Stanek wkend Q: What questions should media ask Democrats on abortion?
This week Senator Rand Paul turned a question by an AP reporter attempting to brand him as a pro-life extremist back on him by asking:
Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?
You go back and go ask (Democrat National Committee head) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.
Indeed, this is but one of a thousand questions reporters could and should ask pro-abortion politicians about the radical extent of their abortion support.
For instance, how can they support the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure to the sickening point Michelle Obama used it as a fundraising tool?
And why does the media let abortion zealots get away with claiming fetal pain at 20 weeks is “disputed”, when surgeons routinely provide pain relief to preborn babies during prenatal surgery beginning at 18 weeks? At any rate, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?
The list goes on and on.
What questions would you like to see reporters ask pro-abortion politicians?
[Photo of preborn baby at 20 weeks via familyeducation.com]
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.
My question for a Democrat:
“Democrats used to use the term ‘rare’ when discussing abortion, but don’t do that as much anymore. Do you believe abortion should be rare. If so, how should we best decrease the abortion rate? If you don’t believe the goal is to make it rare, why not?”
My question for a Republican:
“What specific new legislation would you introduce concerning abortion – what exceptions you would make and what penalties would you recommend?”
I’d like to put pro-abortion candidates face-to-face with an abortion survivor like Melissa Ohden and make them explain their position to her.
Or some of the abortion survivors who have lost limbs http://www.youthdefence.ie
Awesome, thanks again Jill+friends, for your service.
Do you support sex selection abortion?
If a d&c abortion is so safe, then why is the same procedure on a miscarrying woman often conducted in hospital and only after her doctor has explained the myriad risks of the procedure to her, shown her multiple diagnostic ultrasounds, and explained the procedure in detail, and done all the usual pre-op blood work? And why does the woman seeking an abortion not have the same right to care and informed consent as her miscarrying counterpart?
If children are not human until birth (at term), should care for premature infants be eradicated?
Is it ever the child’s fault if his or her biological father chooses to rape his or her mother?
Could you point out precisely where in the constitution the supposed right to an abortion is located?
Praxedes: Do you support sex selection abortion?
Best question, by far, in my opinion.
Ex-GOP: Democrats used to use the term ‘rare’ when discussing abortion, but don’t do that as much anymore. Do you believe abortion should be rare. If so, how should we best decrease the abortion rate?
I certainly think that pregnancy prevention is better than having an abortion. Heck, I’d be happy if nobody ever wanted an abortion, and nobody ever had one. I’m for continuing (and increased) emphasis on the proper use of contraception. And of course that will not mean zero unwanted pregnancies.
Rachel: If a d&c abortion is so safe…
Well, first, how safe, exactly, is it? I know that late enough in gestation, having an abortion is more dangerous to the woman than is carrying the pregnancy to term. Prior to that, it’s safer to have an abortion than to carry to term.
Many procedures are done in hospitals, even the exceedingly safe ones.
Rachel: If children are not human until birth (at term), should care for premature infants be eradicated?
The use of “children” is much more arguable than is “human,” as there are perfectly valid definitions for the word meaning from birth to puberty.
As for “human,” the egg and sperm are human….
JDC: Could you point out precisely where in the constitution the supposed right to an abortion is located?
The same place the right to have fuzzy dice hanging from your rear-view mirror, and to have red wine with fish are. ;)
The Constitution is not about enumerating rights; much more about limiting the ability of government to impinge on our rights. Even the first 10 Amendments, the “Bill of Rights,” is actually a list of limits on government power
Question: What exactly was the question that Mr. Paul got asked that brought out this news worthy response?
Answer: It doesn’t matter. Apparently he got asked some kind of question about abortion…and this was how he planned to answer. Artfully, creating a little buzz for himself. If you don’t think I’m pro-life enough…just take a look at the other side. Shifting focus to the extreme views of the other side rather than his own views.
We got to just keep asking…and with informed follow-up questions. Everywhere, all the time, at every stop, every kind of life issue, over and over…
I think questions that expose the ugly truths about the abortion industry are best at this time.
Tommy R: Question: What exactly was the question that Mr. Paul got asked that brought out this news worthy response?
Answer: It doesn’t matter. Apparently he got asked some kind of question about abortion…and this was how he planned to answer. Artfully, creating a little buzz for himself. If you don’t think I’m pro-life enough…just take a look at the other side.
Tommy, I don’t know, but don’t disagree with you. I am pro-choice, but submit that this may be his best tactic. For sure, he should stay away from the gay/discrimination stuff, which is a sure loser for Republicans – the forces of truth, history, and momentum swamping them (way faster than what I thought would be the case).
He should also stay away from his dad’s more extreme positions, and I assume he does.
Ex-GOP said, “What specific new legislation would you introduce concerning abortion – what exceptions you would make and what penalties would you recommend?”
I think it is a fair question. As an admitted pro-lifer, I confess my immediate response to the question is, how would it sound in 1860 to ask someone fighting slavery the same question putting “slavery” in for abortion? We would think it pretty crass today to ask what exceptions we would allow for slavery, and I pray in 150 years we will think the same question crass for abortion exceptions.
I would ask these questions…
1. What is the difference between a 8-month baby in the mother’s womb and a 8-month baby born early outside of the mother’s womb besides their location? Why is only one protected by the law?
2. If the sex of a person is determined at conception, then why doesn’t the so-called supporters of the “War on Women” want to protect all females, even those in the mother’s womb?
3. Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman that the law can charge the perpetrator for double murder but if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy with the fetus/baby at the same stage of life, it’s permissible by law?
4. Do you support sex selective abortions?
5. When does life begin? (Yes I know no pro-abort has a clue on this question)
6.If a father robs a bank, would you send his child to jail? (ie rape)
7. If you are against abortion except for the cases of rape or incest, what is the difference of the physical characteristics of the baby conceived in rape and incest that you would deem it OK to terminate the fetus/baby?
8. What is today’s largest killer of black babies/fetus’s?
9. If you can’t protect the weakest innocent smallest human beings which have a separate DNA code and a separate beating heart, why would I be able to trust you by giving you my vote?
10. Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).
11. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?
12. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?
13. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
14. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
Pete
And the most obvious question of all which has become laughable in how liberals and progressives can vary in their answers to such a simple question
“When does life begin?”
Seriously, the science on this is so clear and undeniable and yet the majority of pro-choicer’s cannot tell you when life begins. They will twist themselves up to avoid the question and start talking about personhood or viability. They are just so plainly ignorant or ideologically pro-choice t0 kill unborn babies that most will not honestly answer this question.
Ex-RINO,
Reread the subject of this thread. Do you see the work Republican in it? If you do, then reread it a third time and keep re-reading it until your optical neuropathy goes away. Then tell us what questions the media should ask a Democrat about abortion.
truth
My first post asks a question of both parties.
Before hurling stones and insulting somebody, you should double check that they haven’t already done what you’re asking.
Seriously.
Pete: 1. What is the difference between a 8-month baby in the mother’s womb and a 8-month baby born early outside of the mother’s womb besides their location? Why is only one protected by the law?
