Baltimore Ravens offensive lineman Matt Birk is pro-life — so when it came time for the Ravens to visit President Barack Obama for the annual congratulations to the Super Bowl winners, he decided not to go.
The pro-life NFL player explained his decision:
“I wasn’t there,” Birk told The Power Trip. “I would say this, I would say that I have great respect for the office of the Presidency but about five or six weeks ago, our president made a comment in a speech and he said, ‘God bless Planned Parenthood.’”
Life Dynamics Inc. a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, has released an interview with three former abortion clinic workers which prove the Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, recently convicted of murder, is not an anomaly.
The interview was conducted on May 3, 2013 with clinic employees located in a different state. Though their descriptions are disturbing, the video images are non-graphic.
Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics: “While the pro-life movement claims that abortion takes the life of a living human being, nobody on earth knows that better than the people who work at abortion clinics. The lofty rhetoric of “choice” may insulate those who work in the political and public relations arena, but the day-to-day reality for those who provide those “choices” is to deal with the corpses and parts of corpses they pull out of their customers’ bodies. “
Abortion clinic employee, ” I thought, well, it’s an abortion you know, that’s what he does, but I wasn’t aware that it was illegal…Most of the time we would see him where the fetus would come completely out and of course, the fetus would still be alive..”
“He does a lot of huge abortions. A lot of the times, we would bring the big fetus that were over age, we would re-open the bag and just look at it and be like, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s so big!'”
“Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out. He would yank pieces — piece by piece — when they were oversize. And I’m talking about the whole floor dirty. I’m talking about me drenched in blood.”
What we have witnessed in the Gosnell case and here in our video is the nature of the beast.
Former abortion clinic worker James Johnson testified today during the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell and provided jurors with a nauseating account of the horrific conditions at the abortion facility.
Johnson worked as a janitor, maintenance man and plumber of sorts and he was the common-law husband of 51-year-old Elizabeth Hampton, who is herself Gosnell’s wife’s sister. He told jurors some of the morbid details that appear in the grand jury report — including how he threatened to quit working at the abortion clinic because he refused to pull any more flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing.
His job was to collect abortion remains and take them to basement — but he eventually refused to participate and bags began piling up.
He told the jury toilets backed up one-two times a week and said he opened the outside clean out pipe and fetal parts such as babies’ arms came spilling out.
Johnson said he scooped up body parts with shovel and put them in a bag that was taken to rat infested basement. Johnson said a cat kept at the Gosnell clinic was there to deal with rat infestations that kept happening. He said the at pooped in plants all over clinic.
The Gosnell clinic had a practice of making women dispose of the aborted babies body in the toilet and, as the grand jury report indicated: “[Patients] did not know inducing the labor and severing the spinal cords of live babies was going to happen.”
The report stated that “All afternoon and evening, as patients woke and complained of pain, workers would continue to medicate them with injections of sedatives. Between doses, the staff would leave the patients largely unattended. This would go on until the doctor arrived, some six or more hours after the patient did, or until the woman delivered.” The abortion could take as long as three days, one staffer admitted in it.
“If … a baby was about to come out, I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet,” testified Latosha Lewis, who worked for Gosnell for over eight years. “I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes. She would not move.”
According to the report, “[Johnson] described how he had to lift the toilet so that someone else—he said it was too disgusting for him—could get the fetuses out of the pipes.”
I have written extensively on this topic of Margaret Sanger’s goals, which you see some well known pro-life people (like Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece) speaking against. And it is true that hair salons are more regulated than any, yes ANY, abortion clinic.
Here is CNN’s single report if you are not in the loop:
Here is the key ideas in the horrific case discussed on Special Report’s panel discussion, and one must note that when Obama was a Senator, he voted to make these actions legal!
Trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell reveals ‘a house of horrors’
It was a scene the Philadelphia District Attorney called “a house of horrors.” A warning to readers, some of the details in this story are gruesome.
West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial for running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed babies who had survived illegal, late-term abortions, and where a woman allegedly died of a botched painkiller injection.
