you’d like to qualify every last statement with, “But that’s only my opinion; I have no way of knowing whether there’s any absolute standard to that effect or not”, even when talking about (for example) child torture, you’ll need to get more comfy with the philosophical science of ethics.
Bobby, it’s going to take a little a lot more effort on your part to get me to that point.
In essence, Hal, you’re accusing most everyone on earth of being intellectually dishonest (i.e. trying to justify personal prejudices with cobbled-together “reasons”); that’s quite the bold claim! And again: do you exempt yourself?”
I don’t exempt myself. To use the torture analogy, Bobby and I could say it’s “always wrong” and Sam Harris could say it’s “almost always, but not always, wrong.” Both sides would believe they are right and are basing their conclusions on objective morality. Bobby says Harris is wrong, Harris says Bobby is wrong. Your “proof” in support of Bobby (or against) is no more objectively correct than the contrary argument. There are no right answers other than what we “believe.” But that’s only my opinion.
:) How did I know you were going to end your comment like that, Hal?
But anyway: I’m not quite sure how deeply to go into this, given your distaste for the subject matter. What use would it be to lay out the conditions for “proof” (and so on), if it’d merely make your eyes glaze over, to no good effect?
I am a little curious what possible objection you (or anyone) could have against gay people having loving and sexual relationship. So, if you think you have a good “objective” reason to support that belief, I’m all ears.
Paladin, you astutely picked out Megan’s argument, however: the stripped down reality is that she’s pro-abortion over all, and followed it up with a couple paragraphs of rationale as to why she didn’t think it would really affect abortion statistics. Well, I’ve got a pre-born death rate of 90% for Down’s syndrome children that no one would have believed if I’d gotten in a time machine to warn them.
When I was pro-choice (a disease from which I have healed), I never imagined that abortion/birth statistics would ever climb over 10 abortions for every 100 conceived children. 10% is a terrible number, but in my callousness I was willing to live with it. Even Guttmacher doesn’t dispute that the statistics are approx. 25 abortions for every 100 conceived children, and in some communities the numbers are as high as 42% of healthy pre-born children killed in the womb. These numbers, as we’ve said before, rival plague statistics from the middle ages. (Anti-lifers are quite fond of using the words ‘dark ages’ and ‘medieval’ to describe pro-lifers in a negative way). Despite the high rate of pre-born bloodshed, they are still convinced it’s not enough. How high would abortion rates have to be before an anti-lifer declares, “enough is enough!” If 42% doesn’t move you, I don’t know what will.
“But in this case, despite the high rate of pre-born bloodshed, they are still convinced it’s just not enough.”
Who has ever said we don’t have a high enough ratio of abortions to live births? Or even that we don’t have enough abortions? Most “pro abortion” people I hear are saying things like “we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.”
All right… but I strongly suspect the explanation (which will have to come in pieces, and mostly in the form of questions) will overrun your patience… in which case, don’t say I didn’t warn you!
First: there are two general categories of proof: intrinsic (a.k.a. “a priori”, or “not dependent on sense-data”) and extrinsic (a.k.a. “a posteriori”, or “dependent on sense-data”). A priori proofs have the advantage of being provable with 100% certainty (i.e. beyond all doubt whatsoever; proving all alternatives logically impossible); much of mathematics falls under this “camp” (e.g. proving the Pythagorean Theorem, etc.). A posteriori proofs, on the other hand (such as proving that there are no penguins sitting on my head at the moment), have the “advantage” of not REQUIRING “100% certain proof”; they only need proof “beyond all REASONABLE doubt” (e.g. such that a denial of the proof would violate sane reason). The proofs of ethics are all (so far as I know) in the “a posteriori” camp.
Second: moral relativism is a popular position with people who have a strong desire to act without external restraint in one or more moral matters (e.g. virtually no external limits on sexual intercourse, reserving the “right” to torture enemies, reserving the “right” to kill those who aggravate or insult us, etc.), but it’s utterly useless as a moral system… since it undercuts any possible meaning to “morality” at all. That is: if anything goes, and if all morals are mere private opinions, then there’s no possible way to talk about “morals” and “ethics” at all, since they’re the study of what we “should” and “shouldn’t” do; such terms are meaningless without some sort of objective standard to which we can appeal.
