The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 16, 2017, 01:04:22 am
-
Ben Shapiro’s Answer To Student’s Abortion Question Is Epic
Grace Carr
Reporter
1:29 PM 09/15/2017
A student asked conservative commentator Ben Shapiro a question about abortion at his Berkeley speech Thursday night, prompting Shapiro to engage in rapid-fire dialogue with the student.
“Any time you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to adults,” Shapiro said. “So either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t.”
Shapiro asked the student if he could at least agree that adult life has intrinsic value, to which the student responded that he believes “sentience” — the ability to perceive or feel things — gives something moral value, rather than being a human alone.
“OK, so when you’re asleep, can I stab you?” Shapiro asked, to which the student responded in the negative.
“OK, if you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?” Shapiro then asked.
“Well then … uhhh, no,” the student replied. “But that’s still potential sentience!”
“Do you know what else has potential sentience? Being a fetus,” Shapiro said.
Alex 🇺🇸 @SoCal4Trump
Ben Shapiro answers a student on abortion during the Q&A portion and it ends with an epic takedown. 😆#BenAtBerkeley pic.twitter.com/J1iFFCp7TV
10:25 PM - Sep 14, 2017
The University of California, Berkeley spent roughly $600,000 to make sure no riots would erupt Thursday night, and his speech went without incident or interruption.
-
Before birth and after birth is a pretty easy bright line to draw as well that doesn't end up allowing the killing of adults.
-
Before birth and after birth is a pretty easy bright line to draw as well that doesn't end up allowing the killing of adults.
So does before and after the 18th birthday.
-
So does before and after the 18th birthday.
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
No flaming....I will never give up hoping/praying for an end to the murder of unborn babies...I believe in miracles. I also believe the majority of Americans think as I do...so there is hope that someday it will stop.
Several years ago I had a local Dem politician walking the neighborhood asking for votes...He knocked on my door and introduced himself....I said "I would never vote for a person who believes in abortion"..his answer was "I don't".....I laughed in his face and replied "but you do, that is on the Dems's platform that is what they support so being a Dem you support it too!"......the look on his face was priceless. I didn't change his party affiliation but I made my point.
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
I was responding directly to your comment. Your only concern seemed to be not killing adults. :shrug:
I also will not give up hope, nor change my opinion to make anyone else comfortable, that abortion will no longer be legal.
-
Suit yourselves. Abortion will always be legal.
-
Suit yourselves. Abortion will always be legal.
Maybe so. It will also be always be morally reprehensible, the taking of innocent life. It will also bring grievous judgement on those who practice it.
-
Maybe so. It will also be always be morally reprehensible, the taking of innocent life. It will also bring grievous judgement on those who practice it.
:amen:
-
Maybe so. It will also be always be morally reprehensible, the taking of innocent life. It will also bring grievous judgement on those who practice it.
Maybe so, maybe so. There are worse things to worry about.
-
Hey @Oceander. For a community organizer as yourself, you don't have much.
"It's a stupid, pointless exercise"...
It never occurred to psychiatrist Robert Coles that a poor, black six-year-old girl might know more about coping effectively with stress than he did. When he watched Ruby Bridges on the television news, flanked by burly federal marshals, passing through a shouting mob on her way to and from elementary school, he assumed that she needed psychological help and that he could give it to her.
It was the fall of 1960. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that public schools must allow black and white students to attend classes together, instead of segregating them as they were doing. Six years later, a federal judge pressured schools in New Orleans to follow the new rules and allow black students to attend the formerly all-white schools. So six-year-old Ruby Bridges started classes at William T. Frantz School.
The neighborhood erupted in angry demonstrations. All the other parents boycotted the school, refusing to allow their children to attend.
Every day Ruby attended class all by herself. And every day a mob gathered outside the school, screaming curses, spitting at the little girl, shaking their fists, and threatening to kill her. The local police refused to protect her, so the federal government provided marshals to escort Ruby to and from class every day.
Robert Coles had studied stress in children who had polio at the Children’s Hospital in Boston. He had presented a paper with his conclusions to the American Psychiatric Association. When Coles saw Ruby’s daily ordeal, he wanted to study her response to stress, too. He thought he could write another paper and possibly do a good deed as well, helping her cope. So Coles contacted Ruby’s parents through the NAACP and started visiting her family twice a week, looking for symptoms of turmoil.
