McCain and the pro-life plank of the GOP platform
On May 9 ABC News unearthed disturbing footage from a 2000 Republican primary debate between John McCain, Alan Keyes, and George Bush showing McCain’s nasty pro-abortion side. Click on image for link to view:
McCain provoked Bush on the exceptions they share: rape, incest. He tried to corner Bush as a liar or hypocrite since Bush supported the pro-life plank of the Republican platform (reprinted below) that excluded those exceptions by backing a human life amendment to the Constitution.
Keyes, always clear (although these days so hostile he has alienated all but a core few), nailed them both on their duplicity…
…I think this a perfect illustration – this discussion – of the problem we’ve got in the party, one individual who doesn’t really accept the pro-life position of the Party and another who says he accepts it but then takes positions that are inconsistent with it so when push comes to shove he won’t be able to defend it. And both willing to take at a personal level a position that will destroy human debate against the Democrats.
When Al Gore stands there – or Bill Bradley – and looks you in the eye, one of you or the both of you, and says, “Uh, Senator McCain you said your daughter, that would be her decision, it would be up to her to decide. How on earth can you represent a party that would take away from every other American woman what you would give to your own daughter?”
These are folks – let me finish – who take a position they can’t defend.
Earlier this month pro-life CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy was selected to head the GOP platform committee; the choice received overwhelming accolades from pro-life/pro-family leaders and groups. There is so much momentum to retain the pro-life plank, I don’t see it being weakened. Both the party and McCain know their relationship with the base is tenuous: If they mess with us on this, I’ll be surprised.
MSM is portraying McCain possibly going mute on the pro-life plank as a flip flop. As recently as 13 months ago McCain reiterated wanting to weaken it.
McCain has indeed been waffly on abortion.
In 1999 McCain appeared to tell the San Francisco Chronicle he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade but clarified within days he supported overturning it. Since then he has remained steadfast on that point.
McCain has also appears to oppose a human life amendment, according to an interview he did with George Stephanopoulos in 2006.
McCain’s core problem is his inconsistent pro-life position: supporting killing babies conceived via incest or rape. Over the years MSM and liberals have honed in on this inconsistency, becoming specific with questions and making it a difficult position to maintain and look like one makes any sense, as McCain and President Bush demonstrated in the video clip above.
Neverless, MSM still always concludes a strong pro-life position is a loser with voters. Stephanopoulos said in the above video about the 2000 campaign:
This issue is gonna be wrapped around the necks of the Republicans in the general election…. [E]ven more important, March 7, California. Lots of independents now registering, moving over to the Republican Party, looking at John McCain, and they’re not gonna like George Bush’s position on abortion at all in that state; big pro-choice state.
We all know who won the 2000 Republican primary and the general election. And the CA primary? Bush.
Bottom line: Pro-lifers choosing between McCain or either Democrat will have to choose McCain. He knows that. We all know that. But if he makes one wrong maverick move on the pro-life issue from here on out, many pro-lifers will bail, or as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council put it re: the pro-life plank, “political suicide.” He’ll have to take the “inconsistent flip flopper” hits.
The one thing McCain’s apparently very solid on is the judges issue. I’ve heard that from high ranking sources.
MSM is unintentionally doing the pro-life movement a favor by focusing on the rape/incest exception. Our best response? Abortion is a sex criminal’s best friend, particularly incest perpetrators. It covers up the crime by killing the evidence.
Pro-life plank of the 2000 Republican Platform:
The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions – a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide – shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. The impact of those measures and of our Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has been spectacular. Adoptions out of foster care have jumped forty percent and the incidence of child abuse and neglect has actually declined. We second Governor BushÕs call to make permanent the adoption tax credit and expand it to $7,500….
We applaud congressional Republicans for the steps they have taken for protection of human embryos and against human cloning, the trafficking in fetal tissue organs, and related abuses.
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.
Jill, About 10 days ago, after you touted McCain as 100% pro-life, I pointed out his waffling during the 2000 campaign, citing the San Francisco Chronicle article, and you angrily denounced that information as inaccurate.
No need to apologize.
“Uh, Senator McCain you said your daughter, that would be her decision, it would be up to her to decide. How on earth can you represent a party that would take away from every other American woman what you would give to your own daughter?”
Keyes does make some logical points. Naturally, McCain wants the “conservative” vote, but he also may well see that when we come to the actual situation, as with his daughter, it’s best to leave the decision to her.
Actually that was on April 16, when you so angrily denounced me for saying McCain has “waffled” and “flip-flopped” on the issue.
You are welcome to the use of those terms, now that you have conceded that they are correct.
McCain’s position with regard to rape or incest are consistent with my view of where all pro-choice people should be. My position is that a woman’s right to “choose” is really not a right to choose abortion, instead it is a right to choose to have sex. In other words, if she is raped she did not consent to intercourse and bodily domain has been violated so she was stripped of her right to choose so regardless of how I feel about the abortion I would want her to have safe and legal access to the morning after pill. This position is actually if you believe a womans right to choose is defined by her “consent” to intercourse.
FYI Jill, the video embedded in this blogline is linking me to Jenna Bush’s wedding, not to an abortion debate.
Anon,
Yes, you did:
Mc Cain’s flip-flop on Roe v. Wade between the 2000 and 2008 campaigns is well-documented, including the article in today’s New York Times election guide.
Posted by: anonymous at April 16, 2008 4:59 PM
Hey Jill and all you Pro-lifers, please be my guest and feel free to attack your candidate. Cut John McCain to pieces because he isn’t extreme enough for you. Encourage everyone you know not to vote for him! Hold your ground and insist on a candidate who completely opposes abortion and refuses to accept ANY exceptions! If it takes a kook like Keyes, who would disown his own daughter for being a lesbian, to satisfy you, then go for it and hold him up for mainstream America to see as your shining example of all that is good about extreme Christian conservativism. Thank you, and praise Jesus!
John McCain, at that time, unfortunately doesn’t seem to have a solid grasp on both the science background from an embryology standpoint, or a solid moral position from a philosophical standpoint. That said, that was quite a long time ago – I’m curious as to where he is today, specifically when it comes to the moral situation.
Because given this footage, it’s clear he’s dabbling in moral dualism.
Ray – would you be willing to gamble away your humanity?
What makes you a human being?
Now Ray,
Be nice.
McCain’s position with regard to rape or incest are consistent with my view of where all pro-choice people should be. My position is that a woman’s right to “choose” is really not a right to choose abortion, instead it is a right to choose to have sex. In other words, if she is raped she did not consent to intercourse and bodily domain has been violated so she was stripped of her right to choose so regardless of how I feel about the abortion I would want her to have safe and legal access to the morning after pill. This position is actually if you believe a womans right to choose is defined by her “consent” to intercourse.
Posted by: truthseeker at May 12, 2008 11:09 AM
************************
Then your issue isnt based on concern for the fetus – its with a woman being sexually active and not being willing to “pay” for it with gestation and birth. Robbing a woman of bodily autonomy is wrong whether its rape or making abortion illegal. The two run parallell.
