Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 17, 2017
Thursday, October 05, 2017
"ALL lefties have always been for closed borders."
I am probably going to post any further blog writings at Steemit.
Here is the first offering, a preview of my upcoming immigration article.
https://steemit.com/immigration/@rhology/all-lefties-have-always-been-for-closed-borders
Here is the first offering, a preview of my upcoming immigration article.
https://steemit.com/immigration/@rhology/all-lefties-have-always-been-for-closed-borders
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
President of Focus On The Family Assumes a Papist Into Heaven
*Editorial Note: Pulpit & Pen continues in unrepentant sin and
enabling of the ongoing sin of Jordan Hall. While it is my understanding
that P&P does not plan to take down the content I contributed, any
role I can play in reducing their traffic until they repent, I will.
Thus I migrate this article here.
Focus on the Family is an influential organisation with a highly-regarded voice in many professing Christian circles, despite their recent foray into amazing sinful stupidity by legitimising and promoting the deployment of chemical weaponry against helpless victims. Call that an error of orthopraxy.
Now let’s take a look at a recent error of orthodoxy on their part and ask ourselves: What is it that defines Christianity? The obvious answer is the Word of God. What is the single most important message therein? The Gospel. The Gospel, I would argue, is comprised of more than simply an explanation of the principle that was famously (re)iterated in the Protestant Reformation – sola fide, justification by faith alone. It is something more, but it is certainly not less.
Now, as you are no doubt aware, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, thought by many to be a conservative stalwart and a major ally of Christian values in the United States, has passed out of this life. Online eulogies abound for the man. It is always important to hold fast to the Word of God in times of grief, loss, or insecurity about one’s individual or national future. This is especially true of people in positions of leadership and influence, as many people look to them for guidance in such circumstances.
Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, has commented on Scalia’s passing.
That said, we must understand that the fruits of his life did not reflect an undeniable, exemplary, and undiluted devotion to the biblical Gospel. (Had it done so or approached it, he would have called the Roman Church to repentance and left it long ago.) Therefore, we must not speak with such certainty about where he is today. This is, one might say, a properly nuanced view.
So why does Daly, who is supposed to uphold the Gospel as his primary job function, assume Scalia through the pearly gates without any pause or hesitation? Daly might cite certain of Scalia’s more private correspondences as evidence of his second birth such as the following, written to a Presbyterian minister:
Focus on the Family is an influential organisation with a highly-regarded voice in many professing Christian circles, despite their recent foray into amazing sinful stupidity by legitimising and promoting the deployment of chemical weaponry against helpless victims. Call that an error of orthopraxy.
Now let’s take a look at a recent error of orthodoxy on their part and ask ourselves: What is it that defines Christianity? The obvious answer is the Word of God. What is the single most important message therein? The Gospel. The Gospel, I would argue, is comprised of more than simply an explanation of the principle that was famously (re)iterated in the Protestant Reformation – sola fide, justification by faith alone. It is something more, but it is certainly not less.
Now, as you are no doubt aware, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, thought by many to be a conservative stalwart and a major ally of Christian values in the United States, has passed out of this life. Online eulogies abound for the man. It is always important to hold fast to the Word of God in times of grief, loss, or insecurity about one’s individual or national future. This is especially true of people in positions of leadership and influence, as many people look to them for guidance in such circumstances.
Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, has commented on Scalia’s passing.
Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, called the judge’s death “a blow to all Americans who believe in the rule of law and his adherence to an originalist’s view of the Constitution.”My intention here is not to make any comment on the eternal state of the late Justice Scalia. Let us simply note that Scalia was a professing Roman Catholic until the day of his death. The Roman Catholic Church explicitly and clearly repudiates the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It may be that individual Roman Catholics differ in good faith from the Church’s official teaching. Still others may be ignorant. While it is difficult to imagine that such a learned man as Scalia could have been ignorant of the matter or willfully inconsistent so as to accept sola fide as well as the unjustifiability of many Roman practices such as prayer to the dead, veneration of images and statues, subjugating the Scripture to the authority of the Magisterium in a de facto sense, and the blasphemous Mass, but continue to participate in the Roman Church, it is technically possible. One must be open to the fact that none of us actually know the heart of another, which is why God is the ultimate Judge and you and I are not.
The court’s longest serving member was “one of the greatest jurists of our age,” Daly said. “He was a terrific thinker with a fluid pen. Most importantly, he was a devout believer in Jesus Christ. Many of the nation’s most impressive attorneys stood before him. Now, the justice stands before the ultimate Judge of the world,” he continued, adding that he “attempted to save our Constitution. Now, his faith in his Lord and Savior has saved him.”
That said, we must understand that the fruits of his life did not reflect an undeniable, exemplary, and undiluted devotion to the biblical Gospel. (Had it done so or approached it, he would have called the Roman Church to repentance and left it long ago.) Therefore, we must not speak with such certainty about where he is today. This is, one might say, a properly nuanced view.
So why does Daly, who is supposed to uphold the Gospel as his primary job function, assume Scalia through the pearly gates without any pause or hesitation? Daly might cite certain of Scalia’s more private correspondences as evidence of his second birth such as the following, written to a Presbyterian minister:
even when the deceased was an admirable person—indeed, especially when the deceased was an admirable person—praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for, and giving thanks for, God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner. (My goodness, that seems more like a Presbyterian thought than a Catholic one!)Indeed it does seem more of a Reformation thought than a Roman one. What sort of confidence should that give anyone to pontificate with any certainty on whether such a man loved Jesus more than the faulty traditions of man that comprise so much of Roman doctrine and practice? And if someone does glibly take a firm position on the matter with misplaced confidence, what confidence ought we have in his reliability?
(Source)
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Kill The Infidels?
A friend asked my thoughts on this article by one Chuck Baldwin. Its beginning and middle are of pretty poor quality, but toward the end it starts to improve.
--Muslims aren't "a people". Islam is a religion. Its adherents could be any ethnicity.
What binds Muslims together (to the extent that they are indeed bound together, which is not a whole lot when you think about all their wars between Muslims throughout history and the present day) is Islam, which styles itself as a complete system of LIFE and RELIGION and (get this) GOVERNMENT.
Thus I'd actually argue that Islam is very plausibly an inherently anti-Constitutional force, intrinsically devoted to the destruction of the American republic.
--Why is it bigotry or hatred to say that we need to control immigration better or close it off, as Trump says? Such Baldwin asserts, but doesn't argue for. I think that sort of language is at best sloppy and at worst really biased.
--He claims people are in a frenzy. Where are the resultant shootings of Muslims in the USA? Come now. That's just hysterical language. Sounds to me like the one in a frenzy is him.