But Ruby seemed to be sleeping fine. Her appetite was normal. And she played well with friends in the neighborhood when she came home from school. Her first grade teacher said the little girl didn’t seem upset at school either. “I don’t understand this child,” she said. “Ruby seems so happy. She comes here so cheerfully.”
“Well, I’m a little puzzled myself,” Coles said, “but I think that sometimes people under tremendous stress gird themselves mightily , and it can take time to find out just how upset they are.”
His explanation seemed less and less convincing, though, when he watched the way Ruby and her parents carried on as the weeks and months passed.
“Here was a girl who was six years old,” Coles wrote later, “whose parents were extremely poor, were illiterate so that they did not even know how to sign their names. They were going through tremendous strain, day after day, and they did not seem to be complaining, parents or child.
“What a contrast with the well-to-do middle-class people I had seen in Boston whose children, for one reason or another – all of them white, by the way – were having all sorts of difficulties. Now, how do you explain that? I would ask myself. And I did not know how to explain that.”
Then one day Ruby’s first grade teacher told Coles that she had seen Ruby stop to talk to the people in the mob on her way to class. Later, Coles asked Ruby about it. “I wasn’t talking to them,” Ruby said. “I was just saying a prayer for them.”
“Why?” Coles asked, astonished.
“Because they need praying for, she said. “Because I should.”
Coles kept asking questions, but the only explanation Ruby gave was, “Because I should.”
Ruby’s parents overheard the conversation and explained that they told their daughter it was important for her to pray for the people in the mob. Ruby prayed for them every night as part of her bed time routine.
Later Coles learned that Ruby’s Sunday School teacher taught her the same thing, and that the pastor of her church prayed for the people in the mob every Sunday. Publicly. “I don’t understand why this girl should be praying for those people,” Coles told his wife. “She’s got enough to bear without that.”
“That’s you speaking,” his wife said. “Maybe she feels differently.”
Then his wife developed an imaginary scenario of Coles trying to go into the Harvard Faculty Club through a shouting mob. “What would you do?”
The two of them agreed that Coles would definitely not pray for the people. First, he would call the police. (Ruby couldn’t call the police. They sided with the mob.) Then he would get a lawyer. (Ruby had no means to get a lawyer.)
“The third thing I would do would be to turn immediately on this crowd with language and knowledge,” Coles said. “Who are these people, anyway? They are sick. They are marginal, sociologically, economically, psycho-socially, socio-culturally, and psycho-historically.” (Ruby had no big words like these to turn on the mob.)
After that discussion, Coles asked Ruby again why she should pray for the people who cursed her every day. “Well, especially it should be me,” she said, “because if you’re going through what they’re doing to you, you’re the one who should be praying for them.”
Then Ruby explained that her pastor had told her that when Jesus was beaten and crucified, he had prayed for the people mistreating him: “Forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.”
You have no conception of the inception of order.
I submit to you that ALL of your "values" are based on materialism. You are Godless and soulless. You have nothing in you that is conservative. A shadow of a man.
The ONLY thing that separates man from human you exemplify.
What you see as pointless IS exactly the point.
-
Hey @Oceander. For a community organizer as yourself, you don't have much.
"It's a stupid, pointless exercise"...
It never occurred to psychiatrist Robert Coles that a poor, black six-year-old girl might know more about coping effectively with stress than he did. When he watched Ruby Bridges on the television news, flanked by burly federal marshals, passing through a shouting mob on her way to and from elementary school, he assumed that she needed psychological help and that he could give it to her.
It was the fall of 1960. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that public schools must allow black and white students to attend classes together, instead of segregating them as they were doing. Six years later, a federal judge pressured schools in New Orleans to follow the new rules and allow black students to attend the formerly all-white schools. So six-year-old Ruby Bridges started classes at William T. Frantz School.
The neighborhood erupted in angry demonstrations. All the other parents boycotted the school, refusing to allow their children to attend.
Every day Ruby attended class all by herself. And every day a mob gathered outside the school, screaming curses, spitting at the little girl, shaking their fists, and threatening to kill her. The local police refused to protect her, so the federal government provided marshals to escort Ruby to and from class every day.
Robert Coles had studied stress in children who had polio at the Children’s Hospital in Boston. He had presented a paper with his conclusions to the American Psychiatric Association. When Coles saw Ruby’s daily ordeal, he wanted to study her response to stress, too. He thought he could write another paper and possibly do a good deed as well, helping her cope. So Coles contacted Ruby’s parents through the NAACP and started visiting her family twice a week, looking for symptoms of turmoil.
