Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UTYou made no senseBut regardless; protecting human life IS everyone’s business(after
all - if abortion is unrestricted and homosexuality is genetic - you could snuff
me out and call yourself "tolerant")12:23 p.m. April 9,
2013=========== 1. My Mother and my wife have both been
in life threatening situations during pregnancy and delivery. I was thankful
that my Mother and my wife and their Doctors had all resources availabele to
make the best decisions possible without having to face criminal charges in life
or death decisions and without being victims to political ideology.It's nobody's business.2. My younger brother is gay. We
love him, and would NEVER had an elective aboration based on that.3.
Ironically, the same one who are against gays, are also against abortion -- so
I'm not the one in the catch-22 dilemma. That would be a pure hate crime,
based on bigotry - not based on rape, incest, life/health of the woman, or
viability of the fetus - which is how I interpret my being Pro-Choice.4. Yes, I am indeed tolerant, brother.
Re: "I'm not seeing people on the right beg women to NOT have abortions
and offering to help them in any way possible."Unlikely.Or, to be charitable and ecourage diversity, maybe you're just not
looking.The "sidewalk counseling" that is so threatening and
hateful to Johns Hopkins' [and all academe's] "diversity"
crowd is that very thing.
CI..no tolerence for your outdated belief based opinion..yes. And my response
was to you acusing me of not tolerating campus discussion when I simply
disagareed with you. I didn't make any comments about that part of the
article..stay on topic. Yes, sometimes laws are unjust..but again you bring
nothing new to the discussion outside of your beliefs. The overturning of
unjust civil rights laws happened because of facts not religious beliefs.
pragmatistferlife"Then you make the leap of logic and insinuate that
some here want to ban some univeristiy groups. That leap makes no sense."Um - that was what the article was about: violating free speech and
banning a pro-life group at John Hopkins University under the phony guise of
tolerance - did you not read it before condemning others?.AND you
didn’t respond to my point - that laws are sometimes unjust - you merely
lapsed into typical uniformed left wing bully format to obfuscate the
question.However, thank you for that little moment of clarity when
you admitted you really have no tolerance.airnautYou made no
senseBut regardless; protecting human life IS everyone’s business(after all - if abortion is unrestricted and homosexuality is genetic - you
could snuff me out and call yourself "tolerant")
Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UTOpen MindedMormonTelling people that human life is "none of your business" is
spectacularly close-minded1:27 p.m. April 8, 2013============= If I'm not mistaken - you once mentioned that
you are gay.So, don't you think telling other people how to
live their life -- while telling others your situation is "none of
your business" is spectacularly hypocritical?
counter intelligence..believe what you want, say what you want, but the law is
the law, and it is the result of this same debate and you bring nothing new to
the discussion. You have no new facts, no new evidence just your same old
beliefs. That's the point. If you had something new to add to the
discussion we could show you tolerence and have an open discussion but you
don't, so I tolerate your right to believe what you will, but I'm not
going to tolerate listening to your opinion you have nothing of value to say I
haven't heard before. Then you make the leap of logic and insinuate that
some here want to ban some univeristiy groups. That leap makes no sense.
pragmatistferlife "that argument took place thrity years ago and
resulted in Roe v. Wade, that is now the law." The Real Maverick"The issue of abortion was resolved like 30 years ago."The
Supreme Court also once agreed that blacks were not fully human - that did NOT
resolve the dabate - it merely prolonged the hateRegardless: Are you
actually supporting campus censorship? Then why should I ever have any respect
for your ironic brand of "tolerance"?Open MindedMormonTelling people that human life is "none of your business" is
@the old switcharoo"I'm not seeing people on the right beg women
to NOT have abortions and offering to help them in any way possible." Then
you are not paying attention. There are thousands of pregnancy counseling
centers (who don’t enjoy Planned Parenthoods government leach status) and
there are adoption clinics run by charities AND there are also a lot of
"right-wing' parents who try to convince their children to be sexually
responsible so as not to need an abortion in the first place.Abortion:
More than any other issue brings out the bigotry of left-wing bullies who are
completely intolerant of any one else’s choice and simply demand that
others pay for, prescribe or perform their abortion regardless of the other
person’s choice: Pro-choice has devolved into militant hypocrisy.Posters who support the banning of a pro-life group from campus merely verify
that the left is morally vapid and has become the consummate censors and
Rape, Incest, Life and Health of the Woman, Viability of the Fetus.No aborations ever, not for any reason, not for any circumstances is
"irresponsible"I stand with the LDS CHurch on this
matter.Aboration is legal, and the choice is between the woman, her
family, her Doctor and God.To the rest of you, it's really none
of your business.