I agree, Iva – women should keep the autonomy they have now, as it not being legal to force them to have sex against their will and also to not remain pregnant against their will.
Ok, let’s diss McCain and get Obama or Clinton.
Makes perfect sense. Not!
McCain has no choice now but to select Huckabee as his VP as I predicted he would months ago. Maybe he will but maybe he won’t.
And you libs……you invented the practice of flip-flopping so don’t be so surprised at it.
When it comes right down to it, it is the responsibility of the church to end this abortion holocaust, not any one politician. Let’s take the muzzle off the church via 501c3 legislation.
HisMan your church and your mythology doesnt have jack diddly squat to say about how I live my life. Get used to it.
I agree, Iva – women should keep the autonomy they have now, as it not being legal to force them to have sex against their will and also to not remain pregnant against their will.
Posted by: Doug at May 12, 2008 11:47 AM
*****************
Yup.
As far as I’m concerned, forcing a woman to have sex and not allowing her to end an unwanted pregnancy are similiar acts of violence against the woman, and show the same level of disregard for her rights and her autonomy.
Hahaha..
Ohhh man.
Jill – you do recall getting ALL sorts of defensive and angry last week and two weeks ago when several posters brought up EXACTLY this? That John McCain is hardly going to spear head any changes in the pro life agenda no matter how often he says he’s pro-life?
I dont recall him EVER taking back the statement that he would permit his daughter to have an abortion if she wanted one either.
This isn’t a surprise to anyone, except you apparently.
I’ll just hold my breath and wait for you to apologize to the posters you attacked last week, and then reposted..uhh…exactly what they told you.
Ray, I sene a hint of sarcasm in your May 12, 2008 11:16 AM post
Yup.
As far as I’m concerned, forcing a woman to have sex and not allowing her to end an unwanted pregnancy are similiar acts of violence against the woman, and show the same level of disregard for her rights and her autonomy.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 12, 2008 11:56 AM
Uh Red, they are completely different. A woman gives permission to the intercourse. Are you trying to say that a sperm and an egg should need permission to “take over” a body?
“McCain has no choice now but to select Huckabee as his VP as I predicted he would months ago.”
Wishful thinking HisMan. He’s all but said it will be Mitt Romney.
Yup.
As far as I’m concerned, forcing a woman to have sex and not allowing her to end an unwanted pregnancy are similiar acts of violence against the woman, and show the same level of disregard for her rights and her autonomy.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 12, 2008 11:56 AM
Uh Red, they are completely different. A woman gives permission to the intercourse. Are you trying to say that a sperm and an egg should need permission to “take over” a body?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 12, 2008 12:05 PM
****************************
No, they arent different.
You (the general use of the word, not YOU specifica) rob the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination in either case.
In either case you insist that what you want matters more than what she wants.
In either case you have no regard for what the womans thinks, feels, believes, needs or wants.
In either case your desires, what you want, what you think is right, what you desire, is more important than what the woman wants, desires, or thinks is right.
The woman has the right to bodily autonomy and self determination – when it comes to having sex or when it comes to continuing or ending a pregnancy.
And no, the pregnancy shouldnt continue if she doesnt give her ‘permission’ for it to do so.
Amanda 11:57
Actually it was on April 16 when Jill went off on the posters who brought up her new “scoop” of today on McCain. How time flies.
Surely you understand by now that being Jill means you never have to say you are sorry, and never have to admit you were wrong…
Surely you understand by now that being Jill means you never have to say you are sorry, and never have to admit you were wrong…
************
She certainly made a concerted effort to ignore all the proof I gave that contradicted her insistance there was “no evidence” of mankind that was older than 6000 years.
No, they arent different.
You (the general use of the word, not YOU specifica) rob the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination in either case.
In either case you insist that what you want matters more than what she wants.
In either case you have no regard for what the womans thinks, feels, believes, needs or wants.
In either case your desires, what you want, what you think is right, what you desire, is more important than what the woman wants, desires, or thinks is right.
The woman has the right to bodily autonomy and self determination – when it comes to having sex or when it comes to continuing or ending a pregnancy.
And no, the pregnancy shouldnt continue if she doesnt give her ‘permission’ for it to do so.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 12, 2008 12:12 PM
Red,
I think the “you” that you are referring to is not me but really the baby that said woman consentually engaged in intercourse to conceive. At that point there are two “you’s” and women need to understand that. Where I come in is speaking up for the rights of the “you” that you would conceive.
“She certainly made a concerted effort to ignore all the proof I gave that contradicted her insistance there was “no evidence” of mankind that was older than 6000 years.”
TR – Obviously you just weren’t listening when you were told the FACT that carbon dating and the fossil record are just part of the vast liberal conspiracy against God.
Besides, isn’t it much more fun to think about blonde caucausian women riding 100% vegetaraian dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago?
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html
Are you trying to say that a sperm and an egg should need permission to “take over” a body?
Posted by: truthseeker at May 12, 2008 12:05 PM
Good point. OR, one could say the fertilized egg and sperm would need to give permission for the hosting body to abort since their bodily autonomy would be compromised by an unauthorized abortion. And since that isn’t possible, we must default on the side of the fertilized egg and sperm.
Hey everyone.
Uhh… yeah, I agree with what Ray said. McCain is your (ie: the Republicans’) candidate, whether you like it or not. If you want to protest his opinions and all that, be my guest. But I’m just saying, as far as the Republican wing goes–it’s him. He’s your guy. Take it or leave it.
Just remember this if he gets elected (which I honestly don’t think he will) and we liberals are upset–you’ll be singing his praises and scolding us for badmouthing the president.
My money’s on Obama, though. He’s getting young people to vote! Woah….
What if this year we had a voter turnout higher than the voter turnout for American Idol? Wouldn’t that be miraculous?
as I said before….80% Pro-life president is BETTER than 0.0%
Bottom Line? It all comes down to the judges. That’s why I voted for Bush, and it’s why I’ll vote for McCain…Bush came thru. We’ll have to wait and see on McCain. But for now, that’s all we’ve got. And as RSD said, it’s better than what we’d have with Clinton or Obama…
“HisMan your church and your mythology doesnt have jack diddly squat to say about how I live my life. Get used to it.”
Perhaps TR, perhaps and time will certianly tell. Can we at least agree on that oh contrary one.
Besides, it’s not MY church, I didn’t die for it. The Church belongs to Christ. Diss the Church, diss Christ, and take your eternal lumps.
PL Kids:
I’ve e-mailed my McCain insider and hopefully will get a response.
And TR:
I suggest you go back to school for at least 12 more years to review the days you were absent.
TR calls 2000+ years of Catholic history and tradition as ‘mythology’…
Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…
“Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…”
But according to Jill, there is no documentation of humanity more than 6000 years old.
RSD:
10,000 years? I think God had the Church in mind since eternity? I know, you were just trying to be easy on TR.