But Ruby seemed to be sleeping fine. Her appetite was normal. And she played well with friends in the neighborhood when she came home from school. Her first grade teacher said the little girl didn’t seem upset at school either. “I don’t understand this child,” she said. “Ruby seems so happy. She comes here so cheerfully.”
“Well, I’m a little puzzled myself,” Coles said, “but I think that sometimes people under tremendous stress gird themselves mightily , and it can take time to find out just how upset they are.”
His explanation seemed less and less convincing, though, when he watched the way Ruby and her parents carried on as the weeks and months passed.
“Here was a girl who was six years old,” Coles wrote later, “whose parents were extremely poor, were illiterate so that they did not even know how to sign their names. They were going through tremendous strain, day after day, and they did not seem to be complaining, parents or child.
“What a contrast with the well-to-do middle-class people I had seen in Boston whose children, for one reason or another – all of them white, by the way – were having all sorts of difficulties. Now, how do you explain that? I would ask myself. And I did not know how to explain that.”
Then one day Ruby’s first grade teacher told Coles that she had seen Ruby stop to talk to the people in the mob on her way to class. Later, Coles asked Ruby about it. “I wasn’t talking to them,” Ruby said. “I was just saying a prayer for them.”
“Why?” Coles asked, astonished.
“Because they need praying for, she said. “Because I should.”
Coles kept asking questions, but the only explanation Ruby gave was, “Because I should.”
Ruby’s parents overheard the conversation and explained that they told their daughter it was important for her to pray for the people in the mob. Ruby prayed for them every night as part of her bed time routine.
Later Coles learned that Ruby’s Sunday School teacher taught her the same thing, and that the pastor of her church prayed for the people in the mob every Sunday. Publicly. “I don’t understand why this girl should be praying for those people,” Coles told his wife. “She’s got enough to bear without that.”
“That’s you speaking,” his wife said. “Maybe she feels differently.”
Then his wife developed an imaginary scenario of Coles trying to go into the Harvard Faculty Club through a shouting mob. “What would you do?”
The two of them agreed that Coles would definitely not pray for the people. First, he would call the police. (Ruby couldn’t call the police. They sided with the mob.) Then he would get a lawyer. (Ruby had no means to get a lawyer.)
“The third thing I would do would be to turn immediately on this crowd with language and knowledge,” Coles said. “Who are these people, anyway? They are sick. They are marginal, sociologically, economically, psycho-socially, socio-culturally, and psycho-historically.” (Ruby had no big words like these to turn on the mob.)
After that discussion, Coles asked Ruby again why she should pray for the people who cursed her every day. “Well, especially it should be me,” she said, “because if you’re going through what they’re doing to you, you’re the one who should be praying for them.”
Then Ruby explained that her pastor had told her that when Jesus was beaten and crucified, he had prayed for the people mistreating him: “Forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.”
You have no conception of the inception of order.
I submit to you that ALL of your "values" are based on materialism. You are Godless and soulless. You have nothing in you that is conservative. A shadow of a man.
The ONLY thing that separates man from human you exemplify.
What you see as pointless IS exactly the point.
Flame on, my friend. But don't fool yourself into thinking abortion will ever be illegal again. And try to avoid facile, and thus false, comparisons to the civil rights era.
-
Before birth and after birth is a pretty easy bright line to draw as well that doesn't end up allowing the killing of adults.
Define "birth".
Does delivering a baby's entire body except for the head qualify as birth, or not?
"Conception" is a pretty easy, bright line to draw, yet you object to it. Why?
Maybe so, maybe so. There are worse things to worry about.
Something worse than the taking of an innocent life? Like... what?
-
Flame on, my friend. But don't fool yourself into thinking abortion will ever be illegal again. And try to avoid facile, and thus false, comparisons to the civil rights era.
I think you may be missing the point, but I will pray for you as well.
-
Maybe so, maybe so. There are worse things to worry about.
Worse things to worry about than infanticide?
Hrm. Clearly, you and I have different moral compasses.
-
Maybe so, maybe so. There are worse things to worry about.
To both of your comments, pretty much the same thing was said about slavery, they weren't full human after all...
I believe abortion will in time be viewed much the same way slavery was. And in the future when people look back they won't be able to understand why people of this time couldn't see how evil it was to kill the innocent unborn.
-
Flame on, my friend. But don't fool yourself into thinking abortion will ever be illegal again. And try to avoid facile, and thus false, comparisons to the civil rights era.