--I watched the footage of Cruz's heckling, and while I wouldn't say he "stormed off stage" (the dude is a politician. Come on), it still wouldn't surprise me if he held a poor understanding of how the USA ought to relate to Israel. But I don't see how that connects to the previous paragraphs in the article or why I should care all that much.
(Note I'm not saying I agree with all that Cruz said in the video. The heckling seems to have begun with "Christians have no greater ally than the Jewish state." The hecklers were right to object to that sort of statement.)
--Baldwin seems upset about Cruz's action, contending that "These were Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims and Jews".
1) What makes Baldwin think that THESE particular Christians were persecuted by Jews? Is there some sort of mass Christian refugee exodus from Israel of which I am unaware?
2) If I were a Christian in the Middle East I'd much prefer Israel's "persecution" to the mass rapes and massacres that ISIS is perpetrating. It is disappointing that Baldwin would equate the two situations.
--Baldwin asks "Mr. Cruz, are you standing with Israel when it stoned Stephen to death in Acts 7?" What an amazing statement.
1) That wasn't Israel. It was the Sanhedrin.
2) Lots of Jews became followers of Messiah. Why aren't they the ones Baldwin calls "Israel"?
3) Stephen was part of "Israel", being himself Jewish. (In fact, since he had faith in Messiah, he was part of the true Israel as well as being Jewish by blood.)
4) There is an enormous difference between the Jewish people of the 1st century and modern Israel.
--Baldwin claims "As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud."
It is very difficult to know how the Talmud is at all pertinent.
The quotations he provides are not even analogous to the usual citations from the Qur'an, which seem to a great many people to be prima facie, unqualified incitements to violence against unbelievers. These Talmudic quotations are not anything similar.
--Muslims aren't "a people". Islam is a religion. Its adherents could be any ethnicity.
What binds Muslims together (to the extent that they are indeed bound together, which is not a whole lot when you think about all their wars between Muslims throughout history and the present day) is Islam, which styles itself as a complete system of LIFE and RELIGION and (get this) GOVERNMENT.
Thus I'd actually argue that Islam is very plausibly an inherently anti-Constitutional force, intrinsically devoted to the destruction of the American republic.
--Why is it bigotry or hatred to say that we need to control immigration better or close it off, as Trump says? Such Baldwin asserts, but doesn't argue for. I think that sort of language is at best sloppy and at worst really biased.
--He claims people are in a frenzy. Where are the resultant shootings of Muslims in the USA? Come now. That's just hysterical language. Sounds to me like the one in a frenzy is him.
--I watched the footage of Cruz's heckling, and while I wouldn't say he "stormed off stage" (the dude is a politician. Come on), it still wouldn't surprise me if he held a poor understanding of how the USA ought to relate to Israel. But I don't see how that connects to the previous paragraphs in the article or why I should care all that much.
(Note I'm not saying I agree with all that Cruz said in the video. The heckling seems to have begun with "Christians have no greater ally than the Jewish state." The hecklers were right to object to that sort of statement.)
--Baldwin seems upset about Cruz's action, contending that "These were Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims and Jews".
1) What makes Baldwin think that THESE particular Christians were persecuted by Jews? Is there some sort of mass Christian refugee exodus from Israel of which I am unaware?
2) If I were a Christian in the Middle East I'd much prefer Israel's "persecution" to the mass rapes and massacres that ISIS is perpetrating. It is disappointing that Baldwin would equate the two situations.
--Baldwin asks "Mr. Cruz, are you standing with Israel when it stoned Stephen to death in Acts 7?" What an amazing statement.
1) That wasn't Israel. It was the Sanhedrin.
2) Lots of Jews became followers of Messiah. Why aren't they the ones Baldwin calls "Israel"?
3) Stephen was part of "Israel", being himself Jewish. (In fact, since he had faith in Messiah, he was part of the true Israel as well as being Jewish by blood.)
4) There is an enormous difference between the Jewish people of the 1st century and modern Israel.
--Baldwin claims "As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud."
It is very difficult to know how the Talmud is at all pertinent.
The quotations he provides are not even analogous to the usual citations from the Qur'an, which seem to a great many people to be prima facie, unqualified incitements to violence against unbelievers. These Talmudic quotations are not anything similar.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Police in Uniform Paid as Abortion Mill’s Jackboot Thugs
The badge. The thin blue line. The good guys. The city’s finest.
This is what often comes to mind when one thinks of law enforcement, police officers. One thinks of those who took an oath to protect the innocent from criminals and to uphold the rule of law. Of those who show up to help when you dial 911 (with apologies to our friends in Canada or overseas). Of the Constitution and justice.
What do we make of it when law enforcement officers violate their oaths in the most egregious and disgusting way?
Enter Lieutenant Jeff Robertson and Officer Neelon Greenwood of the Police Department of Norman, OK.
These officers of the law have accepted the offer from the career baby-killer, Larry Burns, at 2453 Wilcox Drive, Norman, OK, to work security for his child sacrifice center when they are off-duty. While they are doing so, they serve as deathscorts, walking abortive mothers from their cars to the back door of the death mill so as to avoid the abolitionists trying to hold them back from the slaughter who are stuck on the sidewalk, on public property.
They took an oath to protect. They protect murderers.
They took an oath to serve. They serve the rich assassin who tears tiny children to pieces or poisons them to death with chemical weaponry.
They took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They uphold the perversion that 7 lawyers in Washington DC foisted upon it, as well as the myriad lower laws that ignorant, biased, and wicked legislators have since created in the same vein.
They are supposed to deal justice to the innocent. They help deal death to the innocent.
And to add insult to injury, they wear their full police uniforms (which are, of course, taxpayer property) to fulfill this wicked capacity.
To add irony to insult to injury, Pulpit & Pen has reason to believe that Officer Greenwood also provides security for
Campbellitesa Church of Christ in the Norman area on Sundays.
These men are government officials, agents of the God-ordained authority to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil. Instead, let a single sidewalk counselor set foot on the property of this altar to Molech, and doubtless the “officer” on “duty” will cite or arrest that doer of good. Thus the government magistrate becomes a terror unto those who do good, rather than unto those who do evil. While they should stand against the destruction of preborn bearers of the image of their Creator, they misappropriate their badge and uniform for the purposes of standing against righteousness.
Let’s be clear. Any government official has the responsibility to stand firmly against violations of the Law of God. “It’s the law” is no excuse. “Law enforcement” agents once set dogs and fire hoses against marchers for civil rights. “Law enforcement” agents once guarded death camps that exterminated Jews, Gypsies, and handicapped people. “Law enforcement” agents once infiltrated states in the North to find and re-kidnap runaway slaves to force them back to their former servitude.