Where do you see abortions being done at 8 months? Isn’t it true that there are only a handful of states where abortions would be done in the last trimester (let alone at 8 months), in the first place? Most states have restrictions on late-term abortions, i.e. the 8 month unborn baby is already protected by law. Beyond that, would not an 8 month pregnancy be delivered, rather than ended via abortion, if it had to be ended? There is only an extremely minuscule number of cases where factors combine, such as the position and condition of the baby, and medical conditions on the mother’s part, where abortion is chosen that late in gestation.
2. If the sex of a person is determined at conception, then why doesn’t the so-called supporters of the “War on Women” want to protect all females, even those in the mother’s womb?
The supporters of the war on women are often already working against women’s rights, including their reproductive freedom. They see women as second-class citizens, or worse, in many places around the world. The US is not immune to it, either – witness some of the comments by Republican leaders over the past few years.
Those who are opposed to the war want women to be treated as well as men. Women, like men, are thinking, feeling beings. This is not true of the unborn – certainly not, to a point in gestation.
3. Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman that the law can charge the perpetrator for double murder but if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy with the fetus/baby at the same stage of life, it’s permissible by law?
It’s not the case that the law always says “double murder.” However, even in places where it’s possible, the difference is that it’s the woman who is pregnant. While there is quite a debate over abortion, you don’t see people running around, shouting that other people should be allowed to end the woman’s pregnancy, against her will, without penalty.
4. Do you support sex selective abortions?
No, but not because they are abortions, per se, but because as a practical matter when people select the sex of their kids, the net effect is an unbalancing of the male/female ratio in the population, with observed bad effects.
Doug,
Weak, very weak answers.
Pete
Ex-RINO,
OK. So you would ask a Democrat how they want to make abortions rare. That is your ‘hardball’ question?
Doug,
When does human life begin?
truth
Yes – I find that the biggest contradiction right now in the Dems stance. Most of the other questions have been asked before – been asked many times.
Next time, can you wait to attack until you are sure of yourself? That gets old. I know you enough to know I won’t get even a quick “sorry” – but seriously. It gets old.
Pete: 5. When does life begin? (Yes I know no pro-abort has a clue on this question)
Despite your silliness, and despite that there is no consensus among scientists on this matter, if you want to pick the time when the egg activates and blocks polyspermy, that’s fine with me. Usually, we can say that a distinct individual organism is them present. Not all the time, because in the case of identical twins, triplets, etc., those lives, those individual organisms, will not be present until later on. It’s a matter of agreement, or not.
6.If a father robs a bank, would you send his child to jail? (ie rape)
Not unless the kid was the mastermind. As far as rape, it’s not that society is assigning blame to the unborn, but that an abortion may be wanted, period, i.e. pregnancy is not desired at that time, or that it’s not wanted because it resulted from rape.
7. If you are against abortion except for the cases of rape or incest, what is the difference of the physical characteristics of the baby conceived in rape and incest that you would deem it OK to terminate the fetus/baby?
It is not that “different physical characteristics” are the primary concern, in the first place. Hypothetically, in response to your question, the answer is that the baby has the genes of the rapist or incestuous father, but that is not likely to be the deciding factor, i.e. it’s probably going to be the feelings of the pregnant woman that matter the most.
8. What is today’s largest killer of black babies/fetus’s?
If you are taking “baby” to mean from fertilization/conception, then it’s failure to implant. There are many more failures to implant than there are births, and many more births than there are abortions.
Doug,
In you answer to Pete’s question about when life begins you when the sperm meets the egg (conception) but then you try and make a case that the science is unsure on this because in the case of identical twins the embryo can split into two. Are you saying that you believe in the case of identical twins that their lives do not begin until after the embryo splits? Would it be accurate to say that base your case that science is somehow unsure when the lives of identical twins begin on the fact that their are really two ‘lives’ present at the time of conception and not just one?
“Yes – I find that the biggest contradiction right now in the Dems stance”
So you think most Democrats no longer want abortion to be rare?
truth –
Here’s two things that I think.
1) I think less of you because you can’t say ‘sorry’ or ever admit you are wrong.
2) In the past, Dems more openly stated that abortion was a tragic thing, but that they felt it should be legal – but with that all being said, we should push to lower abortion rates (Dems and GOPers see different ways to lower the rates – but the concession was that abortion wasn’t a desirable thing). I think that Dems have been caught between that belief (which at least was somewhat understandable/logical) and political funding – and those way on the pro-abortion side naturally want to take a ‘no apologies’ type view of abortion. So as pro-lifers and pro-choicers have radically gone to both sides of the spectrum, we’ve seen Dems go from a stance of “we see abortions as something we want to drive numbers down on” to this no apologies stance.
“1) I think less of you because you can’t say ‘sorry’ or ever admit you are wrong.”
Is you thinking ‘less of me’ something new started feeling today? OK, today I misread your post and I thought the top part of nyour post was a quote from the article. I am sorry. Does that help?
I think less of you because you seem to be incapable of posting without some sort of condescending remark towards the efforts of pro-life people. Does that help too?
“we’ve seen Dems go from a stance of “we see abortions as something we want to drive numbers down on” to this no apologies stance.”
Maybe you are older than me or you were just fooled longer.
truth
I was the first post on this whole thread – what is the specific condescending remark?
Jill Stanek’s Weekend Question was ” What questions should media ask Democrats on abortion?”
That question was based upon the fact that the media is always dogging pro-life candidates with questions about abortion exceptions and penalties. In your first post you proceeded to (just so-happened to) post the exact questions that the media is always dogging pro-lifer’s about.
That’s not a condescending remark – it simply isn’t.
And yes – I’m critical of ‘some’ pro-lifers and the way they go about advancing a culture of life. I’ll specifically call you out. Last week, you indicated that the main goal was overturning RvWade. Obviously, if that would happen we’d have fragmented laws across the country and the reality is, abortion would be legal, in at least some form, in the wide majority of states. Yet most of the policies you support would almost scream to people to choose abortion when they are in tough situations.
For instance, you also told me that you’d repeal Obamacare first and foremost (to deal with healthcare). So I went a Children’s miracle network fundraiser and they featured a bunch of children with really tough challenges – most of the time these health issues were identified before the child was born. There weren’t issues with medical bills – there weren’t issues with pre-existing conditions – there weren’t issues with lifetime caps. Yet you somehow think that a good pro-life position is to say to one of these families “choose life – but if you do, I’m okay with insurance companies kicking your child off a health plan or saying that they’ll only cover so much care, and then the family is on their own”.
So yes – when I run into pro-death penalty people, people who want to cut services to the poor in favor of tax breaks for the rich, people who can’t connect health care policies and family stability, people who care nothing about the plight of workers and their wages and their protections – I’m going to see some hypocritical aspects to those stances and will call them out.
“I’ll specifically call you out. Last week, you indicated that the main goal was overturning RvWade.”
Do you never tire of your lies? You asked if that should be a goal…I said it should be one of many.
“That’s not a condescending remark – it simply isn’t.”
How would you describe it then? Disdainful? What is it called when a pro-life blog is complaining about the media bias and you throw that bias right back in the face of the blog?
You just said that because I want to repeal Obamacare that somehow caused you to visit a Children’s miracle network fundraiser. OK. Glad to hear it. I gave one hundred dollars to one myself last week. How much did you donate?