It isn't flame. It is the truth. See? Your reality is subjectivized towards that type of thinking. The point is, abortion is WRONG. If, within yourself, you don't recognize that, all I said is the complete and absolute truth.
Don't fool yourself into thinking abortion won't be illegal. That is an extremely short view. Materialistic, narcissistic.
It is a civil rights issue. Tell me how it isn't a civil rights issue?
-
Flame on folks, flame on. Y'all make Don Quixote look practical and pragmatic by comparison.
-
It isn't flame. It is the truth. See? Your reality is subjectivized towards that type of thinking. The point is, abortion is WRONG. If, within yourself, you don't recognize that, all I said is the complete and absolute truth.
Don't fool yourself into thinking abortion won't be illegal. That is an extremely short view. Materialistic, narcissistic.
It is a civil rights issue. Tell me how it isn't a civil rights issue?
Flame on, on into continued irrelevance.
-
To both of your comments, pretty much the same thing was said about slavery, they weren't full human after all...
I believe abortion will in time be viewed much the same way slavery was. And in the future when people look back they won't be able to understand why people of this time couldn't see how evil it was to kill the innocent unborn.
Nope. They'll wonder why fully effective birth control wasn't an entitlement.
-
If abortion is a sin, then that is a matter strictly between the mother, the doctor, and God. There are none of the wider social dangers that are associated with murder and that make murder a fit subject for prohibition by Caesar (i.e., secular law). Unless and until society has the technology and the will to take over the gestation and raising of the child, society has no business attempting to prohibit abortion and only the right to ensure that the doctor is medically qualified and the operating facilities up to snuff.
-
Nope. They'll wonder why fully effective birth control wasn't an entitlement.
Fully effective birth control is available free to anyone. Its called keep your knees together if you aren't ready to have a child. Mostly effective birth control is available at a small price to most but actually has to be used to be effective.
Irresponsibility on the part of an adult does not justify the murder of a child.
-
And just because we're on a roll here, I find it less than awe-inspiring how, prior to birth it's so damned precious some would convict the mother and doctor of premeditated murder, but the second after birth these self-same proclaimed god-fearing folk don't give enough of a damn to even support universal child health care, let alone Medicaid, food, and shelter support for parents who can't afford it for the children you would force them to have.
Sorry, but if you're committed to rigid anti-abortion, then you are committed to a robust welfare system (or else you're just irrational).
-
Fully effective birth control is available free to anyone. Its called keep your knees together if you aren't ready to have a child. Mostly effective birth control is available at a small price to most but actually has to be used to be effective.
Irresponsibility on the part of an adult does not justify the murder of a child.
Do you support welfare? Will you pay to support the children you will force these irresponsible people to have?
I didn't think so.
-
And just because we're on a roll here, I find it less than awe-inspiring how, prior to birth it's so damned precious some would convict the mother and doctor of premeditated murder, but the second after birth these self-same proclaimed god-fearing folk don't give enough of a damn to even support universal child health care, let alone Medicaid, food, and shelter support for parents who can't afford it for the children you would force them to have.
Sorry, but if you're committed to rigid anti-abortion, then you are committed to a robust welfare system (or else you're just irrational).
I have adopted 2 children in addition to my 2 biologic children so sing your song elsewhere, I have put my money time and heart into helping such children
No one forces anyone to have children, it is well known how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it. I am all for supplying the material needs of underprivileged children and regularly donate to charities that do just that. I am not for giving welfare queens cash for spitting out children that they spend on everything BUT the child it is intended for.
-
Maybe so, maybe so. There are worse things to worry about.
Actually, no. If the most innocent among us are not safe, neither are you.
-
Do you support welfare? Will you pay to support the children you will force these irresponsible people to have?
I didn't think so.
see above. Try again genius.
-
I have adopted 2 children in addition to my 2 biologic children so sing your song elsewhere, I have put my money time and heart into helping such children
No one forces anyone to have children, it is well known how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it. I am all for supplying the material needs of underprivileged children and regularly donate to charities that do just that. I am not for giving welfare queens cash for spitting out children that they spend on everything BUT the child it is intended for.
Thank you, madam. This is the face of conservatism.
-
I have adopted 2 children in addition to my 2 biologic children so sing your song elsewhere, I have put my money time and heart into helping such children
No one forces anyone to have children, it is well known how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it. I am all for supplying the material needs of underprivileged children and regularly donate to charities that do just that. I am not for giving welfare queens cash for spitting out children that they spend on everything BUT the child it is intended for.