Today, “law enforcement” agents protect modern-day death camps, where one million of your preborn neighbors have been poisoned and dismembered this past year. They’ll say “it’s a woman’s choice” and “it’s the law of the land”. By their words they stand condemned.
Please contact the Norman Police Department and demand that they discipline Lt. Jeff Robertson and Officer Neelon Greenwood for impersonating police officers as they play guard dog for Larry Burns the baby killer. Please demand further that they renounce any protection for that “business” that murders citizens of the United States, tiny human beings created in the image of God. And, it should go without saying, do no harm to the baby killers, the abortive customers, the police in general, or these officers. “‘Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).
And lest you misunderstand your role vis-à-vis the government, please check out www.defytyrants.com.
This is what often comes to mind when one thinks of law enforcement, police officers. One thinks of those who took an oath to protect the innocent from criminals and to uphold the rule of law. Of those who show up to help when you dial 911 (with apologies to our friends in Canada or overseas). Of the Constitution and justice.
What do we make of it when law enforcement officers violate their oaths in the most egregious and disgusting way?
Enter Lieutenant Jeff Robertson and Officer Neelon Greenwood of the Police Department of Norman, OK.
These officers of the law have accepted the offer from the career baby-killer, Larry Burns, at 2453 Wilcox Drive, Norman, OK, to work security for his child sacrifice center when they are off-duty. While they are doing so, they serve as deathscorts, walking abortive mothers from their cars to the back door of the death mill so as to avoid the abolitionists trying to hold them back from the slaughter who are stuck on the sidewalk, on public property.
They took an oath to protect. They protect murderers.
They took an oath to serve. They serve the rich assassin who tears tiny children to pieces or poisons them to death with chemical weaponry.
They took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They uphold the perversion that 7 lawyers in Washington DC foisted upon it, as well as the myriad lower laws that ignorant, biased, and wicked legislators have since created in the same vein.
They are supposed to deal justice to the innocent. They help deal death to the innocent.
And to add insult to injury, they wear their full police uniforms (which are, of course, taxpayer property) to fulfill this wicked capacity.
To add irony to insult to injury, Pulpit & Pen has reason to believe that Officer Greenwood also provides security for
These men are government officials, agents of the God-ordained authority to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil. Instead, let a single sidewalk counselor set foot on the property of this altar to Molech, and doubtless the “officer” on “duty” will cite or arrest that doer of good. Thus the government magistrate becomes a terror unto those who do good, rather than unto those who do evil. While they should stand against the destruction of preborn bearers of the image of their Creator, they misappropriate their badge and uniform for the purposes of standing against righteousness.
Let’s be clear. Any government official has the responsibility to stand firmly against violations of the Law of God. “It’s the law” is no excuse. “Law enforcement” agents once set dogs and fire hoses against marchers for civil rights. “Law enforcement” agents once guarded death camps that exterminated Jews, Gypsies, and handicapped people. “Law enforcement” agents once infiltrated states in the North to find and re-kidnap runaway slaves to force them back to their former servitude.
Today, “law enforcement” agents protect modern-day death camps, where one million of your preborn neighbors have been poisoned and dismembered this past year. They’ll say “it’s a woman’s choice” and “it’s the law of the land”. By their words they stand condemned.
Please contact the Norman Police Department and demand that they discipline Lt. Jeff Robertson and Officer Neelon Greenwood for impersonating police officers as they play guard dog for Larry Burns the baby killer. Please demand further that they renounce any protection for that “business” that murders citizens of the United States, tiny human beings created in the image of God. And, it should go without saying, do no harm to the baby killers, the abortive customers, the police in general, or these officers. “‘Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).
And lest you misunderstand your role vis-à-vis the government, please check out www.defytyrants.com.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Ben Carson Thinks You Should Tone It Down
*Editorial Note: Pulpit & Pen continues in unrepentant sin and
enabling of the ongoing sin of Jordan Hall. While it is my understanding
that P&P does not plan to take down the content I contributed, any
role I can play in reducing their traffic until they repent, I will.
Thus I migrate this article here.
[[WARNING: This post contains graphic images of violence against human beings.]]
Because, you know, obviously when a guy who lives in the woods by himself, self-identifies as a woman despite sporting a neck beard that would put JD Hall to shame, and goes to some random location to shoot up an abortion facility and yet somehow doesn’t specifically hunt down the people who actually commit legalised murder every single day, it’s the fault of “pro-life rhetoric” in the USA:
Talk about media mismanagement on Dr Carson’s part. The man is being fed high lobs down the middle by this talking head, and all he can say is that there is “hateful rhetoric” on both sides? Has Dr Carson forgotten that the race to the middle is supposed to happen after one has nailed down his party’s nomination?
So let’s talk about that “rhetoric”, otherwise known as stating the facts of the matter. Planned Parenthood and other child sacrifice centers rip tiny human beings limb from limb.
They dismember them. They crush their skulls and then suck out their brain tissue so as to pull their bodies forcefully from their mothers’ wombs. They suction them out with hoses into jars, and then they piece their bodies back together in a steel tray to make sure no body parts have been left within. The ones they don’t murder with physical trauma, they poison to death with chemical weaponry like this. This happens thousands of times, every single day in our country. It is sin. It is not a stretch to say that it is our national sin, the evil of our age. It is a desecration of the image of God in humanity, and it is a direct attack on the image of God in the place of the Incarnation of the Son of God.
Dr Carson believes that this sort of rhetoric exacerbates the situation. What situation? If I’m not mistaken, opponents of child sacrifice have been using language like this to a greater or lesser degree for 42+ years. To take one example, how many aborticians have died at the hands of “pro-life zealots” in those 42 years? Eight. Out of hundreds and hundreds of murderers-for-hire, who live by the sword; eight of them have died by the sword in this country so far. I’d say they’ve lived on the edge and largely gotten away with it, so far in American history (of course, it goes without saying that they will drink the full cup of God’s wrath when they stand before Him with hands drenched in the blood of babies). Of course there have been other acts of violence here and there against abortion facilities and whatnot. Yet most of them operate, most of the time, completely unmolested by any violent opposition*. The degree of violence they have sustained is nothing compared to the violence they deal out every day.
So we are left asking: To what situation does Dr Carson refer, that this rhetoric exacerbates?
Moreover, the claim was made: Dr Carson, the pro-aborts say that anti-abortion rhetoric has made this all worse. What does he think?
It would not be fitting for national TV to guffaw in contempt, I admit, though that’s my first reaction. My second reaction is: Prove it. Where is the evidence? Of course they have little to none. Meanwhile, all this focus on violence done against abortion providers overshadows the infinitely greater legalised violence they continually perpetrate, day after day. Where is Dr Carson’s retort that upholds the image of God? Would not a man who loves the truth and the image of God call attention to the real problem, without ceasing and over and over again?