Her’es my McCain insider’s response specifically directed at you PL kids:
“McCain has reiterated his support for overturning Roe and for appointing judges who would be inclined in that direction. He has voted pro-life consistently and been endorsed by Arizona Right to Life. By contrast, Barack Obama thinks his daughter shouldn
But according to Jill, there is no documentation of humanity more than 6000 years old.
And Jill is not Catholic.
Bush is not PRO LIFE people…he has killed our soldiers and killed thousands of iraqi children…blood on the hands of a chickenhawk fake Christian whop duped everyone that voted for him in 04. Kill more kids bush.
Peachpit,
But he gave us some pro life judges, didn’t he?!?
Anon, Amanda, TR, and whoever else: The post you’re discussing was on NARAL’s attempt to smear John McCain as somehow being pro-tossing aborting mothers in jail, which he clearly is not.
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/nyt_what_if_abo.html
And “Anon,” it was Laura who brought up McCain’s San Francisco Chronicle blurb. Care to confess? You failed to add at that time McCain clarified his statement within days. I mentioned both today.
I also made clear in that post we’re basically stuck with McCain, not perfect on the life issue but far superior than your dastardly duo.
You seem to think I’m a McCain cheerleader, so I should ne’er utter a disparaging word about him, or censor the latest news on him if it portrays him poorly on the pro-life issue.
Well, you’re wrong. I’m only loyal to the pro-life issue. McCain is better on it that your sickos, but he has sent many mixed messages through the years, and I’m not going to cover for him.
And anon/Laura, I banned you, you troll. What chutzpah to come on here complaining about me under a lying alias.
Peachpit,
I find it odd that you claim it is a womans right to directly kill her unborn child, but refuse to acknowledge that she is responsible for that childs life, yet you have no problem placing the blame for the death of volunteer soldiers squarely on the shoulders of President Bush…
He did not kill anyone. As TR would say, “What??? Our president is murdering people? There’s a law against that!” :)
If you are pro life you don’t drop bombs on kids…simple. If you are pro life, you don’t kill or have ANYONE killed. What a joke. i wish he was on the coke again…
PeachPit,
I think it’s time for you to go back to Beverly Hills.
Peachpit,
George Bush did not drop bombs on anyone either…
If you are pro life, you don’t kill or have ANYONE killed.
Shouldn’t that be except for your own children?
Either Jill doesn’t point out McCain’s flaws on the life issues, and she’s biased..and she does and then you guys STILL have something to say about it.
I swear, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
TR calls 2000+ years of Catholic history and tradition as ‘mythology’…
Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…
Posted by: RSD at May 12, 2008 12:59 PM
……………………………….
Too funny. Obviously the RCC is not the ‘natural’ extension of the Jewish faith or the Jewish faith would no longer exist. Christian mythology is the illegitimate child born of Jewish mythology. Just ask your Rabi.
Furthermore, your Catholic ‘traditions’ have altered radically over the last 2000 years.
Your convenient beliefs in your mythology have no bearing on American laws as much as you would like to believe otherwise. The vast majority of Americans do not buy into dehumanizing women with your madona/whore veneration. The concept of taking away women’s rights to bodily autonomy for their own ‘good’ is a worn out disguise for your mythological belief that women are responsible for men’s evils. Women must be punished for the sin of sexuality. If they accept their punishment, they are saints. If they do not, they are whores.
Small wonder that subscribers to your mythology shrink in number on a daily basis with hatred at the core of beliefs.
“I think it’s time for you [Peach Pit] to go back to Beverly Hills.”
Elizabeth, YES! I get it! I just started watching that show on Soapnet, and I”m sooo addicted. I’m on season 6 right now.
Jill 1:25
I am not Laura, but your paranoia is amusing.
I take no offense at your rants and name-calling. It just makes you look silly, like refusing to ever admit you were wrong.
I think the “you” that you are referring to is not me but really the baby that said woman consentually engaged in intercourse to conceive. At that point there are two “you’s” and women need to understand that. Where I come in is speaking up for the rights of the “you” that you would conceive.
The problem with your statements is that you’re not really pro-life. You’re pro-punishment if the sex is consensual.
See, even if a woman is raped, there is still life. If you really cared about that life, you wouldn’t be okay with abortion in the case of rape. But you are, which shows a disregard for life under certain circumstances.
One could conclude from your statements that you care less about the life and more about the method it was conceived. That’s why pro-choicers suspect pro-lifers are all about punishments for women who don’t want to have children.
Take away birth control, take away abortion in the case of pregnancy, and tell that slut to keep her legs closed? I don’t think that’s an effective pro-life method.
If you really want to be consistent you must argue for life for all circumstances, unless the mother’s life is in danger.
Anon/Laura, it was Laura who brought up the SF Chronicle on the previous post. You slipped. Liars always do.
Bobby, I watched it alllll last summer on soapnet!
Red,
I think the “you” that you are referring to is not me but really the baby that said woman consentually engaged in intercourse to conceive. At that point there are two “you’s” and women need to understand that. Where I come in is speaking up for the rights of the “you” that you would conceive.
Posted by: truthseeker at May 12, 2008 12:26 PM
********************
Typical – totally belittle, demean, denigrate and ignore the thinking feeling reasoning woman (which is the same thing a rapist does) and focus on what YOU want, and treat her as if she has some obligation to satisfy your desires (which is the same thing the rapist does). Your obsession is with forcing her to continue a pregnancy. The rapists obsession is forcing her to have sex. You both think that what YOU want gives you the right to totally ingnore the woman, what she thinks, what she feels, what she believes, what she needs and what she wants. Neither one of you care what satisfying your desires does to her or her life. You insist she had sex so that justifies your attitude. The rapist insists she *fill in the blank* and that justified his attitude. Youre both certain that what you want is more important than she is and you dont care what it does to her as long as you get what you want. You both would rob her of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and tell yourself you had a *right* to do so. As far as Im concerned there is no difference. Trying to hide behind the absurdity that you want to ‘protect’ a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious collection of tissue which justifies brutality and the callous disregard of the woman who is pregnant is just rationalization and making excuses on your part. You try to pretend that what happens to the woman pregnant somehow ‘doesnt matter’ because youre obsessed with oblivious tissue. Neither you nor the rapist respect the womans right to bodily autonomy. As far as Im concerned your attitude towards the woman is no different from that of a rapist.
TR – Obviously you just weren’t listening when you were told the FACT that carbon dating and the fossil record are just part of the vast liberal conspiracy against God.
Besides, isn’t it much more fun to think about blonde caucausian women riding 100% vegetaraian dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago?
*******************
heheheheheh
Madonna/whore veneration?
Mind clarifying what you meant by that, TR?
TR calls 2000+ years of Catholic history and tradition as ‘mythology’…
Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…
Posted by: RSD at May 12, 2008 12:59 PM
**************
And?
There is no difference between the myths of Odin and thor or Aphordite and Zeus and the myths of Jehova and Jesus if you dont buy into any of it.
Main Entry: my
Good point. OR, one could say the fertilized egg and sperm would need to give permission for the hosting body to abort since their bodily autonomy would be compromised by an unauthorized abortion. And since that isn’t possible, we must default on the side of the fertilized egg and sperm.