So, if you have made the subjective determination that the mother is a welfare slut, then you'll let her kids die in the gutter.
Very holy of you.
-
So, if you have made the subjective determination that the mother is a welfare slut, then you'll let her kids die in the gutter.
Very holy of you.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
So, if you have made the subjective determination that the mother is a welfare slut, then you'll let her kids die in the gutter.
Very holy of you.
You are getting further and further out. I never said I would let children die in the gutter. I said I support programs and charities that provide for the actual needs of the child, not give cash to the mother. It must be tiring reaching as far as you do to cast aspersions. I pity your amorality and lack of concern for the smallest and weakest among us. It will cost you dearly some day, just as the cheapening of life has cost all in our society.
-
If abortion is a sin, then that is a matter strictly between the mother, the doctor, and God. There are none of the wider social dangers that are associated with murder and that make murder a fit subject for prohibition by Caesar (i.e., secular law). Unless and until society has the technology and the will to take over the gestation and raising of the child, society has no business attempting to prohibit abortion and only the right to ensure that the doctor is medically qualified and the operating facilities up to snuff.
FIFTY MILLION human lives extinguished is not a social danger?
Wow.
-
FIFTY MILLION human lives extinguished is not a social danger?
Wow.
Actually, what he's suggesting is that 50,000,000 human lives aren't worth losing votes over.
-
Actually, what he's suggesting is that 50,000,000 human lives aren't worth losing votes over.
The paucity of thought in that leaves me incredulous.
-
So, if you have made the subjective determination that the mother is a welfare slut, then you'll let her kids die in the gutter.
Very holy of you.
Argued like a true leftist.
I have no idea why you don't get along better with the Trump supporters. You have a lot in common with them.
-
The paucity of thought in that leaves me incredulous.
And yet, here it is:
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
-
Flame on folks, flame on. Y'all make Don Quixote look practical and pragmatic by comparison.
There are none of the wider social dangers that are associated with murder and that make murder a fit subject for prohibition
There is something here that speaks of something that is of a highly personal instance in your life. You have answered none of my questions, or those of others.
I, my family, is currently dealing with a medical emergency, and while I was putting a ham in the oven, the word pragmatism came into my mind. There is a personal angst that drives your thought process here. I mean no criticism to you personally. I am suggesting there is something else going on that is jading you. You have windmills on your mind. Aimlessly turning turning turning while you yourself stilt against that uselessness. That you are speaking out now tells me you need to get some things off your chest. Get on it. Fire away. Fire for effect. And after. I'll be here as your friend. There is a flame in my heart and I now gently blow its warmth to you like a cold water morning bitch slap. ^-^
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
Roe v. Wade ain't goin' nowhere, and abortion in America will never be outlawed.
Even a Supreme Court with 8 conservative justices would not touch it now. They might fulminate, grumble and groan, and produce some interesting concurring opinions, but in the end, they'll leave it be. Sumthin' called "stare decisis" and all that...
Another thought:
Want to see the left come back a-roarin' into power? Repeal Roe, then stand back and watch it happen.
Final thought:
A court can't "decide" a case until the case comes before it.
No case = no decision.
"What the heck does that mean?", you're thinkin'.
If a case appears with the potential that it might reach the Supreme Court and overturn Roe, the left would do whatever was required to prevent that case from reaching the Court to be heard.
Again, you're thinking "how could they even -do- that?"
There are a lot of short memories around here, but I remember the case of Taxman v. Piscataway School Board (or named very close to that).
Background:
Sharon Taxman was a teacher in Piscataway, New Jersey, who was passed over for a position in favor of a black woman. She was told point blank that she lost out because she was white and the other person was black.
Taxman sued.
The case moved up through the court system, and was all set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Taxman's lawyer had already gone out and spent $2,000 on a new suit just for the oral arguments.
This was as "cold a case" for ending affirmative action as will ever come before the Supreme Court. Nearly everyone familiar with it knew this, and there was little doubt about how the Court would decide, because the facts were so plain and unambiguous.
But... the Taxman case never reached the Court for oral arguments. No decision was rendered.
With but a few weeks left, civil rights groups offered a payoff to Taxman of $480,000. Apparently Taxman found the money more tempting than the principle of her argument.
She took the payoff, and withdrew her case from the Court.
This was the ONLY way the left was going to win... to buy her out.
So why did I go through telling you this?