“The evidence is certainly compelling,” said The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Joseph Slobodzian. Slobodzian has been in the courtroom every day of the trial.
“There are any number of witnesses, most of them former employees of Dr. Gosnell’s clinic, who say they saw late-term abortions being done, they saw fetuses, babies, that were moving, breathing after the procedure, and those babies were killed,” said Slobodzian.
Gosnell is maintaining his innocence and says he was helping his community, despite the fact that his employees are coming out against him.
“Kermit Gosnell comes from a very well-established family in West Philadelphia,” said Slobodzian, adding that Gosnell went to the University of Pennsylvania, transferred to Dickenson College for his Bachelor’s degree, received his medical degree from Jefferson Medical School, and then came home to begin working in the community.
“He until these charges had what is considered a pretty good reputation in the community,” said Slobodzian. “Then in 1979 opened his Women’s Medical Society clinic at 38th and Lancaster … and then sometime during the ’70s he began doing abortions.”
District Attorney Seth Williams described the clinic and Gosnell at length in the grand jury testimony.
“This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy — and then murdered these newborns. … The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels — and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths,” reads the grand jury report.
A National Abortion Federation official who visited Gosnell’s office said, “It was the worst clinic she had ever seen,” but she never told the authorities about it. Patients were regularly misled, according to a documentary on the Gosnell case, “3801 Lancaster.”
“When I got pregnant again, I went to the clinic and I asked them, I said, ‘Is it okay that I get another abortion?’ ‘Fine, fine.’ They even, like, had this woman sit down with me and she told me women in Brazil have at least 21 abortions,” said one of the patients of the clinic in the documentary. “After she had coached me into believing that that was the norm, I would say within the next 14 years, like within that time I had eight abortions. Eight.”
The details about some of the late-term abortions performed at the clinic are shocking.
“It’s pretty grim, it’s pretty grim in the courtroom,” said Slobodzian, speaking about his personal reaction to covering the trial, adding that each day he tries to cover the human emotion on display at the trial, as well as the facts and the information.
“But I have to tell you, I certainly don’t hope I cover a trial like this again.”
In all my discussions with people about the “hot-button issue” of today, same-sex-marriage, I see a theme. And that is, bias. Not an admitted bias, or a healthy bias, one flirting with fascism. “FASCISM! How can you say that Papa Giorgio!?” Easy, a position is taken not on the reasonableness of the argument taken, but by painting the other side as bigoted, in a sense, evil, one wields power (through legislation) over a person who disagrees with such a proposition:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” — Mussolini
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
(Moving on) I came across a great short post to start out my example of an actual discussion where I and others on my Facebook (gay or straight) are painted as bigots if they disagree with the liberal-progressive view of the debate. Here it is, and it comes from Kevin Halloran’s site:
In this conversation, I tried to give examples, explain, analogize, and the like. Finally I just had to point out that the person involved was acting like a child in name-calling. I will post the two conversations going on with the same person, separately. Two separate issues engendered conversation via a linked article posted to my Facebook wall, “Gay Marriage Is the Media’s Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church.” I will post the shorter of the two conversations so one can get a feel for what I am dealing with.
The first subject challenged from within the article dealt with this sentence:
If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pillthrough ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies — good luck with that. (emphasized)
Here is her first challenge:
DEB
What’s an abortion pill? The morning after pill is not an abortion pill- don’t be ignorant.
ME
“Also known as mifepristone, mifeprex, RU486, or medication abortion, the abortion pill is an FDA-approved medication which results in abortion. In most cases, the abortion pill ends pregnancy safely and privately in the comfort of your own home…. Mifepristone, taken orally, blocks the action of the pregnancy hormone progesterone. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin medication, is also used to cause uterine cramps which expel blood and the pregnancy tissue from the uterus.”
I will repeat: “...the abortion pill ends pregnancy…. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing.” It is the ending a boy/girls life during a stage of their growth.
Using 2 different medicines to end your pregnancy: mifepristone and misoprostol.