Before you answer get ready to show your receipt…..
I know your kind Ex-RINO. You like to pat yourselves on the back for wanting the government to take other peoples money and give it to charitable causes, even though the bureaucracy is proven to be so wasteful, but are infamous for not donating your own. You are the one who brought it up, now show me the receipt from you Children’s Memorial Fund donation.
Here, I’ll show my receipt first:
From: Make-A-Wish [mailto:jeans@illinois.wish.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:05 PM
To: Me
Subject: [MARKETING]Thank you for Making Dreams Come True
Thank you for your donation to Jeans for Wishes.Your gift helps to make it possible for Make-A-Wish®Illinois to grant wishes like that of fifteen-year-old Timothy and his twelve-year-old brother, Justin.
Timothy and Justin have both been diagnosed with Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy, a life-threatening neurodegenerative disease. As a result of their diagnoses, both brothers have physical restrictions, and Timothy has been confined to a wheelchair. Their personalities, however, simply light up any room where they are and they both refuse to let their diagnosis affect their positive outlook on life.
When the brothers were referred to Make-A-Wish, they quickly became excited at the thought of doing their wish together. After some thought, they decided on going to a NASCAR race at Chicagoland Speedway to meet each of their favorite drivers. At a recent NASCAR event, Timothy had the chance to spend priceless one-on-one time with Kasey Kahne, and Justin had plenty of bonding time with his favorite driver, Dale Earnhardt Jr. After their once in a lifetime meet-and-greet experiences, the entire family set off for a behind-the-scenes tour of the car garages. This allowed them the opportunity to mingle with pit crews and get a close-up look at the cars they will soon be watching out in action on the track. This was one of their favorite parts of the entire weekend!
Back home in Henry, the brothers, and their entire family have a renewed sense of hope, strength and joy from their wish experience. After going through the pain and struggles associated with two children being diagnosed with life-threatening medical conditions, this weekend allowed the entire family a getaway that they will never forget.
Our amazing mission builds lasting ties and we look forward to staying in touch. To ensure that you receive the Make-A-Wish news that is most important to you, please take a moment to visit our website and update your email profile with us. We look forward to sharing wish stories, event announcements, and more with you!
We thank you for your gift, for being a part of our community, and for all that you do to share the power of a wish®.
Best wishes,
Stephanie Springs
Chief Executive Officer
For federal income tax purposes, this letter will serve to confirm that no goods or services were provided to you for this donation. Please retain this letter for your records.
Payment Amount: 80.00
ID: 177502078
I am waiting Ex-RINO…….
I wonder what you will post next… I doubt it will be a receipt or a response to my post at 2:52pm
truth –
The ‘so’ statement wasn’t linking the two – I reread though and can see how you thought that. I’m just making the point that those folks – the folks that decided to bring those wonderful lives into the world – those are the types of individuals helped by health care reform.
You said that a main goal should be overturning R v Wade -that the long term goal is that we grant personhood. But you indicated R v Wade overturning is a key 20 year goal.
If you’d like to back off that statement and make some new legislative target, feel free.
Like I said. No response from you to my 2:52 post and no receipt.
And no apology required for you slander that I don’t care aboutthe plight of people without insurance. You are a progressive liberal ‘so’ there is a much lower standard expected of you.
I have a short anecdote for you. Two people visit Children’s Hospital and one of them was a conservative and the other was a progressive liberal. The conservative is moved by the suffering and trials of the children and makes a donation to help the children. The progressive liberal does not make a donation and accuses the conservative of not caring about the plight of the Children with serious illness. Which one is a lying piece of manure?
Like I said. No response or argument from you about my 2:52 evidence of you once again coming to this blog to parrot progressive talking points and BS.
TS: When does human life begin?
Truthseeker, as I presume you are defining it, I think it’s fine to say “at conception, and I also presume that’s what you want to hear, anyway.
In you answer to Pete’s question about when life begins you when the sperm meets the egg (conception) but then you try and make a case that the science is unsure on this because in the case of identical twins the embryo can split into two. Are you saying that you believe in the case of identical twins that their lives do not begin until after the embryo splits? Would it be accurate to say that base your case that science is somehow unsure when the lives of identical twins begin on the fact that their are really two ‘lives’ present at the time of conception and not just one?
I think you are confusing “science” with the fact that there is no consensus among scientists – even on how to define “life,” in this case. Science itself is sure that “the new organism” or “living human organism with different DNA from the parents” is there at conception, usually – the exception being where they don’t appear until later, as with identical multiples, twins, etc.
With the twins, they are not there at the fertilization of the egg. At that point, there may be no twins, period. If there are twins that result from the embryo splitting, later on, they are different entities from that first embryo. Interesting question for those who belief in the notion of a “soul” and who would say it’s there at conception.
Not trying to make it more complicated than it is, and I know what you mean by “life,” and there usually are not identical multiples that later form, so it’s fine by me to say that life begins at conception.
truth
It isn’t bias. Responsible journalism should be finding the truth and the news to report – not being some sounding board for a political position (which is why Fox and MSNBC are both jokes).
I agreed on this thread that Dems should face questions on their stance.
If you are implying the it is unfair to ask Republicans about their abortion stance, then just say it.
I don’t understand why either party should be given a free pass.
truth
I won’t apologize for that slander because it’s true. I asked you about specific legislation and you said you’d repeal it. The specific legislation does things like prevent discrimination on pre-existing conditions. It takes away lifetime caps. It is legislation that specifically helps people who bring special needs kids into the world. So I won’t apologize for that.
Here is the reality of your little situation. The conservative would say “here is $50 to pay for your hundreds of thousands of dollars in care – but I think it is more important to give tax breaks to the really wealthy”. The liberal would say “I don’t need to give you $50 because you had medical coverage. You are welcome”.
“I think you are confusing “science” with the fact that there is no consensus among scientists – even on how to define “life,” in this case”
Doug, spoken like a true progressive. If you can’t have a reasonable argument about the meaning of something then just change the definition.
“If you are implying the it is unfair to ask Republicans about their abortion stance, then just say it.”
Keep posting strawmen. We all know that my 2:52 post was not about the Republican position or about the Democratic position and not about YOUR BIAS. On this site you are either bloviating strawmen or grubering progressive talking points all over us.
truth
The question asked what to ask a Democrat. I posted what I would ask people of either party. If you think my question is unfair, then say that and I’ll debate you on that. If you think Republicans shouldn’t be asked questions on abortion, say that.
If you just want to talk in circles about what you think other people say or believe or whatever, open up your text program and just do that, and save us some time.
Thanks
Pete: 9. If you can’t protect the weakest innocent smallest human beings which have a separate DNA code and a separate beating heart, why would I be able to trust you by giving you my vote?
Nobody can protect “the weakest innocent smallest human beings which have a separate DNA code” – as many pro-lifers view things – most of them die via failure to implant, before any conscious decisions on the part of *anyone* come into play. Granted that a heart beat comes later. That all these deaths occur does not disrupt our society, does not even get too many people riled up, etc.