Because faced with a case that could overturn Roe the left would do whatever necessary to similarly prevent that case from reaching the Supreme Court.
They would use money, influence, even sacrifice one or more states to a "no-abortion" status, rather than put the issue up-for-risk nationally.
So again... don't expect to see any cases work upward through the courts with the potential to overturn Roe. Those "fires" will be "extinguished locally", so to speak...
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
@Oceander
I'm not going to flame you.
I believe in God, and that some things are more important than politics. The taking of innocent life is one of those things. There's no way I can back off that stance for political expediency, and if people are driven away, let 'em go.
-
No flaming....I will never give up hoping/praying for an end to the murder of unborn babies...I believe in miracles. I also believe the majority of Americans think as I do...so there is hope that someday it will stop.
Several years ago I had a local Dem politician walking the neighborhood asking for votes...He knocked on my door and introduced himself....I said "I would never vote for a person who believes in abortion"..his answer was "I don't".....I laughed in his face and replied "but you do, that is on the Dems's platform that is what they support so being a Dem you support it too!"......the look on his face was priceless. I didn't change his party affiliation but I made my point.
@mystery-ak
But you might have made him think. Maybe you planted a seed in his conscience that will take root.
-
@mystery-ak
But you might have made him think. Maybe you planted a seed in his conscience that will take root.
That is exactly what I prayed for.
-
Suit yourselves. Abortion will always be legal.
There are many things which are legal but not moral, simply not right. If legality is what steers your moral compass, you might not end up where you think you are going.
-
The paucity of thought in that leaves me incredulous.
Yeah. That's 50,000,000 votes someone won't get.
-
That is exactly what I prayed for.
@RoosGirl
I'll do that with you.
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
There is no justification for not allowing the life for the most innocent of this world.
Those who think otherwise need to go find another party that has that type of immorality.
-
If abortion is a sin, then that is a matter strictly between the mother, the doctor, and God. There are none of the wider social dangers that are associated with murder and that make murder a fit subject for prohibition by Caesar (i.e., secular law). Unless and until society has the technology and the will to take over the gestation and raising of the child, society has no business attempting to prohibit abortion and only the right to ensure that the doctor is medically qualified and the operating facilities up to snuff.
A disdainful litany by a lawyer. Who would have thunk?
Your bottom line: it is a hunk of tissue.
-
@Oceander
I'm not going to flame you.
I believe in God, and that some things are more important than politics. The taking of innocent life is one of those things. There's no way I can back off that stance for political expediency, and if people are driven away, let 'em go.
QFT
-
Interesting dialogue on the minds of liberals like the one exposed in this thread
Secularist Dogmas That Live Loudly Within Lefties
Yet nothing is more superstitious and irrational than modern liberalism. The post-Christian culture into which it has plunged America is overflowing with Sally Quinns, dabbling with this or that kookish fad. Since Feinstein’s outburst of anti-Catholic bigotry, liberals have been circling the wagons. Somber, learned-sounding articles have appeared, arguing that Feinstein was right to probe the Catholicism of Trump’s nominee.
The presumption of these articles is enormous, as if the Constitution were written by secularists for secularists. In fact, as many of the founding fathers explained, the Constitution was written for a “Christian people” and they correctly surmised it wouldn’t survive the dissolution of Christianity. The left’s anti-constitution, the so-called “living constitution” which Feinstein was in effect demanding that Amy Coney Barret uphold, represents the fulfillment of the founders’ fears.
The destruction of constitutional jurisprudence has come not at the hands of Christians but from judicial activists in whom the secularist, anti-Christian ethos lives loudly — the kind of justices who used to turn up at the dinner parties of Sally Quinn.
https://spectator.org/secularist-dogmas-that-live-loudly-within-lefties/
-
Suit yourselves. Abortion will always be legal.
Now there's an interesting choice of word, considering that the abortion right is not even remotely based upon law but instead based upon the tyranny of people wearing black robes.
-
It need not be legal in every state or every county or every jurisdiction. In fact, I think county wise, it's only performed in a small percentage of counties in the US.
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
:amen:
The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction. It's a woman's choice folks. Try to convince her to do the right thing. But leave the state out of it.
-
You are getting further and further out. I never said I would let children die in the gutter. I said I support programs and charities that provide for the actual needs of the child, not give cash to the mother. It must be tiring reaching as far as you do to cast aspersions. I pity your amorality and lack of concern for the smallest and weakest among us. It will cost you dearly some day, just as the cheapening of life has cost all in our society.