Why in the world are you people talking about violence done against those who lie in wait to shed innocent blood? Where was your concern for human life the day before this woman discharged her his own abortion tools against post-birth fetuses?
From the ludicrous to the ridiculous, Dr Carson disguises his obvious discomfort with and inability to answer the question: The strength of our country is in its unity. The founders of the country certainly didn’t think so, which is why the federal government was much smaller when they were in charge than it is today when generations of compromisers like Dr Carson have upheld the oligarchy. And what is the virtue of unity anyway, when the country’s unity comes in its widespread support for iniquitous decrees?
Dr Carson thinks we are hateful to each other in our rhetoric. That’s nothing compared to the hate that takes physical form in the violent oppression carried out against 3000 children per day. Dr Carson is worried about words when right in front of his face, child sacrifice is openly carried out by people who don’t even bother to hide it. He is worried about divisiveness, as if we should all just carry on and say “Peace, peace” where there is no peace, when the country is not under the lordship of Jesus Christ, when the churches, to say nothing of the government skuuls, nightclubs, brothels, and crack houses, are filled with people who have paid an assassin to scrape their offspring to pieces so they could continue to live their sinful lifestyle with no disruption.
The Bible has news for Dr Carson – the Gospel is divisive.
Matthew 10:24-28 –
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 15:24-28 –
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, “THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.”
Abortion is sin. The answer for sin is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not toning down rhetoric, not neglecting to call sin what it is – sin. Woe to those who do that, says the prophet Isaiah. Of course, if Dr Carson or anyone else is looking for intelligent and civil discussion, are not biblical Christians more than able to provide answers to every single objection, to refute their evil, irrational, and sin-stained “reasoning”, and to destroy speculations and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ? Of course. Just give us the chance. The pro-aborts don’t want that, for every time the debate is raised, the pro-death people either retreat into suppression of speech or name-calling or they lose the debate badly.
Dr Carson is dead wrong. The intelligent and civil discussion is there, but only one side wants it. The other side wants to avoid it and keep murdering babies and blowing smokescreens. Sadly, those smokescreens have had their desired effect on national- and state-level politicians all over the nation, and Dr Ben Carson is no exception.
*OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: Yes, of course, vigilante violence is bad and wrong. See here for more. It is possible for someone to respond to evil in an evil fashion.
[[WARNING: This post contains graphic images of violence against human beings.]]
Because, you know, obviously when a guy who lives in the woods by himself, self-identifies as a woman despite sporting a neck beard that would put JD Hall to shame, and goes to some random location to shoot up an abortion facility and yet somehow doesn’t specifically hunt down the people who actually commit legalised murder every single day, it’s the fault of “pro-life rhetoric” in the USA:
Talk about media mismanagement on Dr Carson’s part. The man is being fed high lobs down the middle by this talking head, and all he can say is that there is “hateful rhetoric” on both sides? Has Dr Carson forgotten that the race to the middle is supposed to happen after one has nailed down his party’s nomination?
So let’s talk about that “rhetoric”, otherwise known as stating the facts of the matter. Planned Parenthood and other child sacrifice centers rip tiny human beings limb from limb.
They dismember them. They crush their skulls and then suck out their brain tissue so as to pull their bodies forcefully from their mothers’ wombs. They suction them out with hoses into jars, and then they piece their bodies back together in a steel tray to make sure no body parts have been left within. The ones they don’t murder with physical trauma, they poison to death with chemical weaponry like this. This happens thousands of times, every single day in our country. It is sin. It is not a stretch to say that it is our national sin, the evil of our age. It is a desecration of the image of God in humanity, and it is a direct attack on the image of God in the place of the Incarnation of the Son of God.
Dr Carson believes that this sort of rhetoric exacerbates the situation. What situation? If I’m not mistaken, opponents of child sacrifice have been using language like this to a greater or lesser degree for 42+ years. To take one example, how many aborticians have died at the hands of “pro-life zealots” in those 42 years? Eight. Out of hundreds and hundreds of murderers-for-hire, who live by the sword; eight of them have died by the sword in this country so far. I’d say they’ve lived on the edge and largely gotten away with it, so far in American history (of course, it goes without saying that they will drink the full cup of God’s wrath when they stand before Him with hands drenched in the blood of babies). Of course there have been other acts of violence here and there against abortion facilities and whatnot. Yet most of them operate, most of the time, completely unmolested by any violent opposition*. The degree of violence they have sustained is nothing compared to the violence they deal out every day.
So we are left asking: To what situation does Dr Carson refer, that this rhetoric exacerbates?
Moreover, the claim was made: Dr Carson, the pro-aborts say that anti-abortion rhetoric has made this all worse. What does he think?
It would not be fitting for national TV to guffaw in contempt, I admit, though that’s my first reaction. My second reaction is: Prove it. Where is the evidence? Of course they have little to none. Meanwhile, all this focus on violence done against abortion providers overshadows the infinitely greater legalised violence they continually perpetrate, day after day. Where is Dr Carson’s retort that upholds the image of God? Would not a man who loves the truth and the image of God call attention to the real problem, without ceasing and over and over again?
Why in the world are you people talking about violence done against those who lie in wait to shed innocent blood? Where was your concern for human life the day before this woman discharged her his own abortion tools against post-birth fetuses?
From the ludicrous to the ridiculous, Dr Carson disguises his obvious discomfort with and inability to answer the question: The strength of our country is in its unity. The founders of the country certainly didn’t think so, which is why the federal government was much smaller when they were in charge than it is today when generations of compromisers like Dr Carson have upheld the oligarchy. And what is the virtue of unity anyway, when the country’s unity comes in its widespread support for iniquitous decrees?
Dr Carson thinks we are hateful to each other in our rhetoric. That’s nothing compared to the hate that takes physical form in the violent oppression carried out against 3000 children per day. Dr Carson is worried about words when right in front of his face, child sacrifice is openly carried out by people who don’t even bother to hide it. He is worried about divisiveness, as if we should all just carry on and say “Peace, peace” where there is no peace, when the country is not under the lordship of Jesus Christ, when the churches, to say nothing of the government skuuls, nightclubs, brothels, and crack houses, are filled with people who have paid an assassin to scrape their offspring to pieces so they could continue to live their sinful lifestyle with no disruption.
The Bible has news for Dr Carson – the Gospel is divisive.
Matthew 10:24-28 –
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 15:24-28 –
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, “THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.”
Abortion is sin. The answer for sin is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not toning down rhetoric, not neglecting to call sin what it is – sin. Woe to those who do that, says the prophet Isaiah. Of course, if Dr Carson or anyone else is looking for intelligent and civil discussion, are not biblical Christians more than able to provide answers to every single objection, to refute their evil, irrational, and sin-stained “reasoning”, and to destroy speculations and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ? Of course. Just give us the chance. The pro-aborts don’t want that, for every time the debate is raised, the pro-death people either retreat into suppression of speech or name-calling or they lose the debate badly.