The abortion pills work to end the pregnancy over 98% of the time. Around 2% of people will still need a uterine aspiration after using the pills if their pregnancy doesn’t end or if they have heavy bleeding.
A: No. Mifeprex is used to end an early pregnancy. It is not indicated for use to prevent pregnancy. Emergency contraception drugs are indicated to prevent pregnancy.
Q: At what point during pregnancy is Mifeprex approved for use?
A: Mifeprex is FDA-approved for ending early pregnancy. Early pregnancy means it is 49 days (7 weeks) or less since your last menstrual period began.
Okay, she didn’t respond after that. Maybe the corner seemed too tight, because she came out swinging on another issue. She basically used a tactic very popular on the Left nowadays. That is, paint your opposition as evil, or as Prager would say in his acronym: S.I.X.H.I.R.B. “Bigot” is the “B” in that acronym, in case you were wondering.
Here we go:
DEB
Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different
…just my opinion.
To be clear, she just equalized the belief in the traditional definition of marriage with prejudice and racism. (Moral equivalency is the track record of the Left.) Thus, the person removes the need to deal with a response. I mean, who would want to argue with a racist and a bigot? This has caused a laziness in the liberal community and interferes with the intellectual growth and learning curve. In fact, a liberal professor says this hurts the youth he see’s going through his class. Yet, this same harmful egalitarian name-calling is what is the bulwark of the Democrat Party.
SIXHIRB Hurts Intellectual Growth
A liberal professor interviewed in Indoctrinate U explains that protecting and teaching from one ideological viewpoint insulates students who are liberal to properly defend and coherently explain their views in the real world — outside the classroom. This excerpt is taken from two parts, Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.
Continuing with my response:
ME
(Topic change. Like when I answer the challenge about the Bible not being changed over a 2,000 year period, and instead of camping out and seeing if their own challenge was correct… the skeptic will bring up how a good god could exists if there is so much evil around. Never doing the hard work of regulating their thinking to see if it comports to truth.)
DEB, you are using a non-sequitur argument (“an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises”). It is fallacious thinking, and whether it is your opinion or not has no bearing on the sloppy logic involved. In other words, your personal truth is incoherent.
Being black/white/asian/etc is immutable. A black man cannot cease being a black man, his characteristic is unchangeable, and thus fit under the 14th amendment. People change their sexual preference all the time, there are many cases of gays and persons who even have gone all the way through a sex change that deal with their core issues and renounce being gay, or the opposite gender. In other words it is a mutable characteristic.
The other point is that there is scientific differences between the genders (male/female). There is not between a male black man and a male white man….
[QUOTE]
The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.
[….]
But the equation is false.
First, there is no comparison between sex and race.
There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational;
On the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.
The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).
On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage.
[….]
But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us — society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called “marriage.”
Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn’t matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.
Geez- how great your opinions are and your quotes- you must be right? And those religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.
Hours before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday over California’s ban on gay marriage, hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters will gather a block away from the courthouse at an interfaith church service to ask for God’s “love and justice” and to pray for “the dignity of all souls as a religious value,” according to organizers. Afterwards, the coalition of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons and Buddhists, among other religious and secular representatives, will march to the courthouse steps to rally in support of gay marriage, with thousands of attendees expected.
Again, I want to point out what Deb is saying. The logical conclusion of her above statement is essentially this: “religious people believe in same-sex marriage, therefore, either you are saying they cannot be religious [true Buddhists, true Christians, etc], or religion and same-sex marriage are not in conflict.” She has accused me, essentially, of judging whether someone is (of my faith) is saved or not. Truly religious or not. I have never said such a thing in this or previous conversations. Although, I can show the inherent self-refuting aspect of non-Christian religions. But that is neither here-nor-there. We continue:
ME
I know religious gay people Deb? That has nothing to do with the conversation? What does a gay man or woman being a Christian have to do with anything? Please, answer this statement you made, that is — AGAIN — a non sequitur: “…religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
How does the argument you made follow from the premise? Do you think that changing law and culture of all mankind and religious faith is followed from such an argument? An argument that is fallacious and emotionally rooted? Painting those who do not agree as calling others inauthentic? You really should spend a few minutes and listen to this whole 16-minutes. I mean listen — don’t verbalize out loud, walk away, etc. Sit down and listen, for 16-minutes:
You are saying if one is religious and supports something, then they must be authentic and what they support must be healthy for society. Have you connected the dots yet that this tact you use, like this from a previous conversation, “don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,” is merely an emotional plea. “Religious” folk yell “God hates fags!!!!” ~ because they are “religious” they must also base their conclusions on the sound understanding of Scripture? Right? Your reasons that you have intimated as to how you vote are a great marker to how most vote:
“don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,” “don’t believe in slavery, don’t own one”
This does nothing to deal with the baby being human or not.