I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD. I believe the same of Oceander. The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others.
Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.
-
No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.
And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need. It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals. It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage.
Now let the flaming commence.
It wouldn't be legal in places like Mississippi without judicial overreach; it is something that should be left to the states and that day may indeed come.
So, your argument is not constitutional. Be happy with it.
-
I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD. I believe the same of Oceander. The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others.
Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.
Rights of the state and the Constitution are the answer. Mississippi doesn't think like the Eastern Seaboard. You have no moral authority on this matter as well.
-
:amen:
The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction. It's a woman's choice folks. Try to convince her to do the right thing. But leave the state out of it.
This ongoing "argument" that it's the woman's choice is ridiculous. I've heard it for YEARS, and I used to believe it. Until I read several stories about the fathers who didn't want their baby aborted. Guess you fellas don't mind ceding your rights to women.
-
It need not be legal in every state or every county or every jurisdiction. In fact, I think county wise, it's only performed in a small percentage of counties in the US.
Well, darn, it's just so much more efficient to do such things in centralized facilities.
Where have we seen that approach before?
-
SCOTUS ruled a slave was 3/5ths a human being, so be happy anyone who waves SCOTUS decisions around. There was a war fought over this; 500,000 people died, well, at least partially over it, depending on how one sees it.
You have states with only one abortion clinic so to arrogantly tell others it will always be legal; is really an ignorant-of-the-facts statement, it's close to a reality.
-
This ongoing "argument" that it's the woman's choice is ridiculous. I've heard it for YEARS, and I used to believe it. Until I read several stories about the fathers who didn't want their baby aborted.
Men don't have abortion rights, which in itself is discriminatory. Maybe instead they should let men opt out of paying child support.
-
SCOTUS ruled a slave was 3/5ths a human being,
It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS. Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.
-
It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS. Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.
I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:
Impact before the Civil War
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[8] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
-
It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS. Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.
@Hoodat
Careful! You'll set liberal heads to spinning with that kind of information!
-
With Gorsuch nominated, it might come in the next 10 years, that the right of the states to legislate on this issue may come about. That is all Senator Rand Paul believes and I'd wager that could be what some of those other Senators want as well.
You have states like Wyoming, with extremely low abortion rates, like 3 per 100,000; not all that many people in Wyoming and then, other states with 10 times that amount.
-
@Hoodat
Careful! You'll set liberal heads to spinning with that kind of information!
And let's see it proven!
No, let's not, it's off topic.
-
Rick Santorum compared slavery and abortion, let's hope this can be seen as not off-topic, to start getting into what the 3/5ths compromise is off topic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/santorum-on-obama-remarkable-for-a-black-man-to-support-abortion-rights/69944/
-
:amen:
The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction. It's a woman's choice folks. Try to convince her to do the right thing. But leave the state out of it.
'Compel reproduction'? The Reproduction cycle begins when a sperm cell meets a willing egg at the right time and the right place, and goes on from there. It is called Biology.
Are you placing magic powers onto a state?
-
I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 2
Paragraph 3
------------
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
-
The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives? South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.
Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.
-
The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives? South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.
Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.
The North didn't give voting rights to women. Maybe they shouldn't have counted either. The importance of the census was to allocate representation in the House of Representatives (number of representatives) .
-
The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives? South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.
Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.
It was not about voting, but about the number of people counted for apportionment of each state's representation in the House.
The same thing is happening now with illegals being counted.
-
Men don't have abortion rights, which in itself is discriminatory. Maybe instead they should let men opt out of paying child support.
Haha, talk about making heads explode.
-
I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:
@TomSea
What a horrific citation you give...
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations.
(Bold added)
It's "disproportionate" only if you think slaves don't count for anything.
What a lovely view.
-
No one forces anyone to have children, it is well known how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it.
Yeah, don't get raped.
-
@TomSea
What a horrific citation you give...
(Bold added)
It's "disproportionate" only if you think slaves don't count for anything.
What a lovely view.
I didn't say that. You aren't following the conversation.
@Suppressed
Watch liberal heads explode when what was happening was asking for over-representation by the South. But this was taken off topic.
Slave states would take the population to get better representation but wouldn't give those same slaves the right to vote.
-
I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD. I believe the same of Oceander. The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others.
Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.
The state, sanctioning the murder (taking the life) of the unborn IS imposing a morality.
And it is wholly against it's aegis - The very FIRST enumerated right is the right to life.
