Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not. It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings, and (2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb. Your remarks avoid both of these points, leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda while complaining that I express my own ideas and not yours. (If I ever do make a video about abortion, I'll let you know so you can come back and criticize it for not being about tax policy or the price of cheese.)
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
Two minor points of language: (1) I said "War on women stuff," not "War on women's stuff," and (2) "wreaked" is, indeed, the past tense of "wreak," as you might have bothered to confirm before placing such undue emphasis on it.
I see that the link to the Facebook page is broken. Perhaps Rep. Billy was so ashamed of what she had wreaked that she deleted the post.
It would appear that the referenced Facebook thread has been deleted from Rep Billy's page.
The original post in that thread was by the aforementioned shallow Facebook commenter, so the one responsible for the deleting the thread could have been her or could have been Rep Billy's Facebook page admin; it's impossible to know which. I don't think Rep Billy's admin has been in the habit of deleting threads that contain controversy or debates, though, so my money's on the shallow commenter. And Rep Billy certainly has no reason to be ashamed of what was posted there, so DEFishback should be himself ashamed of that foolish and much-premature attribution.
Also, DEFishback is correct - "wrought" is apparently a more archaic English than "wreaked"; both are correct but I was wrong to criticise the usage of "wreaked", which I shall now indicate in an edit to the post.
> about "baby murder," it is not.
So the video was NOT about abortion, then? But the term "pro-life" was repeatedly used throughout the video in association with a litany of unfortunate statistics that are frankly unrelated to abortion. If the unfortunate statistics are in fact the point of the video and are not irrelevant, then the use of "pro-life" is irrelevant.
In modern American usage, "pro-life" has everything to do with abortion and not much else, (as does the term, "pro-choice"). Everybody knows that. That's why it's easy to see through the demagoguery when the term is used to impugn a certain group of political opponents by switching its standard meaning to something else.
> you only prove my point that too
> many pro-lifers refuse to think > about life outside the uterus.
It proves nothing. Suppose I went on a rant about the same unfortunate statistics, but associated them with the term, "rural farming." You would rightly write that off as irrelevant, and the fact that you did would in no way prove to me or anyone else that rural farmers refuse to think about anything outside the farm.
> It is about (1) Oklahoma's
> legislative priorities in the
> face of widespread shortcomings
The video goes on to whine about a person-hood amendment. I guess that has nothing to do with abortion, because the video is apparently not really about abortion. I wonder what the person-hood amendment is really about then?
> and (2) the proposition that a
> "pro-life" position should
> account for the quality of life
> outside the womb.
Again, you redefined terms here. A "pro-life" position is concerned with whether or not abortion is allowed. But, beyond that, you beg the question. What makes you think that the "pro-life" position is, or ought to be accountable for life outside the womb? Life outside the womb is a different issue than whether or not life ought to be allowed to exit the womb alive, which is what the "pro-life" position is concerned with. You might as well claim that the "rural farming" position should account for the quality of life outside the farm.
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
You either read without much care or I didn't communicate well. I think I did, though, especially when I said:
"Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children."
But let me be more explicit.
Socialism is a foolish and evil system. It is only possible when built upon the foundation of heavy taxation of working people, and in the American case, it is accompanied by highly wasteful spending patterns and extremely inadequate accountability with respect to those expenditures.
If I am misinterpreting/misrepresenting what you were saying in your video about these statistics, let me know, but were not most of your complaints on the topic of the amounts the gov't spends in these various areas?
If so, it means that you built your entire objection based on the presupposition that socialism is basically good and that the gov't is the one responsible and the agent that should be putting forth the most money and effort to accomplish these goals you want to see accomplished - edjamakayshun of chilldrun, pre-/neo-natal care, etc. But you need to argue for this presupposition, not merely assume it as a given. The alternative and far more Constitution-friendly model is that individuals and families and churches are to be tasked with these things, not the gov't.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not
Then why did you keep saying "pro-life" and entitle the video "pro-life..."?
That's all on you, sir.
It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings
Again, what you see as a shortcoming, I laud as relatively commendable fiscal restraint. I don'twant the gov't to steal tons of money from me, waste most of it, and then spend a lot of the rest propping up inefficient and failing structures.
(2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb
It does, but that is not equivalent to socialistic governmental spending.
And obviously, this is disingenuous. "Pro-life" is for all intents and purposes contrasted with "pro-choice" and inextricably tied to abortion in modern discourse. You know this as well as I.
leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda
You act like that's morally wrong or something. Why would that be?
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
How lame to make your point using a "#1 state in taser deaths" stat when achieving #1 requires seven deaths.
How irrelevant when pro-life people have nothing to do with taser policies of the OKCPD. What were you even thinking? What were you getting at?
Now, if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth." Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth. Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here. Which is fine if that's their thing, but then they should at least be honest about it and stop pretending they're on some kind of holy crusade, because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the population. Pro birth.
Rho, I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good government. Suffice it to say we are on different ends of that spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism -- whether through government or through the workings of the private sector, churches, what have you -- Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
Then you need to call it something else. Pro-socialist-utopia would probably fit your agenda better.
Someone's life can have low and high quality.
The legislation you referenced was a personhood bill whose obvious and stated agenda is to challenge the legality of abortion, and abortion is not a quality of life issue when it comes to children. It is a life/death issue. You're making a category error and bending the issue of abortion to try to pressure pro-life people, implying that a pro-life person is inconsistent if he is not also pro-socialistic-utopia.
You have yet to prove that this inconsistency exists beyond your own imagination, however.
Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care
Before I can answer that, I need you to be more specific. What does that ranking mean and refer to? Are you referring to #47 among all states in terms of gov't spending on early prenatal care?
Why is it necessary to spend loads of money on early prenatal care?
Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born?
1) People have lived in poverty since the dawn of humanity. I'm not all that happy about it, but I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work). can the gov't fix poverty?
It's been trying for decades and it hasn't been successful. Maybe we should try something else.
2) Again, why is it inconsistent for a pro-life person to think that even though 25% of children will grow up in poverty, it shouldn't be legal to murder children in the womb?
Where's the connection?
Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.")
Category error - a pro-life person is not in favor of premature deaths. Also, premature deaths are not intentional like abortion is.
Do you not realise the amazing irony of this? You're decrying premature deaths and yet you are complaining that the OK Legislature was considering outlawing abortions? Abortion is premature death caused by murder.
if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth.
Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. This is focusing in the wrong area. Rather, we are quite concerned that nobody be allowed to murder human beings with impunity just b/c of their age and level of development. That involves women since that's where very young humans live for their first 9 months.
And let me say this - duh. If you were really concerned with quality of life, you'd be concerned with the fundamental and necessary precondition for quality of life - LIFE.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to murdering their children.
Fixed it for you.
Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here
You have a long way to go before you substantiate this assertion. Just b/c I don't favor a socialistic utopia doesn't mean I don't care what happens to you once you're here.
Is it controlling men to say that it's not OK to violate women's human rights (by raping them)?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
Is it controlling drivers to say that it's illegal to drive 140 mph in a school zone?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
The question is not WHETHER behavior will be proscribed, but WHICH.
As for running up the population, what are you concerned about? Ever been to west Texas? How about Kansas?
I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good governmen
That's probably a good move; you might have to justify the massive amounts of wasteful spending that the federal and state governments perform. That would be difficult I think.
Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
You need to be more specific, then. When you say #47 in prenatal care, you need to tell us:
1) what that is measuring
2) in what terms
3) what that encompasses
4) why it's necessary.