Dr Carson is dead wrong. The intelligent and civil discussion is there, but only one side wants it. The other side wants to avoid it and keep murdering babies and blowing smokescreens. Sadly, those smokescreens have had their desired effect on national- and state-level politicians all over the nation, and Dr Ben Carson is no exception.
*OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: Yes, of course, vigilante violence is bad and wrong. See here for more. It is possible for someone to respond to evil in an evil fashion.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A courteous advocate of gun control
Text of the tweet:
And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US. People like you are the scum of the earth. I hope you're the next victim
(Please leave any comments at Triablogue.)
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
0bamaphone, redux
ERV, often unintentionally funny, does it again...
So, since you and I are now responsible for paying for this unmarried student's birth control pill habit, she now has the wherewithal to get herself a top-of-the-line phone (only $300!??!? Tell me more about this fantastic deal!!!) with a data plan.
Meanwhile, my employer dropped the family healthcare plan that I favored and reduced my options to precisely two, my commute is now at least twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and I have a $20 TV I got from Craigslist, no cable TV, and the barebones cell phone family plan. And when I want condoms, I buy them myself.
But hey, ERV, glad I could help you out with that. Enjoy.
What I mean is, my last phone was a Blackberry Pearl. Yeah. I got it 2008-ish, I think. Ive never had a smartphone, because I couldnt afford it. The Blackberry worked, my cell bill is like $20 added on as a family line to my parents bill. Compare that to the the cost of the new smartphones, plus somewhere up to $100 a month for a data plan? No thank you.(Emphasis added.)
But my Blackberry is finally dying (NOOOO!), there are lots of alternative options to traditional overpriced phone plans (T-mobile $30, Straight Talk $45), thanks to Obamacare Im not paying for birth control every month now, and the Nexus 4 was coming out. A high-end phone at a relatively low price ($299 vs its $550 ATT Optimus G counterpart), that gets upgrades straight from Google.
So I got one.
So, since you and I are now responsible for paying for this unmarried student's birth control pill habit, she now has the wherewithal to get herself a top-of-the-line phone (only $300!??!? Tell me more about this fantastic deal!!!) with a data plan.
Meanwhile, my employer dropped the family healthcare plan that I favored and reduced my options to precisely two, my commute is now at least twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and I have a $20 TV I got from Craigslist, no cable TV, and the barebones cell phone family plan. And when I want condoms, I buy them myself.
But hey, ERV, glad I could help you out with that. Enjoy.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Potty Mouth Law Student strikes back
Potty Mouth Law Student
Rhology is spewing his nonsense when he lacks any kind of knowledge of the gov. I stated "Religion should not be in our schools nor our government. Rhology stated "Thankfully, the Founding Fathers disagreed heartily." This is the most absurd thing i have ever read. Rhology many of our founding fathers were not Christian and many of them despised religion. Thomas Jefferson "“The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” I have many more to post. They knew the dangers of religion and wanted a gov free of it. But were not against people choosing a religion to belong to. Religion does not belong within our government. Per the Establishment Clause of the constitution the congress as a whole cannot pick a religion for the country. Also the mentioning of god in the pledge of allegiance and on the dollar bill were not of our founding fathers doing and they are probably turning in their grave because of it. Religion has no place in our government and i am glad it is slowly moving its way out. Hence now homosexuals can now be open and gay marriage in some states. You should read and comprehend the treaty of tripoli. Treaty of Trioli "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,". The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. This bulls*t was added later well to the dollar bill and some states are writing that crap into their state constitution.
Rhology
\\Rhology many of our founding fathers were not Christian and many of them despised religion.\\
I know SOME of them were not Christian. Most were, however.
Very few of them despised "religion". I'd be interested in seeing ANY evidence that ANY of them "despised" "religion" (keeping in mind that religion is far more general than Christianity).
Jefferson's criticism of the God of the Bible doesn't get close to proving that he despised religion. It just means he disliked the God of the Bible. You have a lot farther to go to substantiate your irresponsible assertion.
\\They knew the dangers of religion and wanted a gov free of it.\\
This is easily proven false. Potty Mouth Law Student is simply repeating what she's heard from historically-ignorant liberals at her school (which failed to teach her to reason non-fallaciously, sadly).
http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Man-Decline-Liberty/dp/1615078959/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336752894&sr=8-1
\\the mentioning of god in the pledge of allegiance and on the dollar bill were not of our founding fathers doing and they are probably turning in their grave because of i\\
How about in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? I suppose the mentions of God and Jesus appeared there by magic?
\\Treaty of Trioli\\
The above-cited book deals at length with this Treaty, showing that your misinterpretation is no good.
\\The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.\
What does "appeal to" mean? Depending on the way you're using the word, I might agree. I wouldn't agree that it matters a great deal, however. I'm not claiming America was founded as a Christian nation. Its most principal influence was always Christianity, and *states* could be Christian, but that's not the same thing.
Potty Mouth Law Student
You stated the founding fathers. You were incorrect... this country was not founding on the premise of religion. Your book is from a unreliable source. I go by the constitution. Sorry.
the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). So your point again is moot.
Also the fact that some were religious doesn't take away from the fact they wanted separation of church and office.
Rhology
\\You were incorrect... this country was not founding on the premise of religion\\
NOw you're changing your claim from what you said before. You're disingenuous. Just say "I was wrong" and own it. You're acting like you don't care about the truth. Unsurprising.
\\the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). So your point again is moot.\\
Neither does the pledge of allegiance, or "IN God we Trust" on our money. You fail again.
Oh, and what about the Constitution? Does that "not represent any law of the USA"?
\\the fact that some were religious doesn't take away from the fact they wanted separation of church and office.\\
Again you move the goalposts.
Arguing with you is like taking candy from a very profane baby.
Potty Mouth Law Student
Are you name calling? You know in a debate attack the argument not the person. This country was not founded on religion, YOU were wrong. You need to own it. Sorry if I upset you, i just proved my argument. ;-)
Rhology
I know you don't want to read the book, but I cited it b/c it cites tons of Founding Father documents, showing that you're wrong about them. Deal with its material and show that you're intellectually honest. Refuse to acknowledge it, sight unseen, and prove yet again you're intellectually dishonest.
Rhology
What are you talking about?
Rhology
Do you really not get that when text appears between two sets of \\, I'm quoting you?
Potty Mouth Law Student
Directly quote the actual document. I have it right here.. well a copy that my lovely con law professor provided us a copy of. ;-) I would suggest you read up on the establishment clause, and understand the DOI as compared to the constitution the supreme law of the land. You seem confused.