You seem to be saying that because religious people support SSM, it is therefore (ergo; walla; alakazam) good for society to put its stamp of approval on. So I can say, USING YOU LOGIC DEB, that,
“Because religious people smoke, society should accept it as a healthy lifestyle.” People who disagree with you you would deride thusly: “…religious folks who believe and support smoking?? They must not be real religious people.”
(Argumentum ad passiones: is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.) Do you see Deb? I am asking you a serious question right now. “Do you see how your appeal to emotion is not an argument at all?” It makes no sense. So when the media talks about “low-information voters” ~ well.
[….]
I expect you to be an adult and answer AT LEAST that last question Deb. At some point in one’s life, hiding behind the facade of adulthood doesn’t protect one from dealing with real, important, issues… and how one comes to conclusions and changes society with those resources. Jusssst mayybee… this is a clarion call for you to become serious with that thing rattling around up there. Move to “stage two thinking” in other words. Put down the romance or mystery novels, and pick up a book. This is class time here on my FB.
And for those reading this exchange, a good person can be against SSM: “Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage” (COLUMN)
…. The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.
By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – unsustainable dependency and debt — so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.
It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.
There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.
DEB
Shaun [she misspells my name] – your comments and attitude are a bit rude and bully like- in my opinion. You are pushing me further away. Maybe it is just your superior brain? Lol
ME
Deb, your arguments you make, here, are arguments that are fallacious. You chase yourself away.
Have you never…
never[?]
… had your ideas challenged in a cogent way before? Do you think persons that understand proper thinking, argumentation internalize their hearing you talk about important topics in the manner you do and wag their head? You came here and expressed yourself, I cannot explain how this expression is incoherent? Would you just stop saying such loosey-goosey things here and continue to make them (non-sequitur/argumentum ad passiones) elsewhere to others. Maybe even in public? You should take the above as an opportunity to hone your arguments… or continue in non-thought/incoherence.
If being shown how your arguments are fallacious, and this angers you, I cannot help you in this. The onus is on you in how you respond or take correction. Taking correction well in our relativistic society is tough, granted. I applaud you for wading into my FB, but when you do come here ~ good, rational, linear thinking is often required… especially for changing the meaning of something for the first time in mankind’s history, and thinking there will be no societal consequences.
So you are saying correction to bad arguments chases you away? Making incoherent statements brings you closer?
DEB
I don’t want an argument… I would enjoy a discussion maybe that’s the difference
ME
You have to make points in a discussion that are coherent. You are making statements that make no sense… literally? You are tugging on peoples heart strings without engaging their mind. People should vote with the later by-the-by. Too many people vote with their emotions.
You accused me (and others) of something, but you didn’t catch it apparently. Which is fine, when you talk in the language of post-modern thought, many do not realize what they are logically concluding. Maybe you can tell me what the logical conclusion of YOU (@Deb) were telling people (really, half of the United States citizens) they believe — tell me, please:
QUOTING DEB:
“Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
Please explain why I am being — how did you put it — rude and bully like — and you are not?
[….]
In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.), you are being chased away?
[….]
DEB?Can you see how you are encapsulating discussion wrongly? You can answer with a simple “yes” or “no.”