The truth is that whether it’s a failure to implant, or some other thing that happens during gestation, including the choice of abortion on the part of the mother/the couple who are the parents, that results in the death of the unborn, there is exceedingly little effect on our society, the selective outrage on the part of some people notwithstanding.
10. Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).
Whether you agree that it should be this way or not, there is indeed the fact that birth means citizenship, so born or not does make a difference.
“morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby” – in your hypothetical, who is wanting to refuse such treatment? What reason would there really be? This is why I think your question is pretty much a meaningless hypothetical.
At 26 weeks, abortions are not normally done unless there are severe deficiencies with the fetus and/or severe danger to the mother.
If you want to draw a parallel with what are truly elective abortions, then it needs to be earlier in gestation.
However, for the sake of your hypothetical, who should be able to overrule the mother’s/parents’ desire that A. the premature baby be cared for, or B. that the pregnancy be ended by abortion?
. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?
The unborn baby.
12. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?
That’s not true as stated. *Some* of the people may want the gov’t to pay for them, but not all. As to the “why” – there will be several possible reasons, at least. One is that it costs a lot less gov’t money for an abortion versus years of care later on.
13. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions.
Yeah, she’s pretty silly, there. The black birth rate, as well as that for Latinos, is higher than for whites in the US. The reason there are more per-capita abortions chosen is that there are more per-capita unwanted pregnancies.
Speaking of Martin Luther King, he recognized that access to legal abortion was important for his people. Here’s what he had to say:
– – – – – – – –
“There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist – a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element – Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.
For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.
This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.
The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
Those are central locations, to start with. It is also the area of highest demand, and the area with people having less-than-average access to private vehicles, for transport to abortion clinics.
14. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
While “an aspirin” sounds pretty tame, I would think there is a blanket prohibition on drugs being given to kids without their parents being in on it.
It’s true in *all* states that a minor can have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent, but there are two different tracks to it. One is that nothing says there has to be any notification. The other is the state has notification laws – and if the parents aren’t consenting, or going to consent, then the minor can go before a judge, and the judge can give consent. This is called judicial bypass.
“I think you are confusing “science” with the fact that there is no consensus among scientists – even on how to define “life,” in this case”
TS: Doug, spoken like a true progressive. If you can’t have a reasonable argument about the meaning of something then just change the definition.
Truthseeker, you are being nonsensical.
What, really, do you find wrong with what I said, here:
“Not trying to make it more complicated than it is, and I know what you mean by “life,” and there usually are not identical multiples that later form, so it’s fine by me to say that life begins at conception.”
Doug,are you an elected official who ran as a Democrat?
Truthseeker, my father would have said you have grit.
I’m also with you that that what you believe in, you will fund. I just got a bonus and I’ll be sending it all to a maternity home in Spokane.
Blessings to you.
Ex-GOP
Just for you:
Beyond the Abortion Wars A Way Forward for a New Generation
Charles Camosy
A petite 221 pages.
Instead of ranting, you might like this.
Sharon: Doug,are you an elected official who ran as a Democrat?
Hi Sharon. Perish the thought! :P
No public service ever, here. Bricklayer for 7 years and now 30 working on electrical transformers and the oil they contain as a coolant and insulator. I’m a 56 year old guy who has discussed/argued/debated abortion for a good while, online.
I think it is a very good argument, as it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
Democrats are no better for the future of our country than are Republicans. They both have been absolutely miserable, heinous failures.
And why does the media let pro-choicers get away with claiming fetal pain at 20 weeks is “disputed” – it’s the anti-choicers who keep trying to dispute the facts. The AMA says “the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalomocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age.”
Why should democrats be asked anyway. Their position is about ensuring women’s rights and freedoms. Abortion is but a small element of that.
Doesn’t matter anyway, Obama’s going to declare martial law soon, suspend all elections and stay in the white house. At least that’s what the more extreme republican supporters are saying.
And why does the media let pro-choicers get away with claiming fetal pain at 20 weeks is “disputed”
Reality: – it’s the anti-choicers who keep trying to dispute the facts. The AMA says “the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalomocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age.”
Reality, I think the truth is somewhere in-between. For sure, the nerves, synapses, thalamus, and cortex, etc., must be all developed, operational, and connected – which isn’t going to be the case until the weeks in the 20s. I have long thought that it’s going to vary, fetus-to-fetus, but that it will be centered around 25 or 26 weeks.
What makes me think it’s earlier than 29 or 30 weeks is that preemies meaningfully earlier than that display what I can only conclude is conscious pain perception.
Doug,
You stated “despite that there is no consensus among scientists on this matter” and pointed to the case of identical twins to prove your point. If anything I would say that identical twins is a case of two lives beginning at the same time. What seems nonsensical is that anybody still attempts to claim that there is no scientific consensus on when life begins.
I’ll take what the specialists say Doug. That it isn’t conscious pain perception.
“If you think my question is unfair”
Ex-RINO, I didn’t say it was unfair. I said it was just one more post of you on this blog parroting the media’s progressive talking points.
Sorry Ex-RINO, I had a typo above, let me restate it clearly for;
“We all know that my 2:52 post was not about the Republican position or about the Democratic position. What it was about is you Ex-RINO spending your days on this blog parroting the progressive media BIAS/TALKING POINTS.
Thank you Sharon. God’s blessings to you also.
Thanks Sharon – will take a look.
truth
So you are saying it is progressive to ask how legislation would affect people?
How odd.
truth
I don’t think your 8:37 post is a question – so skipping. I think I’ve answered all your questions.
“Interesting question for those who belief in the notion of a “soul” and who would say it’s there at conception.”
Doug,
you may have a lot of progressive liberal qualities in your arguments but unlike other progressive liberals on this blog I believe you speak from your own mind and heart in what you say and it does sometimes lead to interesting dialogue. It is good to see you around again. ts
I’ll take what the specialists say Doug. That it isn’t conscious pain perception.
Reality, I don’t think it’s as simple as that…. Certainly no biggie, betwixt you and me.
“I think I’ve answered all your questions.”
Two people visit Children’s Hospital and one of them is a conservative and the other is a progressive liberal. The conservative is moved by the suffering and trials of the children and makes a donation to help the children. The progressive liberal does not make a donation and accuses the conservative of not caring about the plight of the Children with serious illness. Which one is a lying piece of manure?
That’s not a scenario that would ever exist truthseeker.
The conservative would tell the sick kiddies to go get a job.
“That’s not a scenario that would ever exist truthseeker.”
Oh but it does exist and the proof is right here on this thread. Ex-RINO posted that he went to a Children’s miracle network fundraiser because he felt so bad about the way conservatives treat people without health insurance. I then posted my April 12, 2015 at 3:38 pm post and challenged Ex-RINO to post the receipt from his donation and it turns out he did not donate. So you see, it does happen all the time.
There are more ways to help out at a fundraiser than simply giving money – hard for a conservative to understand I know.
Name the conservative who donated at the event.
See, your little scenario doesn’t exist.
You can’t even tell me where the event was held and you have no clue who attended but it doesn’t stop you from bloviating.
Reality, who has posted a receipt on this thread showing that they donated money to a Children’s Hospital fundraiser?