Posted by: Janet at May 12, 2008 12:34 PM
************
No, we ‘must’ do no such thing. Trying to pretend that oblivious tissue can ask permission is ridiculous. The woman, however, can give her opinion and do what she thinks is best and if that includes having that oblivious nonviable tissue removed then she has every right to do so.
Bottom Line? It all comes down to the judges. That’s why I voted for Bush, and it’s why I’ll vote for McCain…Bush came thru. We’ll have to wait and see on McCain. But for now, that’s all we’ve got. And as RSD said, it’s better than what we’d have with Clinton or Obama…
Posted by: mk at May 12, 2008 12:50 PM
*******************
How did Bush ‘come through’?
I suggest you go back to school for at least 12 more years to review the days you were absent.
Posted by: HisMan at May 12, 2008 12:56 PM
*************
More idiocy. Thank you for reminding me again why viewing you as a laughingstock is the only real option.
Besides, it’s not MY church, I didn’t die for it. The Church belongs to Christ. Diss the Church, diss Christ, and take your eternal lumps.
Posted by: HisMan at May 12, 2008 12:51 PM
*****************
Hell would be eternity spent around people like you. hissman. And I honestly think that even in the context of your own mythology Jesus wouldnt be at all pleased with your arrogance, pomposity, egocentricity and hatefulness all in ‘his name’.
Wait wait wait… Does that say exception for “Mother’s Life”? Tell me that pro-LIFErs aren’t objecting to that!
TexasRed–The difference between Jesus and Moses and Odin and Zeus is that there are people still alive right now who really believe the stories about Jesus and Moses. Yes, they technically fit the definition of mythology, but that does change the way that we ought to talk about it.
” Christian mythology is the illegitimate child born of Jewish mythology. Just ask your Rabi.”
————————————-
Illegitimate, Sally? The Old Testament is filled with verses on the coming of the Jewish Messiah.
You got the documented lineage of King David to Joseph and Mary.
The apostles were the first Jews that converted to Christianity when Christ rose from the dead…and the rest is history. The Rabbi’s told everybody else that Jesus’s body was taken from the tomb….I guess that portion of the story was taken out of your Sunday school teaching, huh?
—-on another note:
Yes, Hisman, I was just referring to the documented history of the human race BUT the plan has been there since the beginning of time.
Peachpit,
I find it odd that you claim it is a womans right to directly kill her unborn child, but refuse to acknowledge that she is responsible for that childs life, yet you have no problem placing the blame for the death of volunteer soldiers squarely on the shoulders of President Bush…
He did not kill anyone. As TR would say, “What??? Our president is murdering people? There’s a law against that!” :)
Posted by: mk at May 12, 2008 1:27 PM
******************************
Those soldiers wouldnt have died if that idiot in the White House hadnt invated Iraq for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest even for you. And by the way, there is no ‘child’ involved. There is only oblivious nonviable tissue. Comparing that to the thousands of thinking feeling men and women in uniform who have died for no reason at all is offensive insulting and shameful.
“Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…”
But according to Jill, there is no documentation of humanity more than 6000 years old.
Posted by: Amanda at May 12, 2008 1:10 PM
*******************************
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Nice one!
“There is no difference between the myths of Odin and thor or Aphordite and Zeus and the myths of Jehova and Jesus if you dont buy into any of it. ”
——————————-
…and the operative word is “IF” (ie.IF you don’t buy into it)…unlike you, TR..we are people of faith…we don’t need to see to believe.
No, we ‘must’ do no such thing. Trying to pretend that oblivious tissue can ask permission is ridiculous. The woman, however, can give her opinion and do what she thinks is best and if that includes having that oblivious nonviable tissue removed then she has every right to do so.
TR, perhaps she could have a spiritual meeting with her fetus and ask its permission. ;) I mean, it’s no different than getting messages from God, right?
Madonna/whore veneration?
Mind clarifying what you meant by that, TR?
Posted by: carder at May 12, 2008 2:22 PM
****************************
Since I didnt say anything at all about it, I have nothing to clarify.
TexasRed–The difference between Jesus and Moses and Odin and Zeus is that there are people still alive right now who really believe the stories about Jesus and Moses. Yes, they technically fit the definition of mythology, but that does change the way that we ought to talk about it.
Posted by: DRF at May 12, 2008 2:34 PM
*******************
There are people who today believe in Odin and Thor and who believe in Zeus and Aphrodite. If you dont buy into it, there is no difference. And your mythology doesnt give you any rights or power over me or my life nor should it.
TR, perhaps she could have a spiritual meeting with her fetus and ask its permission. ;) I mean, it’s no different than getting messages from God, right?
Posted by: Edyt at May 12, 2008 2:38 PM
************************
Im getting an image of a really weird ‘seance’ trying to contact the ‘spirit’ of an embryo/fetus ….
Currently I’m being inspired to come up with a PHP commenting application that allows selective bans for others. That way we won’t have to see repeated arguments ad-nauseam from those who demand attention, but don’t know how to give it to others.
Currently I’m being inspired to come up with a PHP commenting application that allows selective bans for others. That way we won’t have to see repeated arguments ad-nauseam from those who demand attention, but don’t know how to give it to others.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 12, 2008 2:45 PM
*****************************
Try closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and chanting ‘Lalalalalala I cant hear you’. The antichoice arguments are just as repeated as anything the pro choice side has to say. You just dont want to be reminded that most of your precious ‘arguments’ can be negated.
Im getting an image of a really weird ‘seance’ trying to contact the ‘spirit’ of an embryo/fetus ….
Reminds me of the invention of spiritualism from those two girls, Margaret and Kate Fox.
“You just dont want to be reminded that most of your precious ‘arguments’ can be negated. ”
————————————-
Funny, that’s what I thought about the PRO-ABORT’s arguments….
“The vast majority of Americans do not buy into dehumanizing women with your madona/whore veneration.”
You posted that at 1:43pm today. Perhaps my question should have been structured another way: What does madonna/whore veneration have to do with dehumanizing women? And is the term madonna/whore comparing the Virgin Mary with a prostitute?
If I’ve totally got it wrong, please correct me. Not looking to get lit, this is sincere.
Jill 2:03 My post was on 4/16,(as acknowledged by mk at 11:13) and it referenced statements in the NY Times election guide, based on the SF Chronicle article.
I just discovered that Laura’s post on 5/5/08 independently referenced the same SFC article.
I am perplexed at your paranoia and name-calling whenever someone challenges your statements.
You need not apologize for calling me a liar, since apology is not in your nature.
Think you’d better check with Jill on that application Chris. Business is business and the role of business is to make a profit. No controversy= no hits= less revenue.
Chris, commendable idea. Work on it.
Phylo, get real. Revenue?
@ Carder:
Sincere answer here.
What does madonna/whore veneration have to do with dehumanizing women? And is the term madonna/whore comparing the Virgin Mary with a prostitute?