"The Declaration of Independence states that we are free and independent form the British, our former rulers. Our nation no longer depends on the British people. The document declares our independence. The Constitution of the United States says what we as a nation follow and it has the Bill of Rights in there which states our basic rights in this country." The DOI is not the same as the constitution.
Rhology
\\I would suggest you read up on the establishment clause\\
You mean the one that says "Congress shall make no law" and has nothing to do with states? Or individual people trying to lobby for and enact laws that are rooted in their personal moral stances? Yeah, I'm familiar with that one.
Article VII: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the ****Year of our Lord**** one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth"
Hmm, I wonder who "our Lord" is?
And no, I don't see. Try writing like you're writing a paper for one of your classes, and less like an ADHD-riddled 5th grader.
Rhology
\\The DOI is not the same as the constitution.\\
Never said it was. You didn't address yet my criticism of your point. Any time now.
Potty Mouth Law Student
OMG provide the whole quote.. also there is a thing called preemption and the supremacy clause. State law cannot contradict or conflict with federal law. Rhology you make this too easy for me.. the term lord means A titled nobleman. Again insults, how about you provide a good argument instead of insulting. See that is what people do when defeated.
Potty Mouth Law Student
Meaning Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Remember you brought up the founding fathers... stay on subject.
Rhology
\\State law cannot contradict or conflict with federal law.\\
How would a state law contradict "Congress shall make no law"? I suppose if a state law were passed that attempted to force Congress to pass such a law. Think, Potty Mouth Law Student.
\\the term lord means A titled nobleman\\
Oh, OK. Let's try it. See if it fits.
Article VII: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the ****Year of our titled nobleman**** one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth"
Yeah, that fits great.
Potty Mouth Law Student
Rhology, you provided a quote from the DOI in a constitution argument. They have nothing to do with one another. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when created they wanted to keep church and office separate. You're having issues with staying on track. Hope this helps.
Rhology
\\you provided a quote from the DOI in a constitution argument. \\
Wrong again. Check the context of when I said it.
\\Meaning Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion\\
NEver argued differenty. It doesn't appear you're even understanding me. It's a pattern with you, which I attribute mostly to sheer emotion and the bluster you seem to engage in all the time.
Potty Mouth Law Student
Rhology you mad bruh? Thanks Rhology I think my job is done here. Next time you want to debate bring your A game and assure next time you know what you are talking about before you say it.. ;-)
Thursday, April 26, 2012
I don't have to accept socialism to reject abortion
The discussion with DEFishback continues:
DEFishback said...
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.
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.
Rhology said...
All,
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.
Mike Westfall said...
> Although you pretend my video is
> 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.
Rhology said...
DEFishback,
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?
DEFishback said...
Yes, I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life. (It's been surprising that this fact is immediately obvious to some viewers and almost incomprehensible to others.) 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? Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born? Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.") "Life" is a huge concept, so I'm saying a truly "pro life" stance should incorporate a broad range of social commitments.
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.
Rhology said...
I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life
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.
Rhology said...
because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the populatio
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.
Good luck!
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.
Good luck!
Monday, April 23, 2012
What we have 'wreaked'
This is my first post since Blogger significantly downgraded its blog interface (seriously, it is much worse), so hopefully I won't screw this up too badly.
A shallow Facebook commenter decided to post an equally shallow video at Oklahoma State Rep Lisa Billy's Facebook page today (meanwhile forgetting that the past tense of "wreaked" is "wrought" edit: Oops, it's either one) and I decided to give it a once-over.
This video is little more than a string of irrelevant data wherein the speaker complains about:
1) issues unrelated to whether it's OK to murder tiny babies in the womb
2) corruption or bad ideas put forward by the OK Legislature (which only the ignorant or seriously biased would deny happens all the time).
So... let me get this straight. Oklahoma educates its children badly (according to the speaker). Therefore it should be legal to murder children. Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children.
Help me understand this logic. It would seem there's a missing premise or two.
"War on women's stuff" - what an ignorant and stupid statement. Just a waste of space. So...saying that it's not OK to murder children is a war against women? In what universe?
"So much more for the legislators to work on" - right, because baby murder is just a teensy tiny side issue.
Also, you'd think that since the speaker is so concerned that the OK legislature legislates badly, he'd want the legislature to legislate LESS so that they'd mess less stuff up. He probably meant that they should agree with him more when they pass laws, but why didn't he SAY THAT?
Probably it's b/c he's a shallow thinker and is therefore imprecise in his communication. That should give us a reason not to take him seriously.
"hard work of advancing our state" - yes, let's definitely advance our state. And shall we murder our children to do so? Great!
"#1 in taser deaths... b/c we're such a pro-life state" - Again, just irrelevant! There's a huge difference between a policeman tasering a suspect and systematically murdering tiny babies in the womb. Why is this so hard to figure out?
And how many does it take to achieve a #1 ranking in taser deaths?
"Seven people have died at the hands of OKCPD Taser-wielding officers since 2001" (Source).
Wow! So... 0.63 people have died every single year from the wildly violent OKC Po-Pos and this guy is all upset about it? Does he know how many children have been butchered in the abortuaries of Oklahoma since 2001?
Sin makes you stupid.
It's a sad commentary on your intellect that the lady who posted this found it compelling enough to post. It's really poorly-reasoned and foolish.
A shallow Facebook commenter decided to post an equally shallow video at Oklahoma State Rep Lisa Billy's Facebook page today (
This video is little more than a string of irrelevant data wherein the speaker complains about:
1) issues unrelated to whether it's OK to murder tiny babies in the womb
2) corruption or bad ideas put forward by the OK Legislature (which only the ignorant or seriously biased would deny happens all the time).
So... let me get this straight. Oklahoma educates its children badly (according to the speaker). Therefore it should be legal to murder children. Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children.
Help me understand this logic. It would seem there's a missing premise or two.
"War on women's stuff" - what an ignorant and stupid statement. Just a waste of space. So...saying that it's not OK to murder children is a war against women? In what universe?
"So much more for the legislators to work on" - right, because baby murder is just a teensy tiny side issue.
Also, you'd think that since the speaker is so concerned that the OK legislature legislates badly, he'd want the legislature to legislate LESS so that they'd mess less stuff up. He probably meant that they should agree with him more when they pass laws, but why didn't he SAY THAT?
Probably it's b/c he's a shallow thinker and is therefore imprecise in his communication. That should give us a reason not to take him seriously.
"hard work of advancing our state" - yes, let's definitely advance our state. And shall we murder our children to do so? Great!
"#1 in taser deaths... b/c we're such a pro-life state" - Again, just irrelevant! There's a huge difference between a policeman tasering a suspect and systematically murdering tiny babies in the womb. Why is this so hard to figure out?
