An old Nancy Sinatra song (with minor word changes):
You keep saying you've got something for me. something you call love, but confess.
You've been messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin' and now someone else is gettin' all your best.
These shoes are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do one of these days these shoes are gonna talk all over you.
You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin' and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet. You keep samin' when you oughta be changin'. Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.
These shoes are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do one of these days these shoes are gonna talk all over you.
You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin and you keep thinkin' that you´ll never get burnt.
Ha! I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah and what he know you ain't HAD time to learn. Are you ready shoes? Start talkin'!
"On June 18, House Republicans passed Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) bill banning abortion after 20 weeks (H.R. 1797; aka, “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”). The high cost of social conservatism is evident in the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the cost of implementing the Republican bill.
They write, “CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1797 would generate changes in direct spending that would increase federal budget deficits by $75 million over the 2014-2018 period and $225 million over the 2014-2023.”
How's the "fiscally responsible" GOP working out for ya? Juss doin' what Dubya used to do: pass bills and don't fund them. Asshats.
You know society is in trouble when it begins putting a price tag in the life of a viable baby. At 20 weeks viability has occurred, and four months and three weeks is enough time for the women to decide.
For the record, my advocacy has NOTHING do with religion, I'm an athiest. It has everything to do with reason. Neither extreme position with respect to abortion is exercising reason. IMNHO.
I understand, RN, but placing a total ban on abortions after a certain time condemns girls and women who may need them for emergency medical reasons. We know that those things happen. Why put in place laws that may result in the loss of life of both mother and fetus?
I say promote sensible sex education starting in grade school and promote safe and affordable contraception. Pretending that young people don't have sex or that just saying NO will stop pregnancies is foolish and dangerous.
The politicians and governors who want to stop abortion and who are making it more and more difficult in their various states will make it more and more likely that more people like the monster Dr. Gosnell will flourish.
Championing the destruction of human life -- at any stage of development -- could never be a good thing.
It is unfortunate that so may girls or women become pregnant either against their will, or out of sheer ignorance, carelessness or stupidity, but I can see no legitimate reason to compound the error by condemning nascent human life to death.
Instead, I believe it would be far better for society to take a more enlightened view, realize the sanctity and sacredness of all human life, and treat the expectant mother and her baby accordingly.
Just as we seem to have learned at long last not to stigmatize and ostracize unwed mothers, and especially not to discriminate cruelly against their innocent offspring, -- we HAVE learned that, haven't we? -- we need to encourage and develop a POSITIVE, NURTURING approach to "unwanted" or "inconvenient" pregnancies, plan for the proper care and education of the children involved by trying to find the best-qualified, most-loving adoptive parents for those babies rejected by their mothers for whatever reason, etc.
No girl or woman's life should have to be regarded as "ruined" by her bringing a healthy baby to term. Succumbing to that foolish notion is a bizarre, backhanded embrace of the old, hopefully outmoded superstitions regarding the "evil" of "illegitimacy."
Trying to MURDER the EVIDENCE of "SIN," and trying to act thereafter as if the sin, fi that's what it was, was never committed, only adds credibility to the notion that it really was "SIN" after all.
When we are in error, compounding that error by making a much greater, far more deadly mistake could not possibly be beneficial to society. All it accomplishes is a cheapening of and increasing insensitivity to the value of human life.
"In so much as ye have done it unto the least of these ... ye have done it also unto me."
Shaw said... "I understand, RN, but placing a total ban on abortions after a certain time condemns girls and women who may need them for emergency medical reasons..."
RN USA - And allowing abortion beyond the onset of viability condemns the developing fetus to death. There MUST be a point where reasonable AND caring INDIVIDUALS consider when far enough is far enough. I nave done so and no amount of emotionalism from the progressive will change that
Shaw con't- " ...We know that those things happen. Why put in place laws that may result in the loss of life of both mother and fetus?"
RN USA - Again, emotionalism combined with the desire for an open ended right to abortion on demands. I reject this and say place some responsibility on the sexually active women, and man to prevent unwanted pregnancy through the use of condoms, IUD's, diaphragm and hell, or the pill. Personal responsibility is something overlooked and playing up the emotional has trumped reason. On both sides of the debate.
Shaw con't ... "I say promote sensible sex education starting in grade school and promote safe and affordable contraception. Pretending that young people don't have sex or that just saying NO will stop pregnancies is foolish and dangerous.