It’s a dichotomy (either one or the other, black or white, all in the category “woman” is either madonna or whore). Comes from literary criticism. A way of sterotyping or pigeonholing women by their sexual activity. One is put on a pedestal, but not fully recognized; the other is to be used, also not fully known or recognized. Makes them into two dimensional characters. This is why the “whore with the heart of gold” was so troubling to watchers of early westerns.
Human beings are well-rounded, complex creatures.
Compare to the way we think of men. There is no comparable dichotomy, but shouldn’t there be for men?
Ji:
Like you don’t site the number of hits when you market your “speeches.” Like those advertisers don’t check you hits. Like WND doesn”t care about hits.
You’ve boasted of it often enough, now don’t go all disingenuous when someone compliments your business acumen.
Controversy sells, so you fan the flames.
Thanks phylosopher.
Is that what you meant, TR?
@ Carder again.
You’re welcome. Here’s the Freudian take, too.
Sorry about wiki, but my other source is more in depth than you’d need to bother with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna-whore_complex
“You just dont want to be reminded that most of your precious ‘arguments’ can be negated. ”
————————————-
Funny, that’s what I thought about the PRO-ABORT’s arguments….
Posted by: RSD at May 12, 2008 2:52 PM
*****************
Since there is no such thing as a ‘proabort argument’ youre the one who is funny.
“The vast majority of Americans do not buy into dehumanizing women with your madona/whore veneration.”
You posted that at 1:43pm today. Perhaps my question should have been structured another way: What does madonna/whore veneration have to do with dehumanizing women? And is the term madonna/whore comparing the Virgin Mary with a prostitute?
If I’ve totally got it wrong, please correct me. Not looking to get lit, this is sincere.
Posted by: carder at May 12, 2008 2:57 PM
************************
Carder, I didnt make that comment.
I never said it was ok to abort either. I don’t think killing is ok anytime. but our fearless leader has duped people into thinking he is pro life and he is the opposite. He has ok’d the death of thousands of soldiers and innocent iraqi people. He had the most kills of any governer….
McCain = Bush
Carder, Sally made that comment, not me. But the madonna / whore complex typically means that women are seen in two extremes – either ‘pure’ or ‘fallen’ with nothing in between.
Im getting an image of a really weird ‘seance’ trying to contact the ‘spirit’ of an embryo/fetus ….
Reminds me of the invention of spiritualism from those two girls, Margaret and Kate Fox.
Posted by: Edyt at May 12, 2008 2:51 PM
*******************
They’d have a tough time popping their toes thought to make the ‘clicking’ sounds –
You’re right, TR! My bad.
Thanks.
I’ve heard that Elvis Presley had a ‘madonna/whore’ complex – he idolized his mother so that when his wife BECAME a mother he couldnt reconcile her role ‘as a mother’ with her role as a wife. Part of that ‘complex’ is the idea that ‘good’ women cant really enjoy sex – you can see that reflected in Victorian attitudes towards women. Men went to ‘bawdy houses’ to ‘take care of their needs’ because a ‘good woman’ deserves to be treated ‘better’ … uh yeah
Ohhhhhhh Doug,
Trying to hide behind the absurdity that you want to ‘protect’ a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious collection of tissue
You promised that if you ever saw someone on the pro choice side that didn’t believe the fetus was “human” you would take them on yourself…wellllll?
Hey MK, Bethany, Stud, JLM, Janet, Carder, RSD, and all other PL’s:
I think you’d really like this one.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4
Trying to hide behind the absurdity that you want to ‘protect’ a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious collection of tissue
You promised that if you ever saw someone on the pro choice side that didn’t believe the fetus was “human” you would take them on yourself…wellllll?
Posted by: mk at May 12, 2008 4:07 PM
********************
Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun.
From now on when a liberal uses the word ‘extreme’ to describe the right, I’ll understand that to mean ‘consistent.’
Jill @ 3:08 PM – the more I think about it, the more I like it – tho’ phylo has a point:
phylosopher said:
I believe Jill’s business model is cause promotion and not PPC revenue. I can’t imagine high click-thru counts for the advertisers. It may defray the cost, but I don’t see the advertisers listed above as being in it for the money.
So it’s not a matter of there being less controversy, but simply a matter of squelching noise. The post following my idea is a great example of what I’m talking about.
If anything, I know I’d be willing to pay a small fee for a certain degree of control, without infringing on others. That sounds like a business model…
Certainly you’d understand that too much noise can be just as harmful as too little controversy, and if I recall you tried to bring such order to a comment thread just a little while ago. I also imagine it would be nice to string together common threads without getting into nesting problems.
I’d also like perhaps a profile and some stats on some folks here – more to remember where they’re coming from and what their positions are – similar to what you were suggesting.
I’ve made some incredibly long posts that I’m sure others would like to skip over – or if I’m particularly offensive to someone, why not provide the option of squelching me?
Anyway – it’s not going to happen overnight. I’ve got some serious PRC stuff to finish.
Sorry – most of the last post was addressed to Phylosopher but I started out with Jill.
TR calls 2000+ years of Catholic history and tradition as ‘mythology’…
Since the Catholic church is the natural extension of the Jewish faith…that kinda works back another 10,000+ years of documented “mythology”…
Posted by: RSD at May 12, 2008 12:59 PM
yes, you understand now. Mythology from day one, just like the while Zeus craze that was so popular for so many years.
HisMan,
Thank you so much for that link! WOW!!!!
and AMEN!!!!
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Wow, Alan Keyes is awesome in this video!
You promised that if you ever saw someone on the pro choice side that didn’t believe the fetus was “human” you would take them on yourself…wellllll?
MK, I think Iva is right – isn’t this just confusion on the difference between an adjective and a noun?
Doug,
I think when people write the word “human” as above, it’s understood that the word “being” is supposed to follow it. So the question would still stand, just place the word “being” after human and the article “a” before human in MK’s query. God love you.
Doug,
Whether or not you believe that the fetus is A human or just human, don’t you think Iva’s description indicates that she doesn’t believe it is human in any sense of the word? I mean c’mon, be honest here.
a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious collection of tissue
There is not a person alive that would read that and think, oh she must be talking about an unborn fetus…or that she meant insensate noviable oblivious collection of human tissue…
Which it isn’t anyway. It is living. It is growing, changing, breathing…it has a heartbeat.
Nonviable, insensate, oblivious collections of tissue don’t have heartbeats…
Maybe I shouldn’t put you on the spot as you and Iva are friends…but seriously, until I hear Iva tell me that she believes the fetus is human, I stand by my interpretation. She doesn’t. And neither do a lot of other people.
Bobby, indeed – that’s where the argument lies, not with the unborn being “human” or not.
“Bobby, indeed – that’s where the argument lies, not with the unborn being “human” or not.”
Doug, I’m not sure what the distinction that you’re making between a fetus being “a human being” and being “human” is. I thought this was just a grammatical question that you and TR (Iva!?) were pointing out. By being “human”, do you take that to mean being a person?
Oops, oops! My last sentence
“By being “human”, do you take that to mean being a person?”
should read
“By being “a human being”, do you take that to mean being a person?”