DEB
NO
ME
So, Deb, calling me a bigot, and saying Jesus, Moses, Buddha, and other major world religious founders, texts, great moral thinkers are ALL bigots… is NOT rude. But me pointing out that in those statements are things learned your first semester in philosophy (how to think properly) at any university (non-sequiturs, straw-men, and argument from emotion) is rude and borderline bullying?! What a crazy world we live in. Talk about elitist thinking.
Take note as well that Deb is calling Tammy Bruce (a lesbian), Paul Nathanson (a gay man), and someone like Walt Heyer (a man who was surgically changed into a woman [mutilated], and now lives as a man again) bigots as well. Oh the twisted thinking involved in the left. (*Dramatic back of hand to the forehead pose*)
Maybe they (the gays mentioned above) just don’t know better and they need people like Deb and other elitist thinking progressives to change their mind for them… not with sound argumentation and linear thinking… just by calling them names. And painting them as bullies if they disagree.
Can you believe this?
What came to mind next is all the leftist clap-trap that Republicans are creating an atmosphere of dissent and polarization, which is my next point in the conversation:
In case you didn’t know Deeez, it is Republicans polarizing and dividing the American political landscape.
DEB
Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\ Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1660 : a person who is or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance — big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective — big·ot·ed·ly adverb It’s not for me to say… Everyone can decide for their self if the are or are not a bigot.
ME
Again, you are calling gay men and women bigots, not me. You are calling the majority of religious people bigots, not me. No one is treating a race or ethnic group (immutable characteristics), or in this case gays (mutable characteristics) “with hatred and intolerance.” You are inferring this via fallacious — emotional — argument to win a point in your own mind and to paint the opposition because you cannot answer them.
Most of the people I have dinner with (that are gay) are ones who would want judges (all judges) to stay out of the decisions states make. And these gay men (and women) would want exceptions made for religious institutions and organizations. The Democratic Party does not.
Again, to be clear, YOU have called all major world religious founders and religious leaders and great moral thinkers as well as gay men and women BIGOTS, simply because they disagree with you.
If you had answered “Yes” earlier, you would have shown some humility in understanding what you have done // are doing.
I myself do not hang around with racists, bigots, or the like. Why on God’s green earth would you argue, call names to, discuss, anything with one? Deb? Unless you don’t believe your own rhetoric.
[….]
And to be clear Deb, you did call me, other gays, and a large swath of religious people bigots. You *DIDN’T* let others make up their own mind. So you were not truthful when you said, “It’s not for me to say.”
⚥ Again, you said: “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different”
Ergo, people who disagree with you, are bigots. No wiggle room. And now I firmly believe you when you said, “I don’t want an argument…“, I know. You would rather paint others as bigots, racists, and ignorant. And if someone shows you how your “discussion” is fallacious with any semblance of intelligence, they are bullies.
DEB
Not sure why you care what I think since my ideas are so fluffy and I get them from romance novels or whatever. I think the people who protested inter racial marriages where bigots and the same can be said of those whose protest gays right to wed. My opinion… Which is not allowed is Sean’s world – right?
ME
Just because you have a right to an opinion does not mean you have a right to whitewash people as bigots by making (*echo chamber noise effects to make the point clear*) NON-SEQUITUR, EMOTIONAL APPEAL, AND STRAW-MAN statements about people. It is fallacious thinking/speaking. So you are saying that your opinion is wrong (incoherent) and damn all others for even pointing that out.
Another analogy, it is like you are saying, “what does the color green smell like.” It doesn’t make sense. And, not only that, your opinion is a form of bigotry itself.
The conversation has effectively stalled here. She refuses to “discuss” any more the topic… just go on making statements that have nothing to do with the topic. Living in a bubble of rhetoric and opinion, with a flare for bumper sticker verbiage. Its sad, really, because you know this is how a large portion of the voters think. What is referred to as the “low-information” voter. There is no understanding of our great history, culture, and the like. Just how one feels at this moment. Again, sad.