Who was the conservative who donated at the event Ex-GOP attended?
Where did Ex-GOP state that he didn’t donate?
Your 12:09 scenario doesn’t exist.
Who went to a Children’s Miracle Network fundraiser and didn’t donate any money?
Reality, I will give you a second try….who has posted a receipt on this thread showing that they donated money to a Children’s Hospital fundraiser?
“Where did Ex-GOP state that he didn’t donate?”
I asked him several times to post a receipt. Not only did he fail to post a receipt but he never claimed that he donated and he intimated that he felt as though he doesn’t need to donate to help people with medical hardships because Obamacare is taking care of everybody’s medical bills.
“Two people visit Children’s Hospital and one of them is a conservative and the other is a progressive liberal. The conservative is moved by the suffering and trials of the children and makes a donation to help the children. The progressive liberal does not make a donation and accuses the conservative of not caring about the plight of the Children with serious illness. Which one is a lying piece of manure?”
The scenario is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
We were talking about healthcare reform. Neither the Children’s Miracle Network nor Make-A-Wish have anything to do with lifetime caps or pre-existing conditions. One funds wishes – the other help buy things like iPads and pays for travel for families. Neither is supplementing actual costs that might or might not be covered by insurance.
You are trying to artfully dodge Truth – but it doesn’t matter, and it is sad. You openly advocate for a position that would kick many of these kids off of insurance, and put lifetime and yearly caps on those that are insured. That’s a pretty crappy pro-life position to take.
So the answer to your question is – the conservative is finding the person bleeding on the side of the road and offering them a bandaid. The liberal is working to make it so that the person isn’t bleeding on the side of the road, but it cared for and has their bills paid.
truthseeker, you confected a non-existent scenario from an amalgam of unrelated events.
Fail.
Progressives almost never donate their own personal money to charitable causes? It is statistical fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
A study by Google showed they give twice as much. Why do you suppose that is?
The study by Google showed that conservatives give twice as to charity as liberals do. Hmmm
Progressives don’t have a charitable bone in their bodies and they don’t donate money to charity.
It’s a statistical fact…
…and the URL has “opinion” right on it.
Again – you support policy that says if a family finds out their soon to be born baby has massive issues, you support allowing insurance companies to cap coverage and kick that family off of having insurance.
Nice truth. Great pro-life stance.
Progressives are such Grubers. They know conservatives donate twice as much as the average liberal but they still think go around telling conservatives they should give their money to the government instead.
So now you’re demonstrating that you can’t comprehend the very data that you supplied? Wonderful.
Do you have any data showing how much non-monetary assistance each group provides to charitable groups? You know, actually, physically doing stuff that helps. Not just dumping a coin and running away.
“you support allowing insurance companies to cap coverage and kick that family off of having insurance.”
You and every progressive out there knows that is complete BS. I just don’t support the thousands of pages of Obamacare you rammed down peoples throats.
So truth
If I can show you examples of sick kids who were kicked off insurance, or denied coverage – would that change your view at all? Or are you saying you’d just be proven wrong, but still would be okay with sick kids and their families being denied insurance coverage?
For instance, you also told me that you’d repeal Obamacare first and foremost (to deal with healthcare). So I went a Children’s miracle network fundraiser and they featured a bunch of children with really tough challenges
Ex-RINO, How much did you donate when you visited that Childrens Miracle Network fundraiser? Did you mock them for holding a fundraiser and tell them they don’t need donations cause of Obamacare?
truth
The most vain thing I could think of is to post how much that I gave. Seriously low class.
Now. Fifty posts later you are claiming that you donated but you were just too humble to say so….you are so full of yourself.
Did you mock them for holding a fundraiser and tell them they don’t need donations cause of Obamacare?
I seriously think you might be an Obama plant sent to disrupt Jill’s web site.
truth
You claim to answer every question (though you never answered how gay marriages harm your marriage) – so again:
If I can show you examples of sick kids who were kicked off insurance, or denied coverage – would that change your view at all? Or are you saying you’d just be proven wrong, but still would be okay with sick kids and their families being denied insurance coverage?
I find you to be the plant truthseeker.
Do you have any sane reason for asking Ex-GOP if he mocked a fundraiser?
truth
Matthew 6:3
Also – no – I wouldn’t mock them. Again, as I said earlier, Children’s Miracle Network pays for things insurance doesn’t. I’m not advocating that any government program covers iPads for kids or meals for families when kids are in the hospital.
To be clear though, you are advocating that those kids can be kicked off of insurance – so while you throw toothpicks at me, you have a massive plank in your eye (which you might not be covered for).
It would not be difficult in the least to produce a receipt of the standard that you posted truthseeker.
“Do you have any sane reason for asking Ex-GOP if he mocked a fundraiser?”
If someone mocks people who give to fundraisers then they would be just as likely to mock the fundraiser itself.
And I wouldn’t put it past him. Based his recent post claiming that he did donate but he is too humble (omg) to tell us how much he donated. He seems to be moving in the direction of fabricating some kind of receipt.
If someone mocks people who give to fundraisers then they would be just as likely to mock the fundraiser itself. – nah, you’re off-beam.
How do we know the one you produced isn’t fabricated?
“To be clear though, you are advocating that those kids can be kicked off of insurance – ”
Huh? You never tire of your strawmen. I never said I want kids without insurance. Does that make you a liar?
I’ll keep posting…
You claim to answer every question (though you never answered how gay marriages harm your marriage) – so again:
If I can show you examples of sick kids who were kicked off insurance, or denied coverage – would that change your view at all? Or are you saying you’d just be proven wrong, but still would be okay with sick kids and their families being denied insurance coverage?
“How do we know the one you produced isn’t fabricated?”
Cause I’m not a liberal so there is a reasonable chance that I do give to charities.
You don’t want kids kicked off insurance?
Okay – Obama doesn’t wants kids aborted.
“If I can show you examples of sick kids who were kicked off insurance, or denied coverage – would that change your view at all? Or are you saying you’d just be proven wrong, but still would be okay with sick kids and their families being denied insurance coverage?”
Your so called question has an ‘or’ statement in it as if the answer is one or the other and that is not the case. Repost without the ‘or’ and I will answer.
Done with those convo.
I don’t think you can put two and two together truth.
Cause I’m not a liberal so there is a reasonable chance that I do give to charities. – is that your attempt at joke of the day? It’s not a very good one.
You don’t want kids kicked off insurance?
Finally you may be getting it.
“Okay – Obama doesn’t wants kids aborted.”
Then why does he fight to fund it?
Yes, how does same-sex marriage damage or harm your marriage truthseeker?
“Cause I’m not a liberal so there is a reasonable chance that I do give to charities.”
– is that your attempt at joke of the day? It’s not a very good one.”
It is a statistical fact.
“Yes, how does same-sex marriage damage or harm your marriage truthseeker?”
It defiles the entire institution of marriage.
“I don’t think you can put two and two together truth.”
And I don’t think you could bring yourself to donate to charity..ohh yah, your a liberal progressive so you don’t.
“If I can show you examples of sick kids who were kicked off insurance, or denied coverage – would that change your view at all?”
NO, I already know it happens. I just wouldn’t institute a monstrosity like Obamacare to try and fix that problem.