MK, this has come up numerous times over the years, and of course Iva realizes the unborn in this debate are human. What constitutes “a human” is up for argument, however. Is it merely being a living human organism, or is more implied by the term? For some the answer is no, for some it’s yes.
It’s a given that we are talking about the unborn here, and mindless, insensate, oblivious, and nonviable all apply. “Collection of tissue” could certainly be argued, and there may be some button-pushing therein, but to a point in gestation the unborn are not more sensate, etc., than that, so I don’t see it as a big deal. One could say “it’s not just a collection of tissue, it’s an organism,” and I’d agree.
As far as people really thinking the fetus isn’t human, I just plain disagree with you.
Doug,
I’d like to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.
I know YOU understand that it’s human but…
And honestly Doug, it is A human. To you it might not be A person, but it is A human…noun, not adjective.
Bobby, (yes, TR is Iva), IMO, that the unborn are “human” in this argument is a given. Human DNA is there. They are of human derivation, etc. Pretty much case closed, again IMO.
I do see a difference between “human being” and person. There are the legal meanings, which of course many people disagree with, but personally I think “human being” applies since the unborn are “human” and have existence – that’s enough state of “being” for me.
That does not a person make, though, necessarily – still my opinion here – more is required which comes with development, usually, the personality, emotion, perceptions, etc., that make us the singular race on earth we are, rather than just one more unique species.
I impute more to personhood than merely having the barest “human being” qualification, and there are plenty of people who don’t think “human being” applies until certain development has occurred, as well. For many people there is a point in development when it becomes “a human” and/or “a human being” – they’re figuring more into those terms, less inclusive, more restrictive, more implied in them.
Also – “human being” could even be extended beyond being an organism, on the basis of being “human” and (again) just having existence, but between you and me “human being” has to at least be an organism, so let’s start with that as a set, a big one in this case.
A smaller set within are persons, with more attributes. Now there is “somebody home,” there are the organize patterns of brain waves, some sense perception, etc.
Doug,
A smaller set within are persons, with more attributes. Now there is “somebody home,” there are the organize patterns of brain waves, some sense perception, etc.
I don’t think there can really be any argument about it being A human being either…it is human and it has a heartbeat. That pretty much does it scientifically.
As to your personhood argument, are we ready to go there again?
Bobby, I’m game if you are, but I’m warning you, it gets like the 4000 comment post…all kinds of twists and turns…
MK, I’ve seen it argued, as in what makes for “a human,” but I agree with you – for me, “a human” applies just as does “human being.”
I don’t think there can really be any argument about it being A human being either…it is human and it has a heartbeat. That pretty much does it scientifically.
MK, you’re narrowing it down with a heartbeat being necessary, but again – I agree with you. I’m fine with “organism” being required rather than stuff which is merely human and existing but less complex than an organism. I note that to a point in gestation there is no heartbeat, so my usage is actually more inclusive than yours, there (though I know you think it’s a human being from conception).
……
As to your personhood argument, are we ready to go there again?
Bobby asked what I meant, and it’s not really an argument, it’s just how I feel. To say that the fertilized egg is a “person” is ludicrous to me, yet I know that many people feel it is.
Doug,
I know it’s just your opinion, but Bobby hasn’t been in on this discussion and I’d actually enjoy watching you two discuss it. I think. haha…be careful what you wish for.
To us Doug, you have to understand that we don’t think there are bodies that souls enter. We think there are souls, that unite with a body. So personhood for us goes waaaaay beyond sentience. We believe that soul is aware, even if it’s body isn’t cooperating. Which is why I asked you once, where does the “person” go in a case like Terri Schiavo. For us, the person is there, the body is just not capaple of being a mode of expression any longer. For you, it’s as if the “person” comes and goes depending on whether the body is funtioning.
We aren’t bodies with souls. We are souls with bodies. The body can be damaged, but the soul cannot. The soul is immortal. When we speak of human dignity, we mean the body yes, but we are mostly talking about the soul. The human soul.
It doesn’t matter to us what stage the “body” is in. The soul ALWAYS has dignity.
What irks me more than anything about TR’s litany of fetal attributes is the tone: so disdainful, so hateful.
She might as well talk about roaches.
Carder,
Exactly. Not to mention how she spoke about our beloved Mother Teresa. And yet somehow found a way to sing the praises of Margaret Sanger…Someone needs to turn her head around…it seems to be on backwards.
But no more worries as Jill has given her the axe.
For real???
When, where, how, who?
Oh happy day! I mean, night!
MK, good comments. IMO with a Terri Schiavo, the person, the personality, the soul, etc., was gone. There was a body there, but “Terri” wasn’t present any longer.
Carder,
I guess she got into it with Jill and Hisman earlier. Don’t tug on supermans cape, don’t spit into the wind, don’t pull the mask off the old lone ranger and you don’t mess around with Jill…
Doug,
See, to us, Terri’s body was broken, but her soul was alive and kickin’. That’s why it was wrong to us, to end her journey before it was time. We have know way of knowing what the soul was up to…what road it was taking. And we interfered with it’s story…
Same with my Dad. His body is screwed, no doubt. But his soul is there. Doing what it was put here to do. I don’t claim to understand why this is the road that God placed him on, but I sure as heck ain’t gonna second guess him. And as with Terri, he still manages to let us know he’s “there”…I call it coming to the surface, but it’s really just a matter of their bodies cooperating. But at no time is the “person” gone. Incommunicado? yes. But gone? No way…uh~uh.
You just have to know “how” to look for it…Terri’s mom and dad knew. I know. Some people don’t. Can’t see past the physical. But that is just their “bodies” not working. The fault lies with the people that can’t see, not with the people that are ailing. It’s really your eyes, your spiritual eyes, that aren’t working properly. I don’t mean that as an insult. I’m just saying that there are lots of us, that see their soul, despite their bodies incompetence. You just have to know how.
Doug,
You know how you can look at your wife and see stuff that no one else can? YOU are seeing HER soul. Others don’t look at her that way. To you, it’s plain as day. To someone else, eh, she’s nice and all, but they don’t really see her the way you can. It’s because you love her. Terri’s folks loved her…they saw her soul. I love my dad. To you he’s just a shell, but to me? I see his soul.
You see your wifes. Love is the key. Mother Teresa had so much love that she was able to see EVERYBODY’S soul…
Ray, I sene a hint of sarcasm in your May 12, 2008 11:16 AM post
Yup, truthseeker, that is how it is done. To sum up my point, every time Jill and the extremists attack the Republican nominee for not being “pro-life” enough, it is a gain for the moderate cause, and I will happily enjoy watching.
Speaking of pro-life, McCain is the guy that wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. How many US and Iraqi deaths do you think that would cost?
Wow, Alan Keyes is awesome in this video!
Bethany, is that sarcasm? Keyes is a shrill buffoon (and completely unelectable, I might add). His flowery rhetoric cannot disguise a fairly obvious self-loathing. And he pretty much disowned his own daughter for being a lesbian, which doesn’t strike me a very Christian thing to do. The “pro-life” movement won’t go very far with spokesmen like him representing it.
mk, sorry if I went overboard with the sarcasm post this morning…I just couldn’t resist digging at you folks nipping at your own candidate.