Must dash; more later. Are you okay with this (above), so far?
If I understand A posteriori proof, it relies on experience to reach the conclusion. Thus, people with different experiences can be assumed to reach different conclusions. Not sure where the “reasonable doubt” standard comes in. Anyway, I’ll bite my tongue and assume we’re on the same page with different types of proofs.
Moral relativism doesn’t mean, as I understand the term, “anything goes.” Moreover, I’m not sure you have to be a moral relativist to say you have the “right ” to torture enemies, etc. Those people, I think, are not saying their morality is relative or subjective, they are saying that “right and wrong are knowable and objective, and that their conclusions (torture enemies, no limits on sexual intercourse, whatever) are objectively morally acceptable. Nothing relative about it. So, you’ve lost me already. What I’d like to know is why anyone would object to same sex partners having sexual relationships. I look forward to any reason that exceeds “mere private opinions,” as I think that’s all you’ve got.
Hal, you may want to reduce pregnancies, but pro-lifers want to reduce abortion. NARAL is putting all their energy into combat instead of helping CPC’s offer women real alternatives to child murder.
Pregnancy itself vilified by the anti-lifers. We’ve got hard-core so-called feminists declaring that unless a woman can kill her child and get on with her life, then a woman has no equality. It’s VERY anti-human. All these years have gone by and still daycare at the workplace is a rarity and the US president won’t even help children receive basic first aid and nourishment after the little survivors manage to live through their attempted murders. Of course he won’t limit a woman’s legal privilege to kill her child, for any reason whatsover, even for no reason. A convicted felon has more rights than an innocent child.
We have not come a long way, baby.
“All these years have gone by and still daycare at the workplace is a rarity.”
Do you support this policy? The Lily Ledbetter Act? Better access to health care and some basic provision of insurance?
Most feminists support policies that would help women support their children. If you do too, then there’s some great common ground forming between the two camps.
I’m late to this, but followed it over the weekend.
Ninek, I love your comments. While some people take the opportunity of someone else’s blog to chase all kinds of topics, and vomit lame stuff about Christianity, etc., you kept trying to focus the discussion. And you got a sad but not totally surprising answer from Megan.
“Abortion uber alles” is the real standard for the hard core abortion supporter who thinks life will end if we limit it, even for someone who says they have lots of friends in the homosexual lifestyle. I’d be uneasy about that kind of friend.
But anti-lifers who comment here are not in that lifestyle, SO
It’d be really interesting to hear someone who identifies as gay AND pro-choice answer Jill’s question in this post. Would such a person accept limits on aborting girl and boy fetuses with a gay gene, if a genetic marker were to be found?
If they would accept that limit on abortion, how do they feel about other anti-lifers who think aborting because of discrimination is a bummer, but not enough of a problem to call out or to trump abortion “rights”?
Hi Mary Ann,
I’m more of a lurker than a poster, but with an invitation like that I just couldn’t resist! I do identify as both queer and pro-choice, and the answer to your first question is no. Similarly, I would not support a ban on sex-selective abortion regardless of my own sex.
One way this thought experiment might be made more accessible is to remove the focus on homosexuality. Liberals support anti-discrimination legislation for many protected classes; why not pose the question surrounding one of those groups? “Since Obama opposes discrimination based on sex/race/disability, will he sign legislation to prohibit abortion due these attributes?”
In fact, Hal, if you and other readers are curious, the Catholic Church condemns torture as contrary to respect for human dignity. The Catechism says in paragraphs 2297-2298
“Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”
So there ya go.
Sorry for the delay; I’ll probably need to wait for the weekend (and probably Sunday) to reply with any length. Three quick notes, though:
“A posteriori” is sense-data dependent, but it isn’t simply opinion-based. For example: if you were in my classroom, you and I could (after a suitable search) come to a sufficient certainty that there are no penguins in my room… our different cultural and social upbringings notwithstanding.