“but still would be okay with sick kids and their families being denied insurance coverage?”
No oh king of bloviating strawmen I am not ‘ok’ with that, and I am not ok with Obamacare. I would rather other solutions debated. Why not just place people who hit their caps on Medicaid instead of forcing taxes and fines and thousands of pages of bureaucracy and government intrusion on EVERYBODY’S medical care? That’s what Obamacare does anyway only it also adds a clustrf@*$ of other bs.
It is a statistical fact. – not in support of what you’ve claimed it isn’t. Nor does it prove your ‘receipt’ wasn’t fabricated.
It defiles the entire institution of marriage. – and how does it do that truthseeker? I think you’ll find it only ‘defiles’ your particular position on the institution of marriage.
“I think you’ll find it only ‘defiles’ your particular position on the institution of marriage.”
And God’s.
truthseeker, those who believe their god disapproves of same-sex marriage are not required to participate in it.
But that does not give them any right to prevent others who don’t believe their god, or absence of god, creates any disapproval, from participating in same-sex marriage if they wish.
The fact that you consider same-sex marriage defiles the institution and your god’s position still does not explain how same-sex marriage damages or harms your marriage. That would be because it can’t.
Homosexuals cannot participate in marriage unless the definition of marriage is changed. Changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions defiles the sanctity of marriage.
The definition of marriage has changed before and it’ll probably change again. Marriage is a state, legal act, not a religious one.
How does including same-sex marriage defile it’s sanctity? How?
How does it damage or harm your marriage?
Do you think your god will advise you that your marriage is now less sanctified than it was because same-sex folk are marrying? Given there are already many same-sex marriages, has your god done so yet?
Reality, let’s take this one step at a time so I can make sure you are understanding.
Do you think men and women are different?
You haven’t taken a single step yet truthseeker.
How does same-sex marriage damage or harm your marriage? You still have not answered this question at any stage.
What damage or harm have you found it suffering since the allowing of same-sex marriage to date? You should know that.
How does it defile the institution?
What has what you believe your god thinks of same-sex marriage got to do with what other people do? Why should that affect them?
Every person is different.
I have answered the question. Is MY marriage a part of the institution of marriage? YES. The institution of marriage is defiled by equating homosexual unions as being equal to heterosexual unions when they are not. Have I told you this before? YES. Do you keep asking the same questions over and over saying I haven’t answered them? YES. Have I answered it? YES. Will you ask it again?
“Every person is different.”
I thought I might need to take it real slow with you. You acknowledge that ‘every person is different’ but you do not acknowledge any difference between men and women. If you are that ignorant then there is no point in trying to explain why the union of men and women in marriage is defiled by equating it with homosexual unions.
On what basis do you claim that same-sex marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriage?
So now that same-sex marriage is abroad your marriage has been damaged or harmed or defiled has it? If so, what does that mean for your marriage?
We still have the fact that none of that justifies the denial of same-sex marriage.
You acknowledge that ‘every person is different’ but you do not acknowledge any difference between men and women. – given the contrary inaccuracy in this statement it’s obvious who needs things to be taken slowly.
If you are that ignorant – given I’ve stated that every person is different and that would include both men and women, obviously I’m not.
then there is no point in trying to explain why the union of men and women in marriage is defiled by equating it with homosexual unions. – there’s no point because it can’t be justifiably explained.
“On what basis do you claim that same-sex marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriage?”
On the basis that ‘men’ are different than ‘women’. Therefore the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men. If that is above your understanding then you are irrational.
“So now that same-sex marriage is abroad your marriage has been damaged or harmed or defiled has it?
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I do not recognize such a thing as homosexual marriage.
“If you are that ignorant” – given I’ve stated that every person is different and that would include both men and women, obviously I’m not.
Rather than being honest and acknowledged that men as a group share common differences from women as a group; you play your schoolyard semantics and respond ‘all people are different from each other”. If you can’t even acknowledge that then you can never understand how they their relationships are different and you are unable to engage in any rational discussion on the topic.
Different doesn’t mean unequal. Maybe same-sex marriages are more equal than heterosexual marriages, have you considered that? What about skin color, are white/white marriages, black/black marriages and black/white marriages not equal to each other in some way? Or any one of a number of other parameters that could be applied?
So you still haven’t explained why they cannot be equal, just that they differ.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. – only in your opinion. More and more countries and states say otherwise.
I do not recognize such a thing as homosexual marriage. – so your marriage hasn’t been damaged or harmed in any way. That’s nice.
If some concepts are too difficult for you to grasp just ask for help.
Reality, the reason asked you to acknowledge that there is a difference between men and women is because the marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Short, tall black, white, skinny, fat…none of those characteristics matter. It is not complex.
I could tell you that the word father is used to describe a male and you could turn around and tell me that women are equal to men therefore women are fathers and you would lose your ability to recognize the meaning of the word father.
There can be freaky women who ingest large doses of male hormones and grow a beard while they are pregnant but they will never be men.
marriage is the union of a man and a woman – obviously that is an incomplete definition.
Poor analogy truthseeker. Father denotes paternity, mother denotes maternity. Marriage denotes two consenting adults who love each other. Husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife – if those are the terms people wish to use. They might just say ‘spouse’, which doesn’t denote gender whatever the participants in the marriage.
There can be freaky women who ingest large doses of male hormones and grow a beard while they are pregnant but they will never be men. – and?
There can be freaky women who ingest large doses of male hormones and grow a beard while they are pregnant but they will never be men. – and?
And those freaky women can never marry another woman because marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
And those freaky women can never marry another woman because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. – why do you bother saying such things when you know you are just plain wrong?
“Father denotes paternity, mother denotes maternity”
That is correct. And the reason that is correct is because paternity has always been defined to mean male parent and maternity has always been used to define female parent. It allows rational people to communicate and understand what the other is saying. Marriage denotes the union of a man and a woman because marriage has always been defined that way.
Reality, were you nursed by your father?
Have you ever known a couple to get married and the female was the husband?
That is correct. And the reason that is correct is because paternity has always been defined to mean male parent and maternity has always been used to define female parent. – well done!
It allows rational people to communicate and understand what the other is saying. – well I’d like to think so.
Marriage denotes the union of a man and a woman because marriage has always been defined that way. – no it hasn’t, isn’t and won’t be. Why do you keep coming out with stuff which simply doesn’t reflect the real world?
Reality, were you nursed by your father? – and here I was thinking you had a grip on the whole paternity/maternity thing. Pity.
Have you ever known a couple to get married and the female was the husband? – not personally. What an irrelevant question.
When homosexuals ‘marry’ how do they decide which one is the wife?
There’s no real need to decide anything. As I have already said it’s generally “…husband and husband or wife and wife – if those are the terms people wish to use. They might just say ‘spouse’, which doesn’t denote gender whatever the participants in the marriage.
And the term is marry, not ‘marry’. They are full, legal, recognized by the state, marriages.
So at a homosexual “marriage’ the Justice of the Peace says “I now pronounce you spouse and spouse”?
So homosexuals can get ‘married’ but they can never be husband and wife? That sounds illegitimate.