RN USA - Bingo, I am in total agreement. Responsible sex education beginning at just pre puberty is sensible and the right thing to do. Educating young people on the realities of sex, the natural desires associated with sex, the responsible way to conduct oneself in response to sexual desires without being judgmental, and the heartbreaking consequences of irresponsible sex is logical and will go a long way to REDUCING teen pregnancies and abortions. The problem is that God and the religious right stand in the way of reason.
Shaw con't... "The politicians and governors who want to stop abortion and who are making it more and more difficult in their various states will make it more and more likely that more people like the monster Dr. Gosnell will flourish."
RN USA... On this point you are also correct. I personally find those you are referring to just as reprehensible as the Gosnells' of the world. Those who believe partial or live birth abortion is okay and the right of a women to destroy a fully developed child is not unethical or immoral.
Sensible people, with a little education and an active mind should be able to find a workable compromise. However, the position I take, which IMNHO allows for a compromise that protects both the women's right to choice and the viable developing baby's right to complete development beyond viability takes fire from both the religious right and the progressive left. So.... I leave it for fools to continue to fight it out.
No person I know who is pro-choice agrees with aborting a viable fetus. Not one. That is a fallacy people use to make pro-choice people look like blood-dripping monsters.
In some rare cases, however, like the tragedy that happened in Ireland to the East Indian woman, and one that happened in El Salvadore, where abortion is also unlawful in EVERY case, both lives are in danger and decisions must be made. I believe the state has no right to tell the husband and wife who should live in those traumatic situations, but wherever abortion is strictly forbidden for ANY reason, both lives are lost.
Your ideas would work in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we don't live in one.
Any government that forces a girl or woman to carry a pregnancy, no matter the peril to her health, is also a government that can force a girl or woman to HAVE an abortion.
In a perfect world, all pregnancies would be wanted. Again, that is not the world that is our reality. We don't live in that world. Why suggest solutions for a world that does not exist?
Besides that, how could anyone force a young girl to carry a pregnancy? How could anyone want to put her through something as traumatic and dangerous as that?
Sometimes it is just plain dangerous to a girl's or a woman's mental and physical health to go through a pregnancy.
The morning after pill would get rid of your concerns about killing a baby, since there is no "baby," but only a collection of cells in the first hours after conception. But even that form of contraception is being vigorously fought against by anti-abortion factions.
When we have powerful institutions like the Catholic Church working to deny the use of contraception and even shaming those who support it, we will continue to see abortion as a contentious issue.
Bravo to Wendy Davis for standing up to Perry and the rePublicans who tried to push through this bill restricting a woman's right to choose. But Perry says he's going to call another special session, so now what?
Also, I took "Rational's" advice and went to his blog looking for a commentary concerning the rights of a zygote/fetus, but couldn't find such a post. I've been to his blog before, but I think that this was the last time. He does not want me there anyway.
wd/DS... it is not surprising you could not find my position, you read nothing to achieve understanding unless it fits into your template of how all things should be.
And yes you are correct, you succeeded in wearing out your welcome at RN USA, just as you have at other site(s).
For the abortion at any cost, even the life of the mother, you have a torch bearer. Although I believe abortion is a women's choice it does seem hypercritical of those who claim to support women's rights to not want some safeguards in place.
Your slander of me is incorrect "Rational". I have not "worn out my welcome at other siteS". Why is the "s" in parentheses? Is it because you know adding the "s" makes your statement false? I "wore out my welcome" on ONE (Libertarian/Independent/Conservative) blog, and the banning can be attributed to that blogger's dishonesty.
Another (dmarks) banned me, but I did not "wear out my welcome" on his site because I RARELY visited it. He objected to ONE comment I made (in which I disagreed with him about sensible gun regulations) and booted me due to that one comment. Then he lied about me submitting comments to his blog that contained profanity.
This doofus dmarks is the one you DEMANDED I give the last word to on your blog... that was, in part, why you won't publish my comments any longer, because you stick up for a liar.
Will is the first banning I mentioned. The link I included is to a post on my blog that explains why Will banned me. I wasn't talking about you.
You banned me too, so that is three bans from three close buddies backing each other up. For that reason I only count them as one... Will+RN+dmarks = BFFs 4ever.
16 comments:
Perhaps you should salute Marilyn Monroe (Ayn Rand did) and admire Rep. Davis for having the courage to act in accordance with Monroe's words. :-)
An old Nancy Sinatra song (with minor word changes):
You keep saying you've got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You've been messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin'
and now someone else is gettin' all your best.