“Reasonable doubt” is the collquial way to say “any challenge which doesn’t violate sane reason”. One might, for example, hypothesize that there might be a penguin in my room, but–through a natural ability which to which we’d never been exposed–all penguins have the ability to become invisible whenever any human in my particular classroom looks at them, on this particular day (after which they all lose the ability). The very idea is silly, but it’s quite a bit harder to “prove it impossible” than you might expect. (After all: did anyone ever *test* it? It’s not disprovable, in the absolute sense.) Reasonable doubt would allow us to write off such a hypothesis as nonsensical.
Moral relativism doesn’t mean, as I understand the term, “anything goes.” Moreover, I’m not sure you have to be a moral relativist to say you have the “right ” to torture enemies, etc.
True, on both counts. Moral relativism is the view that there are no “objective” moral absolutes, and that all moral standards are based solely on personal opinion, cultural consensus, and the like. A moral relativist might not believe that “anything goes”, but his/her reasons for thinking so would be based on personal opinions, views, tastes, etc., and not on some acknowledged objective standard to which he/she recognizes as “true”.
Those people, I think, are not saying their morality is relative or subjective, they are saying that “right and wrong are knowable and objective, and that their conclusions (torture enemies, no limits on sexual intercourse, whatever) are objectively morally acceptable.
Right.
What I’d like to know is why anyone would object to same sex partners having sexual relationships. I look forward to any reason that exceeds “mere private opinions,” as I think that’s all you’ve got.
All right; we’ll have a go, when I have a few moments to type more than a paragraph or two. But here’s why I’ve been so persistent about “a priori” vs. “a posteriori”: I could, if I chose, reject your [hypothetical] claim that “[solid] lead is more dense than [liquid] water”, and I could come up with any number of outrageously unlikely scenarios which would (in my mind) “explain away” the overwhelming evidence in favour of your statement. (The same can be said of the claim that the earth is not flat, or that the earth is not the center of the solar system, etc.) There’s a very clear difference between CREATING a standard for oneself and RECOGNIZING a standard that is beyond oneself… and the mere fact that someone can happily violate all sane reason in order to REJECT that objective standard has no special bearing on the matter.
Summary: if one is a true moral relativist, and if one is intellectually honest, one has but two choices:
1) embrace a moral standard (and abandon moral relativism)
2) embrace utter moral anarchy
More later; must dash!
Ugh. Down with some sort of bronchial bug; I’ll try to write when I can…
Ugh, again! I’ll see what I can write before time and energy slip away, again…
When I was probing your own views, earlier, I was trying to establish whether you truly believed in a set of (ontologically) objective moral standards, or not… by which I mean “a set of standards by which moral actions can reliably and TRULY be judged to be right or wrong, good or evil; mere reliance on personal opinion, societal consensus (which is merely personal opinion, writ large), or evolutionary happenstance (e.g. we’re all “hardwired” to think that murder is wrong, but only because our brains happened to evolve that trait by sheer chance). Very few atheists/agnostics do, in my experience.
If you *do* believe in an ontologically objective moral code (i.e. a code “outside of ourselves”, as it were), then I wanted to know how you came to that conclusion… or, at least, how you explain its existence. That’s also why I mentioned the difference between INVENTING a personal code (whether personally or as a society) and DISCOVERING a code that truly exists distinctly from us: there’s a vast difference between thinking that a moral code has been cobbled together because it “seems pragmatic” (though that would beg the question of “what standards are being used to determine pragmatism?”), and believing that a code is “hard-wired into the very universe” (like the multiplication table).
So… let me ask again: *do* you think there’s an ontologically objective code, or standard, by which all moral decisions can be measured?
“So… let me ask again: *do* you think there’s an ontologically objective code, or standard, by which all moral decisions can be measured?”