Ray,
I know. Jill wasn’t taking any gruff today and I certainly didn’t want you lumped in with the folks that got the axe.
As for Keyes, I love the guy, but I realize he could never be president. He is waaaay too extreme. But it’s his extremity that makes the other candidates think about their own positions and tweak them.
While it was a bit much to disown his daughter, you certainly can’t call him a hypocrite. He walks the walk even if it is a bit much.
As for McCain being weak…as Jill says. We gotta call em as we see em. And a wishy washy conservative is better than an extreme liberal. From where I sit, Obama is just as extreme the other way as Keyes.
We’re taking a chance with McCain. We KNOW what we’re getting with the other two. I’m up for a gamble. It’s all about the judges. There could be as many as 6 new ones appointed. Can’t imagine McCain would be any worse than Hillary or Barack.
MK, certainly, this is a matter of belief, but if there is a “soul” then I’d say it can take off well before the death of the body. For a more extreme example, consider a body kept alive as far as blood going through the vessels and oxygen and calories, etc., going to the cells, but all done by medical means. Do you think that the soul would necessarily be there? I realize that the brain wouldn’t necessarily be the end-all for you, but if the head was gone, say?
I guess Terri Schiavo is a fruitless argument for you and me, but I believe you about your dad, and I wonder what he thinks. Truly, I’m not saying he is only a shell.
Actually, people can see what I see in my wife. Not that a given person will see everything I do, but among her 150 students, her large family and all our friends I think it’s all there, pretty much. I don’t believe in the notion of immortal souls, but if anything I think there is a “sense” of a person there, and that one can sometimes see it or feel it, perhaps without being able to put in into words well or at all.
:: calling MK’s kids ::
It’s 10 o’clock, do you know where your mother is?
Wait, I’m confused…who got the banhammer today and why?
If you really want to be consistent you must argue for life for all circumstances, unless the mother’s life is in danger.
Posted by: Edyt at May 12, 2008 1:58 PM
Edyt, any time a motehr commits abortion her life and soul are in danger. And I do not consider myself completely pro-life. For instance I would have no trouble killing somebody who hurt my wife or child. I know it’s inconsistent but that is my honest answer and it is what it is.
Well Chri, you think it’s just cause promotion? To quote the Big J herself, “get real,” see ad for own dvd, and WND column, and the speaking circuit can be quite lucrative, if one takes just the free travel and accomodations into account.
And didn’t she actually run for some political office? Isn’t it in Illinois that one gets to keep the leftover political warchest?
Getting traffic feeds the wallet directly and indirectly. So again, hats off to Jill for following that capitalist dream.
You both would rob her of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and tell yourself you had a *right* to do so.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Red, as much as you keep saying it, it won’t change the fact that there is no viollation of bodily autonomy when the women consents to the intercourse. Simply put, consenting to sperm entering your body means sperm did not violate your bodily autonomy. Once you welcome said sperm in and it meets your egg you have a second human life to consider. You like to demean value of said human life but yourf bodily autonomy argument is balederdash.
You try to pretend that what happens to the woman pregnant somehow ‘doesnt matter’
Posted by: TexasRed at May 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Red, where do you come up with these fabrications? I think what happens to the “pregnant woman” matters greatly. You are the one who likes to pretend it doesn’t matter by telling her that the life inside her is meaningless. Your ranting isn’t convincing/fooling anybody except yourself.
btw Edyt, that was me at 10:41
TS, but what if you, like many people, use a condom or other forms of BC? That’s like saying “no” to sperm, so you’re not really welcoming them. If sperm manages to penetrate these barriers and impregnate someone, their bodily autonomy is violated because they acted in a way to show they were unwelcoming to sperm.
I can see how your argument would work if no BC is in place, but otherwise it’s still a violation of bodily autonomy, whether the sperm is conscious of doing so or not.
TS, but what if you, like many people, use a condom or other forms of BC? That’s like saying “no” to sperm, so you’re not really welcoming them. If sperm manages to penetrate these barriers and impregnate someone, their bodily autonomy is violated because they acted in a way to show they were unwelcoming to sperm.
I can see how your argument would work if no BC is in place, but otherwise it’s still a violation of bodily autonomy, whether the sperm is conscious of doing so or not.
Posted by: Edyt at May 12, 2008 11:26 PM
Edyt, I can see your point to a degree. I am thinking you are you saying that even though she gives consent, that her bodily autonomy is still violated because she di not have the “intent”. But I know you are saying nmore then that because a woman w/o BC may not have “intent” either. Can you please clarify for me?
Red,
Soul or no soul the argument against abortion is just as logical. MK belief in the soul makes it illogical for her to kill the human being and your lack of belief in a soul should make it illogical for you care so little about said human life’s only chance at existence.
Youre a liar. Simple as that. It may be your personal OPINION thats how it is, but as far as Im concerned youre full of it and your argument is idiotic. Agreeing to sex is no more agreeing to pregnancy than driving a car is agreeing to a car wreck or going swimming is agreeing to drown. You know it could happen but if it does happen then you have every right to minimize the damage. And if the woman doesnt want to be pregnant then the continuation of a pregnancy is ‘damage’ to her. Your attitude towards women is no different than the attitude of a rapist.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:16 AM
Red, Agreeing t sex is agreeing to the possibility of pregnancy just like agreeing to drive your car is agreeing to the possibility of an accident. I would not have made the analogy cause I do not think they are really related much at all but since you did, answer this question. When you drive your car and cause an accident, do you take responsibility for it or kill the person whose car you run into?
Red, where do you come up with these fabrications? I think what happens to the “pregnant woman” matters greatly. You are the one who likes to pretend it doesn’t matter by telling her that the life inside her is meaningless. Your ranting isn’t convincing/fooling anybody except yourself.
Posted by: truthseeker at May 12, 2008 11:00 PM
**************
No, you dont. You couldnt care less what happens to the pregnant woman just as long as she continues the pregnancy. Whatever she has to go through is all justified and acceptable TO YOU because you dont think of anyone but yourself. And Id never tell a woman that her pregnancy was meaningless – that makes you a liar. The woman decides how she feels about her pregnancy and I dont have a thing to do with it. As for ranting – look in a mirror. You cant honestly even face what is being said without throwing little temper tantrums.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:20 AM
Red, You post all the time nobody should care about aborting the “tissue” inside them. I don’t think it is a stretch at all to say that is the equivalent of telling them that their pregnancy is meaningless. Take a deep breath and be honest with yourself. Your calling people liars and idiots all the time may make you feel good but it is abusive behaviour and you should learn to control it.
Why dont you point out to me, copy and paste, where I have said “abortion is alright because the fetus doesnt have a soul”?