These shoes are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these shoes are gonna talk all over you.
You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'
and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet.
You keep samin' when you oughta be changin'.
Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.
These shoes are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these shoes are gonna talk all over you.
You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin
and you keep thinkin' that you´ll never get burnt.
Ha! I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah
and what he know you ain't HAD time to learn.
Are you ready shoes? Start talkin'!
"On June 18, House Republicans passed Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) bill banning abortion after 20 weeks (H.R. 1797; aka, “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”). The high cost of social conservatism is evident in the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the cost of implementing the Republican bill.
They write, “CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1797 would generate changes in direct spending that would increase federal budget deficits by $75 million over the 2014-2018 period and $225 million over the 2014-2023.”
How's the "fiscally responsible" GOP working out for ya? Juss doin' what Dubya used to do: pass bills and don't fund them. Asshats.
You know society is in trouble when it begins putting a price tag in the life of a viable baby. At 20 weeks viability has occurred, and four months and three weeks is enough time for the women to decide.
For the record, my advocacy has NOTHING do with religion, I'm an athiest. It has everything to do with reason. Neither extreme position with respect to abortion is exercising reason. IMNHO.
Oy Vey... Now let the darts fly.
I understand, RN, but placing a total ban on abortions after a certain time condemns girls and women who may need them for emergency medical reasons. We know that those things happen. Why put in place laws that may result in the loss of life of both mother and fetus?
I say promote sensible sex education starting in grade school and promote safe and affordable contraception. Pretending that young people don't have sex or that just saying NO will stop pregnancies is foolish and dangerous.
The politicians and governors who want to stop abortion and who are making it more and more difficult in their various states will make it more and more likely that more people like the monster Dr. Gosnell will flourish.
It's all madness.
Championing the destruction of human life -- at any stage of development -- could never be a good thing.
It is unfortunate that so may girls or women become pregnant either against their will, or out of sheer ignorance, carelessness or stupidity, but I can see no legitimate reason to compound the error by condemning nascent human life to death.
Instead, I believe it would be far better for society to take a more enlightened view, realize the sanctity and sacredness of all human life, and treat the expectant mother and her baby accordingly.
Just as we seem to have learned at long last not to stigmatize and ostracize unwed mothers, and especially not to discriminate cruelly against their innocent offspring, -- we HAVE learned that, haven't we? -- we need to encourage and develop a POSITIVE, NURTURING approach to "unwanted" or "inconvenient" pregnancies, plan for the proper care and education of the children involved by trying to find the best-qualified, most-loving adoptive parents for those babies rejected by their mothers for whatever reason, etc.
No girl or woman's life should have to be regarded as "ruined" by her bringing a healthy baby to term. Succumbing to that foolish notion is a bizarre, backhanded embrace of the old, hopefully outmoded superstitions regarding the "evil" of "illegitimacy."
Trying to MURDER the EVIDENCE of "SIN," and trying to act thereafter as if the sin, fi that's what it was, was never committed, only adds credibility to the notion that it really was "SIN" after all.
When we are in error, compounding that error by making a much greater, far more deadly mistake could not possibly be beneficial to society. All it accomplishes is a cheapening of and increasing insensitivity to the value of human life.
"In so much as ye have done it unto the least of these ... ye have done it also unto me."
And unto ALL of us.
Shaw said... "I understand, RN, but placing a total ban on abortions after a certain time condemns girls and women who may need them for emergency medical reasons..."
RN USA - And allowing abortion beyond the onset of viability condemns the developing fetus to death. There MUST be a point where reasonable AND caring INDIVIDUALS consider when far enough is far enough. I nave done so and no amount of emotionalism from the progressive will change that
Shaw con't- " ...We know that those things happen. Why put in place laws that may result in the loss of life of both mother and fetus?"
RN USA - Again, emotionalism combined with the desire for an open ended right to abortion on demands. I reject this and say place some responsibility on the sexually active women, and man to prevent unwanted pregnancy through the use of condoms, IUD's, diaphragm and hell, or the pill. Personal responsibility is something overlooked and playing up the emotional has trumped reason. On both sides of the debate.
Shaw con't ... "I say promote sensible sex education starting in grade school and promote safe and affordable contraception. Pretending that young people don't have sex or that just saying NO will stop pregnancies is foolish and dangerous.