You certainly have the vocabulary of a philosopher. Must we really go back to Aristotle? To answer your question, I suppose there is such a code, or could be. It would have general principles, such as “don’t do things that harm others,” and then I would think there would have to be “exceptions” or corollaries such as “except when necessary to prevent a greater harm.” I really don’t think any of this makes any difference, objective standard or not, who cares? You either have a reason to object to same sex couples having sex or you don’t. Your reason would probably seem preposterous to me, but reasonable to you.
(By the way, things don’t evolve “by sheer chance.” If we are hardwired to believe murder is wrong, it’s because there was some evolutionary advantage to holding that belief.)
Hal wrote, in reply to my comment:
You certainly have the vocabulary of a philosopher. Must we really go back to Aristotle?
:) Hey, if it ain’t broke…
To answer your question, I suppose there is such a code, or could be. It would have general principles, such as “don’t do things that harm others,” and then I would think there would have to be “exceptions” or corollaries such as “except when necessary to prevent a greater harm.”
Right; or, rather, there would be general principles (e.g. “it is never right to choose an evil, even if good results”) which are absolute and non-negotiable, which would anticipate and accommodate whatever we experience as “exceptions”.
I really don’t think any of this makes any difference, objective standard or not, who cares? You either have a reason to object to same sex couples having sex or you don’t.
That’s precisely why it DOES make a difference! Don’t you see? If there is no “absolute” and knowable standard, then everything is a toss-up, ultimately (i.e. a collection of private and/or collective opinions, which could change at any time, and which could have been otherwise). We can’t afford to say “who cares?” about the standard by which we discern the most fundamental issues of mankind! It’d be a bit like saying, “Yes, it’s urgent that I keep my company’s finances in order, but who really cares whether addition and subtraction truly work as we’ve been taught? If 2 + 2 = 6, 7, or even 1000, who cares?” Isn’t it plain that it makes all the difference in the world? Just as there’s no basis for talking at all about mathematics if one scoffs at numbers, one has no basis for talking about ethics if one scoffs at the standard by which ethics exists, and is measured.
Your reason would probably seem preposterous to me, but reasonable to you.
Not everything falls into that category, I think. We both agree that torture is objectively immoral (i.e. not simply private opinion or whimsy, like our taste for cherry ice cream); and there must be some non-trivial reason WHY it is so.
(By the way, things don’t evolve “by sheer chance.” If we are hardwired to believe murder is wrong, it’s because there was some evolutionary advantage to holding that belief.)
First, your statement is not provably true; it’s a hypothesis… and a hasty one, at that. If one is a philosophical atheist/materialist (i.e. “matter is all that exists; there is no such thing as spirit”), one would not need to embrace that idea; one could, instead, hypothesize a human race which has no instinctive reluctance to murder, but whose members are shrewd enough to restrain their periodic impulses to murder (after all: no one has yet said that humans are hardwired to believe that murder is NECESSARY) in times when it would not be to their personal advantage (e.g. someone stronger may retaliate, or the murder of their grocer would deprive them of groceries, etc.).
Second, you’re begging a deeper question: how can anyone talk of “advantage”, if one is not secretly clinging to the view that “it is better to live than to die–to survive, rather than become extinct”? I’ve met atheists who genuinely reject that view: they say, “What is, is; there’s no transcendent “good” about survival; if someone has the instinct, they’re more likely to survive; if not, they die. No need to bring in any talk of “good” or “evil”! That’s why I’ve taken such pains to find out whether you fall into that “nihilist” camp, or not (and apparently you don’t, unless I’ve misunderstood you).
So… given that (unless I’m mistaken) we both recognize an objective moral standard outside of ourselves, we should be able to tease out some of the characteristics of that standard (e.g. self-consistency, durability, immutability, or what-have-you), and then talk about the specific contents (which was your original question). It’s a bit tedious, I admit… but I’ve found that, if we’re to have a serious discussion about ethics at all, we really need to lay the groundwork, first… so as to avoid talking past each other (and irritating each other, more likely than not).