It all depends on how they wish to refer to each other and themselves. They’re just words. Nothing ‘illegitimate’ about it, what a strange thing to say.
None of that matters.
What we’ve learned so far is that despite the advent of same-sex marriages, yours has not been damaged or harmed in any way and that you seem rather disconnected from the real world.
“It all depends on how they wish to refer to each other and themselves. They’re just words.”
So they can call themselves whatever they want? If a man wants to be a wife thats ok? No wonder you think homosexuals can get married. Are you saying that marriage is just a word to you too and how we define it or what it represents doesn’t really matter? How is a rational person supposed to carry on a conversation with somebody who thinks definitions don’t matter and words can mean whatever we want them to?
So they can call themselves whatever they want? – of course they can.
If a man wants to be a wife thats ok? – yep. I’ve heard non-married heterosexual couples referring to their partner as ‘wife’ or ‘husband’. Is that a travesty?
No wonder you think homosexuals can get married. – you haven’t been paying attention have you.
Are you saying that marriage is just a word to you too and how we define it or what it represents doesn’t really matter? – marriage is defined by the state using a legal definition.
How is a rational person supposed to carry on a conversation with somebody who thinks definitions don’t matter and words can mean whatever we want them to? – aw, is it all too complex for you?
None of these little attempts at distraction you are indulging in have any significance to the core principle at hand. That the institution of marriage, more and more widely, is no longer being subjected to arbitrary, unnecessary restrictions.
“That the institution of marriage, more and more widely, is no longer being subjected to arbitrary, unnecessary restrictions.”
That the definition of marriage, more and more widely, is no longer being subjected to a concise, coherent meaning.
TS: You stated “despite that there is no consensus among scientists on this matter” and pointed to the case of identical twins to prove your point. If anything I would say that identical twins is a case of two lives beginning at the same time. What seems nonsensical is that anybody still attempts to claim that there is no scientific consensus on when life begins.
Truthseeker, it is in the defining of “life” itself where there is no consensus. Different people conceive of it in different ways. Life has been on earth for billions of years, and human life for over 100,000 years.
We say that life ends when brain activity ceases, and some people feel it’s not fully there until certain brain activity is present – this would separate it from just having cellular metabolism working, etc. The egg and the sperm are most certainly “alive,” but there too we can make things more restrictive and say “that’s not enough” – that it has to be an organism that normally will develop further and/or we can say it has to have new, unique DNA. We can make it more restrictive yet – we can say the organism would have to be viable, capable of surviving on its own.
I’m not at all saying the point you pick for when a human life begins is wrong. If we take that as a given, then fertilization is when it would be. I brought up identical twins because per the above, while it usually is then fertilization/conception, it’s really not always. There’s a pretty darn constant 0.35% chance of identical twins, and a very tiny chance of higher multiples.
If you say that the identical twins are two lives beginning at the same time, I agree with that. It’s just not at fertilization or conception, though. The fertilized egg is not the same thing as the two or more “identical” multiples that may result, later. If we view the process as a continuum, rather than one specific instant, then all the bases are covered.
That the definition of marriage, more and more widely, is no longer being subjected to a concise, coherent meaning. – completely concise and coherent, probably even more coherent than it’s been. Just not what you’d like it to be. But it doesn’t change anything for you. So it has no impact on you.
“completely concise and coherent”
LOL. And always changing due to the whims of the state and who they want to grant certain benefits to. What about when the state decides you should be able to share those benefits with groups of people…then communal marriage will be just as concise and coherent?
No, changing due to the advancement of society.
Allowing people of different races to marry didn’t lead to a widespread call for polygamous marriages and there’s no reason to suggest that same-sex marriage will do so either.
Changing the definition from ‘two consenting adults who love each other’ to ‘as many as want to get in on it’ would probably be too big an ask. Such oddities have generally only occurred within religious environments.
It is not just that you look to the state to define marriage for you; it is that way with everything for progressives. Your reality is whatever the state tells you it should be.
If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so?
Only in a progressives mind.
It is not just that you look to the state to define marriage for you; it is that way with everything for progressives. Your reality is whatever the state tells you it should be. – you have it round the wrong way. The state will define things according to what we tell them it should be.
To sum up then. Whilst you have a belief that you are freely able to adhere to, you have no basis on which to impose that on others. And there is no discernable damage or harm caused to your marriage because of what others may do within their marriage.
“The state will define things according to what we tell them it should be.”
EVERY time homosexual marriage was voted on in state ballots the people voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. EVERY TIME.
“you have no basis on which to impose that on others.”
EVERY time homosexual marriage was voted on in state ballots the people voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. EVERY TIME. So that makes YOU the one imposing YOUR beliefs on others
I’m not the one forcing anyone to do something or preventing them from doing something. You are. So you are the one imposing your beliefs on others. Or attempting to anyway.
The courts have found that laws preventing same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.
A February–March 2015 Wall Street Journal poll found that 59% of Americans favor same-sex marriage.
A January–February 2015 Human Rights Campaign poll found that 60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while 37% oppose. The same poll also found that 46% of respondents say they know a same-sex couple who have gotten married.
A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.
My summary stands.
So you are posting CNN polls as you rationale for imposing your beliefs on hundreds of millions of people who voted for state constitutional amendments stating the opposite of those polls. And you use those polls to sum up that the polls give you the right to change the law? You are a mindless progressive parrot who grubers all over people ‘for their own good’ because you believe you know better than they do.
I already did. Did it overload your available mind-space?
It would almost appear that as same-sex marriage is introduced on a wider scale, support for it increases. I’m guessing that’s because more and more people quickly realize and recognize that all the blather they’ve heard against same-sex marriage is all a load of old baloney.
OMG… Seriously? You are saying that a CNN poll has more standing than people’s vote. Do you realize how Gruberesqe that is? Harry Reid would be proud of you. You are laughable.
One of the polls I cited is CNN, not “CNN polls” – can’t you even get that right.
When were those votes? Doesn’t matter any way, they were found to be unconstitutional.
The polls didn’t change the law, the courts did. Then the polls changed – to more and more support for same-sex marriage.
“One of the polls I cited is CNN, not “CNN polls”
Oh, I see now. There were more polls than just CNN. LOL. You listed 3 polls. OOOHHHH. I can’t believe you are weak minded enough to actually try and say those three polls prove that I am imposing my beliefs on you when ALL 31 states who held ‘polls’ at the voting booth on election day voted that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.
And it is becoming more and more evident that the progressives are using the courts to force their agenda on the rest of America. Progressives, when elected, make judicial appointments solely based upon their ideology and those judges make up constitutional rights that don’t exist (like the right to marry or the right to abortion) and force states to recognize it.
Oh, I see now. There were more polls than just CNN. LOL. You listed 3 polls. OOOHHHH. – you are more than welcome to find some which demonstrate less support for same-sex marriage if you wish.
I can’t believe you are weak minded enough to actually try and say those three polls prove that I am imposing my beliefs on you – I’m not. Are you weak minded enough to conclude such? I said “I’m not the one forcing anyone to do something or preventing them from doing something. You are. So you are the one imposing your beliefs on others. Or attempting to anyway.” Nothing to do with polls.
when ALL 31 states who held ‘polls’ at the voting booth on election day voted that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. – ‘when’ being the operative word. Can you show me some where and whens for what you claim? Not that it matters, it was a constitutional matter and the courts decided.