RN USA - Bingo, I am in total agreement. Responsible sex education beginning at just pre puberty is sensible and the right thing to do. Educating young people on the realities of sex, the natural desires associated with sex, the responsible way to conduct oneself in response to sexual desires without being judgmental, and the heartbreaking consequences of irresponsible sex is logical and will go a long way to REDUCING teen pregnancies and abortions. The problem is that God and the religious right stand in the way of reason.
Shaw con't... "The politicians and governors who want to stop abortion and who are making it more and more difficult in their various states will make it more and more likely that more people like the monster Dr. Gosnell will flourish."
RN USA... On this point you are also correct. I personally find those you are referring to just as reprehensible as the Gosnells' of the world. Those who believe partial or live birth abortion is okay and the right of a women to destroy a fully developed child is not unethical or immoral.
Sensible people, with a little education and an active mind should be able to find a workable compromise. However, the position I take, which IMNHO allows for a compromise that protects both the women's right to choice and the viable developing baby's right to complete development beyond viability takes fire from both the religious right and the progressive left. So.... I leave it for fools to continue to fight it out.
Shaw again... "It's all madness."
I agree!!!
For additional point by point in reproductive rights -vs- the developing baby's right visit:
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/
No person I know who is pro-choice agrees with aborting a viable fetus. Not one. That is a fallacy people use to make pro-choice people look like blood-dripping monsters.
In some rare cases, however, like the tragedy that happened in Ireland to the East Indian woman, and one that happened in El Salvadore, where abortion is also unlawful in EVERY case, both lives are in danger and decisions must be made. I believe the state has no right to tell the husband and wife who should live in those traumatic situations, but wherever abortion is strictly forbidden for ANY reason, both lives are lost.
Mr. Free Thinke,
Your ideas would work in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we don't live in one.
Any government that forces a girl or woman to carry a pregnancy, no matter the peril to her health, is also a government that can force a girl or woman to HAVE an abortion.
In a perfect world, all pregnancies would be wanted. Again, that is not the world that is our reality. We don't live in that world. Why suggest solutions for a world that does not exist?
Besides that, how could anyone force a young girl to carry a pregnancy? How could anyone want to put her through something as traumatic and dangerous as that?
Sometimes it is just plain dangerous to a girl's or a woman's mental and physical health to go through a pregnancy.
The morning after pill would get rid of your concerns about killing a baby, since there is no "baby," but only a collection of cells in the first hours after conception. But even that form of contraception is being vigorously fought against by anti-abortion factions.
When we have powerful institutions like the Catholic Church working to deny the use of contraception and even shaming those who support it, we will continue to see abortion as a contentious issue.
We need to face reality.
Bravo to Wendy Davis for standing up to Perry and the rePublicans who tried to push through this bill restricting a woman's right to choose. But Perry says he's going to call another special session, so now what?
Also, I took "Rational's" advice and went to his blog looking for a commentary concerning the rights of a zygote/fetus, but couldn't find such a post. I've been to his blog before, but I think that this was the last time. He does not want me there anyway.
wd/DS... it is not surprising you could not find my position, you read nothing to achieve understanding unless it fits into your template of how all things should be.
And yes you are correct, you succeeded in wearing out your welcome at RN USA, just as you have at other site(s).
For the abortion at any cost, even the life of the mother, you have a torch bearer. Although I believe abortion is a women's choice it does seem hypercritical of those who claim to support women's rights to not want some safeguards in place.
Your slander of me is incorrect "Rational". I have not "worn out my welcome at other siteS". Why is the "s" in parentheses? Is it because you know adding the "s" makes your statement false? I "wore out my welcome" on ONE (Libertarian/Independent/Conservative) blog, and the banning can be attributed to that blogger's dishonesty.
Another (dmarks) banned me, but I did not "wear out my welcome" on his site because I RARELY visited it. He objected to ONE comment I made (in which I disagreed with him about sensible gun regulations) and booted me due to that one comment. Then he lied about me submitting comments to his blog that contained profanity.
This doofus dmarks is the one you DEMANDED I give the last word to on your blog... that was, in part, why you won't publish my comments any longer, because you stick up for a liar.
How about Will?
Will is the first banning I mentioned. The link I included is to a post on my blog that explains why Will banned me. I wasn't talking about you.
You banned me too, so that is three bans from three close buddies backing each other up. For that reason I only count them as one... Will+RN+dmarks = BFFs 4ever.
Post a Comment