And how many does it take to achieve a #1 ranking in taser deaths?
"Seven people have died at the hands of OKCPD Taser-wielding officers since 2001" (Source).
Wow! So... 0.63 people have died every single year from the wildly violent OKC Po-Pos and this guy is all upset about it? Does he know how many children have been butchered in the abortuaries of Oklahoma since 2001?
Sin makes you stupid.
It's a sad commentary on your intellect that the lady who posted this found it compelling enough to post. It's really poorly-reasoned and foolish.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
“Pro-Life” = “Pro-Imprisonment”?
A regular pro-choice poster on our Facebook wall directed us to this article from the poorly-named RH Reality Check site, by authors Lynn Paltrow and Emma S. Ketteringham.
I would like to comment on the most relevant portions of the article here.
Like it or not, endangering a preborn human being is endangering a preborn human being. You may not like that fact, but there are plenty of distasteful facts out there. You may not like the responsibility, but adults have responsibilities. It's the way it is.
If a friend confides in me that he has an overwhelming compunction to fire off machine guns at playground equipment when kids are playing on it, I will tell him that he has no option - he is absolutely not permitted to do so. If he tells me he can't stop himself, I will take away his guns. If he persists, I will get him professional help. If he does it anyway, that's what laws against reckless endangerment are for. He is not an automaton, a 100%-unthinking slave to his desires to fire machine guns at occupied playground equipment. He made a choice. Neither is any person an automaton with zero choice in the matter of addiction. One has to want to be free of the addiction to become free. Putting laws on the books against behavior that often accompanies addiction is one way we deter people from becoming addicted, one way we help people realise they need to want to break the addiction more. No one can do it for them, but it must be done.
Had sex and got pregnant, but the baby would get in the way of your internship? No problem - just murder the baby and you'll be fine.
Unwilling to try hard enough to break free from a drug addiction and now you're facing charges of endangering your preborn baby? Just get the danger over with, murder the baby, and you're in the clear.
Incidentally, I'm no expert, but illegal drugs are often quite costly, and one of the pro-aborts' favorite hobbyhorses is "what about pregnancies that poor women undergo, who are in no financial shape to sustain a child?". I don't see how these two things can coexist. How do these poor women who are barely scraping by, barely paying for a studio apartment and Ramen noodles every night pay for illegal drugs? Maybe the pro-aborts don't really care as much as they claim about women, but rather have ulterior, unstated motivations.
Thanks to a decision by five highly-placed and ill-informed men 39 years ago, it is illegal to punish women for having abortions. Why would the authors of this article imply that they are unhappy with this arrangement?
Also, even if there were strong anti-abortion laws on the books (which there will be in the near future, God willing), the question of what penalties should be applied to abortive women is far from clear or easily answered. Here is our answer as it stands right now.
The motivation behind abolitionism is that human beings are created in the image of God, and we have a standing command, a heart, and a burden to preserve those lives, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to fight against suppression of the rights of the weakest and voiceless of our society. If it is possible to deter people from putting lives at risk by passing legislation and assigning criminal penalties to violators, that is, all other things being equal, what we would want to do. Why? Because of the effect of deterrence. Of course this is not one-size-fits-all, but where deterrence is a reasonably expected outcome, we want to put the deterrent in place, to save lives.
Taking illegal drugs during pregnancy is very dangerous for the preborn child. It can lead to death or serious birth defects and disabilities. Since the state is often saddled with much of the high costs of living for disabled people, the state also has a standing interest in protecting people from unnecessary debilitating conditions that would prevent them from being self-sufficient producers.
I am not an experienced legislator. From what I've seen of most legislators, that improves the probability that my judgment is reasonable and well thought out.
Nor am I an expert in law, however, and nothing comes immediately to mind with respect to how one could improve the sentencing structure. Obviously, the range of sentencing can't be so light as to remove all deterrent effects; on the other hand, we must avoid the extreme of cruel and unusual punishment.
But let me propose this to the authors and to you, the readers. The issue at hand is chemical endangerment. This means the pregnant woman is taking illegal drugs. Now, the authors may be pro-legalisation of drugs, so they may be consistent on this issue, but as it stands now, most usage of drugs that anyone cares about entails legal consequences as well. There is a really good chance that a woman addicted to drugs is not in a position to mother her children effectively anyway, since that's what happens with addiction - most everything else of value in one's life is thrown out the window in pursuit of the next hit or high. Even family relationships are torn apart because of this problem.
The authors apparently forgot to think that part through before they wrote their article.
Of course! Even if I frantically call 911 and get the ambulance there and provide full cooperation, if he dies, am I not up on manslaughter charges? Not 1st-degree murder, of course, but manslaughter, most certainly.
Pro-aborts like to talk like aborticians are modern heroes. They're not; they are the worst of the citizenry that is not currently in prison or under warrant for arrest.
What in the world are these authors even talking about? Women who "bring forth life"? Do the authors realise that the entire point of this article has been to discuss women who intentionally and repeatedly take dangerous drugs while pregnant? Are we supposed to laud such women?
You know, there is a difference, a vast one, between being a father and being a daddy. One can become a father with as little as a few moments of extreme pleasure - it's not that hard.
Being a daddy requires a lifetime of some level of sacrifice, discipline, self-denial, and love for weak, helpless children who have no way to pay Daddy back except in hugs, squeals, and kisses. "Daddy" is an earned title.
In the same way, one can be the biological mother of a child, sure, but let's not lower our standards so far that we applaud women who "brought forth life" in spite of everything they did, lest we drain the meaning from the position of motherhood such that there is no room in term to praise legitimately great mothers.
The authors have been answered, and unfortunately for their strident tone and opinions, their thoughts are too simplistic where right, and flat wrong where they're wrong.
(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
I would like to comment on the most relevant portions of the article here.
if these prosecutions continue, pregnant women who are addicted to drugs and who cannot overcome that addiction in the short term of pregnancy will be pressured into having unwanted abortions to avoid criminal penaltiesOr they could work harder to overcome those addictions.
Like it or not, endangering a preborn human being is endangering a preborn human being. You may not like that fact, but there are plenty of distasteful facts out there. You may not like the responsibility, but adults have responsibilities. It's the way it is.
If a friend confides in me that he has an overwhelming compunction to fire off machine guns at playground equipment when kids are playing on it, I will tell him that he has no option - he is absolutely not permitted to do so. If he tells me he can't stop himself, I will take away his guns. If he persists, I will get him professional help. If he does it anyway, that's what laws against reckless endangerment are for. He is not an automaton, a 100%-unthinking slave to his desires to fire machine guns at occupied playground equipment. He made a choice. Neither is any person an automaton with zero choice in the matter of addiction. One has to want to be free of the addiction to become free. Putting laws on the books against behavior that often accompanies addiction is one way we deter people from becoming addicted, one way we help people realise they need to want to break the addiction more. No one can do it for them, but it must be done.
in which a pregnant woman had an abortion in order to get the state of North Dakota to drop “fetal endangerment” charges against her.This is a perfect illustration of why many abortions occur - to escape unsavory consequences of someone's actions.