-
Yeah, don't get raped.
Even then, Killing the one person who did nothing even arguably wrong to cause their existence is the solution?
-
Yeah, don't get raped.
Killing another human being is your justification?
Really?
Life is a blessing, even in the most horrific circumstances. That little child to be born is not to blame for anything, and is completely innocent.
-
Before birth and after birth is a pretty easy bright line to draw as well that doesn't end up allowing the killing of adults.
Birth is a change in location. I reject your premise that person-hood is defined by location.
-
And just because we're on a roll here, I find it less than awe-inspiring how, prior to birth it's so damned precious some would convict the mother and doctor of premeditated murder, but the second after birth these self-same proclaimed god-fearing folk don't give enough of a damn to even support universal child health care, let alone Medicaid, food, and shelter support for parents who can't afford it for the children you would force them to have.
Sorry, but if you're committed to rigid anti-abortion, then you are committed to a robust welfare system (or else you're just irrational).
If we support life for the innocent, we must believe that government is the ONLY solution for the welfare issue. Again, I reject your stupid premise. You may hold government up as your god and the ultimate answer, but as a Christian I believe there are non-government options to help in these areas. Here in Houston, 80% of all post-Harvey aid was delivered by local churches. Worked dang well. You know what would help in other areas? Get the libtards out of the way:
* Stop cities from shutting down church food drives by trying to apply commercial health regulations to them
* Stop liberal states from adding abortion requirements to pro-life counseling and assistance centers and squealing if pro-life suggest similar "enhancements" for abortion clinics
We do "don't give enough of a damn" about the poor and the young... we just think your solution is worse than useless because it doesn't solve what it claims to address and causes destruction among those it claims to help.
-
The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction. It's a woman's choice folks. Try to convince her to do the right thing. But leave the state out of it.
Your body->Your choice? Then use your money for your choice and don't force birth control and abortion coverage via government mandates.
Unlimited abortion is not a common status. Many other countries have restrictions based on the age of the unborn baby... the very thing that liberals claim would result in a complete theocracy if we adopted them here.
-
This idea that it is a woman's choice whether to abort or bear is laughable. The only instance where there is a choice is in the instance of conception after forcible rape. And even in that, there should be some counseling or options reviewed.
If you choose to have consensual sex that results in conception you have made your choice. True that you can still choose to end that life. But that choice is murder.
-
This idea that it is a woman's choice whether to abort or bear is laughable. The only instance where there is a choice is in the instance of conception after forcible rape. And even in that, there should be some counseling or options reviewed.
If you choose to have consensual sex that results in conception you have made your choice. True that you can still choose to end that life. But that choice is murder.
Only problems I have with the rape only option:
First, the one who is incontrovertibly innocent is the one who suffers capital punishment.
Second, allegations of forcible rape will skyrocket, to the peril of innocent guys (innocent of rape).
-
Only problems I have with the rape only option:
First, the one who is incontrovertibly innocent is the one who suffers capital punishment.
Second, allegations of forcible rape will skyrocket, to the peril of innocent guys (innocent of rape).
Take a look at the stats of that skyrocket. I have a doubt.
The main problem is the paradigm shift. Back then when "decent" girls were off visiting relatives. Vis a vis it was a family problem dealt with by the family discretely and everyone else shined it on. And the baby was adopted out.
The concerted effort of the destruction of the nuclear family, or the very definition of family has so skewed things that not even liberals can intelligently conclude that if they want same sex marrriage et al that the best option for those people to have kids would be for them to have the opportunity to have children by adoption. Except they want those self same children deemed 'unwanted' murdered. They are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
-
If we support life for the innocent, we must believe that government is the ONLY solution for the welfare issue. Again, I reject your stupid premise. You may hold government up as your god and the ultimate answer, but as a Christian I believe there are non-government options to help in these areas. Here in Houston, 80% of all post-Harvey aid was delivered by local churches. Worked dang well. You know what would help in other areas? Get the libtards out of the way:
* Stop cities from shutting down church food drives by trying to apply commercial health regulations to them
* Stop liberal states from adding abortion requirements to pro-life counseling and assistance centers and squealing if pro-life suggest similar "enhancements" for abortion clinics
We do "don't give enough of a damn" about the poor and the young... we just think your solution is worse than useless because it doesn't solve what it claims to address and causes destruction among those it claims to help.
@Ancient - you are a welcome addition to this thread and the GBR. Glad to read your thoughts!