I think every one who supports/or doesn't support sit in a room together
and watch an abortion up until the day before birth and then discuss what they
have seen. A Dr is on trial because he killed babies who were actually born
alive and then understand that obama held up a bill in Illinois that said a Dr
must give live saving help to babies born alive even though they were aborted.
In Illinois they were leaving them in a closet until they stopped fighting for
life and died. It's a small step from devaluing an infant to doing
the same to the elderly.
The main point of the article is this - Newton's 3rd law of motion is alive
and well in American politics.
"However, why would a moral, responsible adult disagree with those things
being reinforced at school?"The problem is the grey areas. And
there are many.I believe that ETHICS should be taught in school, not
morals.I imagine that in most schools the ill of lying, cheating and
stealing are reinforced at school.What is a teacher talked about the
responsible use of alcohol in a high school class?That would not sit well
with many. That is a moral issue (for some) but not an ethical one.Would some teachers overstep their bounds and tell kids that drinking coffee
is morally wrong?Ethics can and should be reinforced in schools and
I am confident that they are.But that is not what many want. They
want their morals taught. That is where we get into problems.
Liberal & progressive thinkers: I agree. All the things I mention should
be taught at home. However, why would a moral, responsible adult disagree with
those things being reinforced at school? In the absence of these things being
taught at home, then why hold me accountable for the consequences of those
things not being taught in the home and/or at school? To be specific, getting
the federal government out of anything not specifically mentioned in the
constitution, or even if they not, I don't believe I am responsible for any
federal program such as welfare, or any others, that don't help people
understand the connection between decision and accountability. Life is hard!
Progressives and liberals just don't get it, but want everyone to pay for
the things that they don't understand!
I am personaly thankful that I have lived, that my mother did not use an
abortionist who would have yanked/torn me out of the womb and who would have no
mercy if I were still a living human being. What is the difference between
ancient civilizations sacrificing their babies to idols and what we are doing
today in sacrificing our unborn children for convenience sake - that has become
the god of today?
Red State, you say you would respect a logical argument from those supporting a
womans right to choose, and that those who support that position should respect
the opinions of those who oppose any and all abortions. I'm sorry but I
don't believe you, simply because that argument took place thrity years ago
and resulted in Roe v. Wade, that is now the law. A comprimise was found between
the positions, a comprimise that is supported by over 70% of Americans. Why do
we need a new reasonable discussion, what new information do you have to bring
to the discussion. Only that a small vocal group of conservatives now believe
that the second an egg and a sperm meet a child is formed..sorry that's not
new nor is it widely believed. It was the discussion thrity years ago. When
you have something new then it will be time for a new discussion, until then you
need to live with the results of our republic and act with the tolerence your
prophet asks you to have.
Banderson, why do you equate the word "liberal" with irresponsible? my
vieews are liberal or progressive and I taught my children all those things.
You are painting with a sloppy broad brush there banderson and that is
Red,I have never met anyone who is pro abortion.You say
that we should "respect the people making the anti argument and not just
dismiss them as right-wing crazies."one thing to note. In a
recent WSJ/NBC poll concerning Roe V Wade"70 percent of
Americans want the landmark abortion rights ruling to stay. "Self proclaimed Republicans in the poll were evenly split on the issue.It is not a winning issue, even for Republicans.
Banderson,All those things you mention are good things for kids to
learn. AT HOME.School should be for Reading, Riting and Rithmetic.