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:36 AM
Red, it was only 25 minutes ago. Here it is:
Prove it – starting by proving the existance of ‘souls’. Because if you cant prove they exist then going off about ‘the soul’ and why ‘the soul’ ‘proves’ abortion is wrong is meaningless useless and worthless as an argument against abortion.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:11 AM
I still wouldnt have any obligation to give them blood or an organ even if it was my fault they needed it.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
That is consitent with not feeling an obligation to the baby. But it makes you a loose cannon and a danger to other people in society.
Red,
Lets take this one step at a time, nice and slow just for you. Do you think the fetus has a soul?
I still wouldnt have any obligation to give them blood or an organ even if it was my fault they needed it.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
Red, You are an abusive person and the type of person who puts yourself above others. You say you have the right to walk away from a person who you injure with no sense of responsibility for saving theor life. You are the kind of person who will read this and reply: “cut and paste where I said I have a right to walk away from a person I injure with no sense of responsibility.” Denying it by playing semantics games in your head. But Red, you did say that, you said that if you hit someone with your car, you would feel no obligation to give them blood to save their life. That speaks volumes about you as a person. You are really looking foolish, and after a while it becomes a waste of time to talk with people who deny what they have said. Funny how people like you are almost always guilty of the stuff that they slander other people about.
I still wouldnt have any obligation to give them blood or an organ even if it was my fault they needed it.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
I still wouldnt have any obligation to give them blood or an organ even if it was my fault they needed it.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
That Red, makes you a loose cannon and a danger to other people in society. Including the unborn
Edyt, I am still looking forward to continuing our thoughtful discussion whenever you get around to responding to my 1:04 am post.
If you cant prove that there IS ‘a soul’ then any arguments involving ‘the soul’ are meaningless. MK is the one saying ‘Abortion is wrong because the fetus has a soul’. If she cant prove it then her argument is worthless.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 2:15 AM
NOPE. There are lots of things we can’t necessarily fully prove in this world but that doesn’t make them immaterial.
Doug,
TR has been banned (she obviously hasn’t figured that out yet) but she posted this before I deleted it:
That it is mindless, insensate, nonviable and oblivious until late in gestation is also factual, not a matter of opinion. I disagree that early in gestation the zef could even be considered ‘an organism’ since it really doesnt really have any organs, per se, let alone is being sustained by them.
AND
And just where does “scientific proof” say that having a heartbeat defines ‘human being’? What kind of science? where? That may be all YOU need to “make” it “a human being” but I dont agree with you. If its not viable and there is no one home then I dont agree the fetus can reasonably rationally or intelligently be called ‘a human being’. Doug said it could be a being because it exists. So a rock is a being because it exists? and a human kidney is a human being because it exists and is genetically human? Face the fact that its a matter of your perspective and I dont agree with it, nor do I have to.
There you have it. Straight from the horses mouth.
phylosopher @ 10:49 PM
Are you speaking from your own practical experience on these matters, is this speculation on your behalf, or are you transposing popularly acknowledged understandings about experienced speakers to Jill?
Also, have you ever run your own business?
Doug,
Actually, people can see what I see in my wife. Not that a given person will see everything I do, but among her 150 students, her large family and all our friends I think it’s all there, pretty much. I don’t believe in the notion of immortal souls, but if anything I think there is a “sense” of a person there, and that one can sometimes see it or feel it, perhaps without being able to put in into words well or at all.
Posted by: Doug at May 12, 2008 10:06 PM
Yes, her students “see” her soul, because they love her. But you would be able to see her soul even if something happened to her, leaving her like Terri. Her students might not be able to look that deeply. You see even more than they do. You have experienced your wifes’ soul in a way that no one else has, in the soul-uniting act of love making. This is how 2 people bond/unite on a level that is special to just them.
You and she have connected on the spiritual plane. So even if something happens to one of your bodies, your souls will ALWAYS be connected. She doesn’t have that same connection (at least I hope she doesn’t) with her students.
While I haven’t had that connection with my father, we DO have a special and unique connection. Many, many people saw my fathers soul when his body was cooperating, but not so many see it now.
My uncle came to visit recently and he turned to me and said, I can see him in there. I was amazed. So few people are able to. His sister did too. But most people see what you would see. A body, and nothing else.
You’re right. It is hard, if not impossible, to put into words, and you may never understand it, unless God forbid, you have to watch someone you love deeply go through it. Until then, it’s a matter of faith.
For instance, you said you believed me about my father. But you’re taking that on faith. You didn’t take it on faith about Terri, and trust me, Terri had lightyears more goin’ on than my dad. But because I have already taken the leap of faith, and have seen it in my father, it is easier for me to believe the same about Terri. I know what to look for. I can see the same thing in her on the videos.
This is also why we (Catholics) have no problem talking to our loved ones when they die. Or saints. We know that bodies, until the final judgment, are temporal things. But the soul lives on. And we believe that as long as the body is still alive, the soul does not depart. So we don’t believe the idea that when the ‘mind” goes, the soul leaves. As I’ve stated before, I believe that my father is STILL doing great good, by suffering and accepting his suffering. Being trapped in a body that has betrayed him. By sticking around, he is doing great things for us, and for the world. Every minute he spends in his body, unable to use it, is a minute that great graces are poured into the world. We don’t believe he will leave his body, until he is called. Until then, he just accepts his role.
This whole conversation makes me really, really, really miss John McD.
mk: 6:34: Beautiful thoughts.
That it is mindless, insensate, nonviable and oblivious until late in gestation is also factual, not a matter of opinion. I disagree that early in gestation the zef could even be considered ‘an organism’ since it really doesnt really have any organs, per se, let alone is being sustained by them.
MK, per what TR said, yes – that argument can be made, going up the hierarchy of tissue to organs to organ systems to organisms. However, on the more bare-bones definition of “a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes” (dictionary.com) then I think “organism” would apply. I guess it could apply to a given cell, too, and of course the fertilized egg is that, no?
……
And just where does “scientific proof” say that having a heartbeat defines ‘human being’? What kind of science? where? That may be all YOU need to “make” it “a human being” but I dont agree with you. If its not viable and there is no one home then I dont agree the fetus can reasonably rationally or intelligently be called ‘a human being’. Doug said it could be a being because it exists. So a rock is a being because it exists? and a human kidney is a human being because it exists and is genetically human? Face the fact that its a matter of your perspective and I dont agree with it, nor do I have to.
I agree that having a heartbeat isn’t the end-all of the deal. You’ve said that your belief in the soul is there, so for you there is “someone home,” but Iva doesn’t see it that way. Iva is right that it’s a matter of perspective – it depends on the usage of the term at hand. Just how far down do we go with “human being”?
MK, great discussion. The soul is a matter of unprovable belief, though, so things are going to be in the eye of the beholder. I believe that you feel as you say you do – that is what I take “on faith.”
I too miss John M. In reading over what he wrote, perhaps he does want to be gone, to pray and contemplate, perhaps have more peace?
Doug,
Per John M…it may be true that that’s what HE needs, but selfishly speaking I need him. So does this blog. He had such a way of saying things…
Our co-conspiratorial plan goes ahead then heh heh heh.
Doug,
Mwahahahahhahahaa….