LifeSiteNews mentions that in 2007, on behalf of the bishops of Latin America, Cardinal Bergoglio clearly stated that being disallowed holy communion was a consequence for those who facilitated in an abortion, politicians included…(Gateway Pundit)
New Pope Francis I is a conservative in the mold of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II. That’s especially true on the issue of abortion, which he called a “death sentence” for the unborn in 2007. “We aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” he said during that speech, “but in Argentina we have the death penalty. A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.”
In the Aparecida Document, a document that represents a joint statement by Latin American church leaders but presented by Francis in 2007, the leaders stated, “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”
Francis is also anti-euthanasia: “Today,” he wrote, “elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”
People who support abortion sometimes argue that there is no reference to abortion in the Bible. Zo refutes these arguments. Hear how on this ZoNation.
In an interview with the mother of pop star Justin Bieber, Pattie Mallette, on Thursday’s NBC Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie worried about Mallette’s producing role in an upcoming film: “…you wanted to talk about your involvement in a movie called Crescendo….[which] tells the story of Beethoven’s mother, who, while she was pregnant, attempted to have an abortion and even attempted suicide….it’s a movie with a decidedly pro-life/anti-abortion purpose.” (Read More @ NewsBusters)
“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing.”
Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood (1997)
From Video Description:
Published with permission from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. We would like to express our special thanks and gratitude for all of the lives saved by Dr. Nathanson. Introduced by Charlton Heston, an Academy Award winner and a conscientious citizen who takes an active part in community and film industry affairs. He urges the news media which he charged have “failed badly to inform the public on the abortion issue” to use the film Eclipse of Reason to promote a better informed public. This film produced by Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. documents the intra-uterine life of a little boy at 5 months of age as seen through a fetoscope – a camera placed inside the pregnant uterus. Riveting images of a late abortion are then shown with a camera both inside and outside the uterus. Consistently verifiable statistics emphasize that this horror takes place 400 times a day in the US alone. In addition, there are deeply moving interviews with the other victims of abortion, women who have been irreparably injured by abortion, physically and psychologically.
Explaining who Dr. Nathanson is in a discussion:
You do not have to be a scientist to be knowledgeable about this topic? That is silly. It is a fallacy and in academics is called an “appeal to authority.” At any rate, I already posted a link to a medical video by Bernard Nathanson, co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which later became the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and is now NARAL Pro-Choice America. He is the main reason you can celebrate today, while he laments (like Roe) their past actions.
A neat back-and-forth between a super model and Bill Maher. Yes, Bill Maher got worked by a model in reasoning/inference power.
Kathy Ireland, many years ago, was on Bill Mahers Politically Incorrect and the discussion that ensued shows the frailty of the liberal/relativistic position:
++++++++++++ Bill Maher: Kathy, why do you oppose a women’s right to choose
Kathy Ireland: Bill, when my husband was going to medical school I underwent a transformation. Because I used to be in favor of abortion. But I noticed when I was reading through some of his medical teaching books, that according to a law in science known as the law of biogenesis, every living thing reproduces after it own kind. That means dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, humans produce humans. If we want to know what something is we simply ask what are its parents. If we know what the parents are, we know what the thing in question is. And I reasoned from that because human parents can only produce human offspring, unborn human fetuses could be nothing but human beings, because the law of biogenesis rules out every other alternative. And I concluded therefore that because human fetuses were part of our family, we should not harm them without justification.
Bill Maher: Well Kathy, that is just your opinion ++++++++++++
In October 2002, Kathy Ireland made a compelling argument against abortion on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes political debate show. Alan Colmes described Ireland’s opinions as religious, but Ireland said that her views on abortion do not stem from faith. She asserted that even atheists could realize that abortion is wrong. Kathy told Alan that her belief is founded in science and technology, which she says, “has come a long way since Roe vs. Wade.”
Ireland also defended her values as being pro-women, stating, “We need to support these women who are in crisis pregnancy situations.” She claimed that because scientific evidence proves that abortion is murder, “I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us.”
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)
The Daily Caller note the upside-down world of the left
After effectively barring conservative columnist Ann Coulter from speaking on campus last week, the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.
According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”
Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals.
“Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”
In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”
“Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.
In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.
In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”
“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.