I'm not seeing people on the right beg women to NOT have abortions and
offering to help them in any way possible. You DO actually care
about the baby right? Or is it just a theoretical hypocritical political
Hutterite: I agree, lets be adults about this. Since children, including
teenagers, don't understand the ramifications of being unchaste, how about
requiring public educators to give them basic information, such as: Sex before
marriage is wrong; having a child before marriage is irresponsible; and getting
an education before getting married is the best place to start. Unfortunately,
it is politically incorrect to teach kids the truth because we have liberal
irresponsible parents that don't want those things taught and who
can't or won't teach their children some of these 'basic'
I think the point of Mr Will's column is that there is complete hypocrisy
from the allegedly "tolerant" American left. They are tolerant as long
as you fall in line with all the "correct thinking" people. It's
scary quite frankly. They do not care what your opinion is if it does not align
with theirs and they do not want to discuss it. Johns Hopkins is a case in
point. Instead of making rational arguments they seek to shame people (at
least for now) into silence if they disagree. Not far in the future your
opinions will be criminalized. It's happening already - in Canada and in
Europe. In all the socialist utopias we should allegedly aspire to be like
it's already happening. As far as I'm concerned if you're
pro-abortion that's your prerogative and if you can make a rational
argument why you are I'll listen. But I expect you to be able to consider
the other perspective and respect the people making the anti argument and not
just dismiss them as right-wing crazies.
Samhill. Here "may" be an example of what Blue Devil is
referring to.How can one be anti birth control and anti abortion?I do understand the point that many want abstinence only birth control,
but we just may need a more realistic solution based on real world scenarios.
Repubs.The issue of abortion was resolved like 30 years ago. That
ship has sailed away. Time to argue about relevant things. Time to wake up and
get back in touch with America for else face extinction.Lastly, why
don't repubs use their gun mentality for abortion? Creating more laws and
regulations won't stop abortion. Folks who want abortion will still get it,
"The two are not mutually exclusive, "and yet they seems to
be. Your own comments show more desire to attack, to argue, to take extreme
positions by declaring "hypocritical mockery of concepts like
"diversity" and "intolerance" while leaping through tortuous
logical hoops in their defense of infanticide."I can see it
now.... "Hey hypocrite.... lets work together on this problem". From
my years doing business development across countries, cultures, and belief
systems, very seldom does insulting the other party provide a solid foundation
for creating positive dialog and solutions.Perhaps your experience
Maybe we should get to a new place, where we acknowledge that we desire sex,
it's not 'dirty', and that unintended pregnancy can be prevented.
It's time to become adults about it.
Up until now we've had the religious right, i.e. Pat Robertson, the Eagle
Forum. But now we have what we could call the "Scary Right", Planned
Parenthood, Barbara Boxer, etc. Killing the politically weak because it is
convenient.If viability is the definition of when a person is alive,
what about the fuzzy line about maybe viable, 5 1/2 months in a pregnancy? A
person who was not viable in 1982 is viable now with improvements in prenatal
care. If someone is in a coma, then they are not viable then we can disconnect
the life support, But can we still abort them anyway? or make a hole in their
brain? What if they are bedridden, then they aren't viable. Can we make a
hole in their brain then too?Mother Teresa said once that abortion
is the biggest threat to world peace. "If a mother can kill her child then
what will stop us from killing one another?"
Yet another clear-as-a-bell indictment of the whole pro-abortion mentality that
makes a hypocritical mockery of concepts like "diversity" and
"intolerance" while leaping through tortuous logical hoops in their
defense of infanticide.Similar to the obfuscating "logic"
employed by "UtahBlueDevel" when instructing us as follows, "Let us
stop arguing about abortion, and start working more towards eliminating those
situations that make abortion even a factor."As if
"...working more towards eliminating those situations that make abortion
even a factor." requires us to, "...stop arguing about abortion...".
The two are not mutually exclusive, particularly since the ethics of abortion,
the crux of the abortion arguments, are the main reason we should be
"...working more towards eliminating those situations that make abortion
even a factor."
What brings intolerance is the arguments from either side that refused to agree
to work on those things they both agree upon, but rather yell at each other from
the sides.I do not agree with abortion.... but realize that there
are parts of the argument that will not be resolved by further arguing and
debate. What I do see though is great and vast areas of mutual agreement on
both sides. Let us stop arguing about abortion, and start working more towards
eliminating those situations that make abortion even a factor. Lets
teach our young women to not get themselves into situations where they would
ever need to make such a horrific decision. Lets teach our young men to not
put these young women into having to make these decisions. And lets teach
these young people how to deal with their "mistakes" honorably. If you want to stop abortion, stop the conditions that make abortion an
option to be decided upon.