Had sex and got pregnant, but the baby would get in the way of your internship? No problem - just murder the baby and you'll be fine.
Unwilling to try hard enough to break free from a drug addiction and now you're facing charges of endangering your preborn baby? Just get the danger over with, murder the baby, and you're in the clear.
Incidentally, I'm no expert, but illegal drugs are often quite costly, and one of the pro-aborts' favorite hobbyhorses is "what about pregnancies that poor women undergo, who are in no financial shape to sustain a child?". I don't see how these two things can coexist. How do these poor women who are barely scraping by, barely paying for a studio apartment and Ramen noodles every night pay for illegal drugs? Maybe the pro-aborts don't really care as much as they claim about women, but rather have ulterior, unstated motivations.
why would a group that claims to value life urge Alabama’s highest court to uphold an interpretation of the chemical endangerment law that coerces women into having abortions and punish the ones who don’t?I can think of a few reasons, actually.
Thanks to a decision by five highly-placed and ill-informed men 39 years ago, it is illegal to punish women for having abortions. Why would the authors of this article imply that they are unhappy with this arrangement?
Also, even if there were strong anti-abortion laws on the books (which there will be in the near future, God willing), the question of what penalties should be applied to abortive women is far from clear or easily answered. Here is our answer as it stands right now.
The motivation behind abolitionism is that human beings are created in the image of God, and we have a standing command, a heart, and a burden to preserve those lives, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to fight against suppression of the rights of the weakest and voiceless of our society. If it is possible to deter people from putting lives at risk by passing legislation and assigning criminal penalties to violators, that is, all other things being equal, what we would want to do. Why? Because of the effect of deterrence. Of course this is not one-size-fits-all, but where deterrence is a reasonably expected outcome, we want to put the deterrent in place, to save lives.
Taking illegal drugs during pregnancy is very dangerous for the preborn child. It can lead to death or serious birth defects and disabilities. Since the state is often saddled with much of the high costs of living for disabled people, the state also has a standing interest in protecting people from unnecessary debilitating conditions that would prevent them from being self-sufficient producers.
It is difficult, however, to see what is “life-affirming” about hauling off to jail new mothers who just gave birth and leaving their children motherless? Penalties under the Chemical Endangerment law range from not less than 1-year-and-1-day to up to 99 years (life) in prison.It is not often that pro-aborts come up with good arguments, but I have to hand it to the authors here. Despite pro-abortion's history of getting virtually everything wrong, the authors swam upstream and made a good point, albeit on a relatively minor matter.
I am not an experienced legislator. From what I've seen of most legislators, that improves the probability that my judgment is reasonable and well thought out.
Nor am I an expert in law, however, and nothing comes immediately to mind with respect to how one could improve the sentencing structure. Obviously, the range of sentencing can't be so light as to remove all deterrent effects; on the other hand, we must avoid the extreme of cruel and unusual punishment.
But let me propose this to the authors and to you, the readers. The issue at hand is chemical endangerment. This means the pregnant woman is taking illegal drugs. Now, the authors may be pro-legalisation of drugs, so they may be consistent on this issue, but as it stands now, most usage of drugs that anyone cares about entails legal consequences as well. There is a really good chance that a woman addicted to drugs is not in a position to mother her children effectively anyway, since that's what happens with addiction - most everything else of value in one's life is thrown out the window in pursuit of the next hit or high. Even family relationships are torn apart because of this problem.
The authors apparently forgot to think that part through before they wrote their article.
Since 2005, National Advocates for Pregnant Women has documented hundreds of cases in Alabama and elsewhere in which women have been arrested for allegedly endangering their pregnancies including: Christine Taylor in Iowa who was charged with attempted fetal homicide after she fell down a flight of stairs while pregnantI would not be in favor of having prosecuted Christine Taylor if the situation is as described in the article covering the topic, but it is irrelevant to this law regarding chemical endangerment of the preborn.
Bei Bei Shuai in Indiana who has been charged with murder for suffering a pregnancy loss after a suicide attempt.If I shoot myself in the head, miss, and the bullet also happens to travel through the cranium of my friend, killing him, am I culpable for that death, morally and in the eyes of the law?
Of course! Even if I frantically call 911 and get the ambulance there and provide full cooperation, if he dies, am I not up on manslaughter charges? Not 1st-degree murder, of course, but manslaughter, most certainly.
The Liberty Counsel has established that the “pro-life” position is “pro-punishment,” not just for doctors who perform abortionsThe authors of the article seem to think that's a bad thing. It is, rather, one of the best hopes for abolitionism in this nation. Aborticians are intentional liars who deliberately withhold full information from their clients, clients who often feel themselves in a desperate situation with only one way out. Thus they take advantage of these women, manipulate them into paying them to dismember their children, and then pat them on the head and say "don't worry, this will never come back to haunt you. Yeah, I know that thousands of other women are heartbroken years later and never get over it, but I'm sure you'll be just fine. Now, where's your $500?"
Pro-aborts like to talk like aborticians are modern heroes. They're not; they are the worst of the citizenry that is not currently in prison or under warrant for arrest.
If “pro-life” does not mean “pro-imprisonment,” now would be a good time to speak up and stop the growing assault on the dignity, sanctity, and liberty of the women who bring forth life. Where are they?Right here.
What in the world are these authors even talking about? Women who "bring forth life"? Do the authors realise that the entire point of this article has been to discuss women who intentionally and repeatedly take dangerous drugs while pregnant? Are we supposed to laud such women?
You know, there is a difference, a vast one, between being a father and being a daddy. One can become a father with as little as a few moments of extreme pleasure - it's not that hard.
Being a daddy requires a lifetime of some level of sacrifice, discipline, self-denial, and love for weak, helpless children who have no way to pay Daddy back except in hugs, squeals, and kisses. "Daddy" is an earned title.
In the same way, one can be the biological mother of a child, sure, but let's not lower our standards so far that we applaud women who "brought forth life" in spite of everything they did, lest we drain the meaning from the position of motherhood such that there is no room in term to praise legitimately great mothers.
The authors have been answered, and unfortunately for their strident tone and opinions, their thoughts are too simplistic where right, and flat wrong where they're wrong.
(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
Thursday, March 08, 2012
When your idol is socialised healthcare
I was the Abolish Human Abortion admin on all those comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)