As I said, it seems rather obvious that as same-sex marriage is introduced support for it increases as people realise they were misled by those opposing it. Opponents of same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history.
Reality,
In Oklahoma 80% of the voting public voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Doesn’t that mean in Oklahoma there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.
LOL. You do say such things.
76%. In 2004.
(I’m quite confident there would have been a time when 76%, or maybe even 80%, would have voted for a law outlawing mixed-race marriages. Do you think that would have been a good outcome?)
Anyway – in 2014 Question 711 was found to be unconstitutional.
Doesn’t that mean in Oklahoma there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. – go on then, explain how you come to even ask such a question.
All this is irrelevant to the issue we were discussing. That allowing same-sex marriage has no impact on your marriage, or anyone else’s for that matter. And that there is no justifiable basis on which to prevent same-sex marriage.
76%. Since over 3/4 of the voting public in the state voted to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; doesn’t that mean there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Oklahoma?
If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so?
76%. Since over 3/4 of the voting public in the state voted to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; doesn’t that mean there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Oklahoma? – did you even read my 11:53pm comment? It wasn’t constitutional and same-sex marriage exists in Oklahoma.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is dying out, literally.
All this is irrelevant to the issue we were discussing. That allowing same-sex marriage has no impact on your marriage, or anyone else’s for that matter. And that there is no justifiable basis on which to prevent same-sex marriage. Doesn’t matter what kinds of distractions you try to come up with.
Reality,
If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so?
To sum it up. This would be the third time you didn’t answer the above question.
The answer lies within your question itself.
I didn’t bother answering it as it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that allowing same-sex marriage has no impact on your marriage, or anyone else’s for that matter. And that there is no justifiable basis on which to prevent same-sex marriage. Also, that opposition to same-sex marriage is literally dying out.
Reality, If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so?
To sum it up. This would be the fourth time you didn’t answer the above question
If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so? – now try hard truthseeker. Do you see the conflict within your question.
I’m still waiting for you to provide answers as to how same-sex marriage has damaged or harmed your marriage. Even though you did basically say it hadn’t you weren’t completely clear about it. Or as to what justifiable basis there could possibly be for you to discriminate against others.
Reality, If the state says society must recognize transgendered woman as men does that really make these women men just because the state says so?
To sum it up. This would be the fifth time you didn’t answer the above question
Maybe if you spent less time and effort bloviating all over the place you’d be able to apply yourself a little better.
The state says it ‘recognizes’ them as male.
It doesn’t say it ‘makes’ them men.
You have failed to answer the questions that have been put to you a whole lot more than five times. We know why that is.
“The state says it ‘recognizes’ them as male.
It doesn’t say it ‘makes’ them men.”
In the same way, just cause the state ‘recognizes’ homosexuals as married it doesn’t make them married either.
“how same-sex marriage has damaged or harmed your marriage”
It hasn’t cause homosexual marriage is a myth.
Now tell me, how has my not recognizing homosexual marriage hurt homosexuals?
Well yes it does actually. Marriage is no more than a legal act. It doesn’t have gender, DNA or any particular physical attributes. People get married under the auspices of the state and they are thus married. The state recognizes same-sex marriage in exactly the same way as it does heterosexual marriage. No existing documents are altered to reflect a change of circumstance whereas transgendered people already have birth certificates which may be changed.
It hasn’t cause homosexual marriage is a myth. – you can close your eyes and clench your fists and grit your teeth as much as you want, you can’t make it go away. It exists and it ain’t no myth.
Now tell me, how has my not recognizing homosexual marriage hurt homosexuals? – ah, so rather than attempt to answer a question that you know you cannot answer in the way you would like you come up with this? You’re almost grubering there truthseeker, be careful. Apart from possibly hurting someone’s feelings your decision to not recognize same-sex marriage probably doesn’t do much harm (there could be a clue there into what sort of answer you might be able to give to the question you have so far failed to answer).
“Marriage is no more than a legal act.”
If that was the truth then homos would be satisfied with civil unions that give the same legal rights as marriage.
“You’re almost grubering there truthseeker, be careful.”
Grubering is lying to people about something because you think you are smarter than them and if they knew the truth they would not accommodate your agenda.
“Apart from possibly hurting someone’s feelings your decision to not recognize same-sex marriage probably doesn’t do much harm”
Then why would the homosexual community attack businesses that won’t take part in their weddings?
Ah, ok, you’re an unsuccessful gruberer.
They don’t attack them. They make valid complaints that they are being unjustly discriminated against. Those businesses will disappear over time.
So, since apart from possibly hurting your feelings same-sex marriage does you no harm, why do you attack it?
“They don’t attack them. They make valid complaints that they are being unjustly discriminated against.”
They flooded a pizzeria in Indiana with phony orders and other attacks that forced them to shut down their pizzaria for several days
“Those businesses will disappear over time.”
Only if they keep getting attacked like that by the homosexuals.
Well if you are going to refuse to serve customers you obviously aren’t serious about being in business.
No, they’ll disappear because, just like all opponents of same-sex marriage, they are literally dying out.
So, at the end of it all it is good to here that same-sex marriage does your marriage no damage or harm. Now you can relax.
“No, they’ll disappear because, just like all opponents of same-sex marriage, they are literally dying out.”
They could no more die out than God could die out.
Now answer my question.
Why does the homosexual community attack businesses like the one in Indiana that said they would not be comfortable taking part in homosexual weddings?
Now you think humans can be immortal? Oh dear.
Why the god reference? Pointless.
I did answer your question – They don’t attack them. They make valid complaints that they are being unjustly discriminated against.
Now answer mine – So, since apart from possibly hurting your feelings same-sex marriage does you no harm, why do you attack it?
“Oh dear. Why the god reference?”
I didn’t reference god. I referenced the biblical God.
When a husband and a wife welcome God into their the marriage then the marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament and God joins into the marriage.
Golly, you can’t even quote what people have said correctly!
It’s still pointless, whichever god you refer to.
When a husband and a wife welcome God into their the marriage then the marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament and God joins into the marriage. – and there is no one trying to prevent you from believing that or changing it in any way.
So there you go, same-sex marriage has zero deleterious effect on your marriage. Aren’t you glad.
“They flooded a pizzeria in Indiana with phony orders and other attacks that forced them to shut down their pizzaria for several days”
How is that not an attack?
Your ploy of posing vaguely related but irrelevant questions instead of answering questions is rather transparent truthseeker.
You answered but with lies when you said that it wasn’t an attack when the homosexuals flooded the pizzeria with phony orders and shut down the business. You are shameless.
You said the ‘homosexual community’ was responsible for the attack. It wasn’t. It was a small collective of individuals. You don’t even know how many of them may or may not be homosexuals. There are a lot of fair-minded individuals who support same-sex rights who are themselves heterosexual. You just make stuff up.
[…] they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks, despite the fact babies 18-wks-old and up routinely receive anesthesia when undergoing prenatal […]