We certainly have a disconnect in our society that would make us want to persuade women to murder in the face of an All-Seeing, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Present Living Creator--The God of All Creation. What are your opinions on the thirteen reasons for abortion...
It's not about his position on abortion that has me pissed, its the fact that now Jeremiah says that he wants to hear everyone's opinion on why women get an abortion, but at the same time, he's enabled this nifty feature on his blog.
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
This, coming after Istvan, Yakki, and I began to engage him on his fringe comments, asked him to come over and debate with us, and refused because 'The Bible says evil company corrupts. So if I go anywhere, it will be where there are decent rules of language.', even though the Count made sure that we clean up our language in his presence; and to cap it all off stated that we're no longer welcome and that we're an evil force.
Dear Yakki.PsD,
I'm sorry if you are offended at how I run my site. I don't mind it if you disagree. I enjoy good discussion, but you will have to understand, I'm not going to waste my time debating to disagree with you over and over again. My time is more well spent with those who display a sense of reason; and that's the whole reason I made the site, to further the grassroots movement on hehalf of the Christian Conservative community. Our goal is to combat the evil forces such as we find here at your blog (comparing the honorable President Bush to "Hitler" and "Stalin", and other such non-sensical rhetoric) which I note with great care.
Thank you for your time. Sir.
Jeremiah, If you really wanted other bloggers to make their opinions known, you would actually allow different viewpoints; but you really don't. You want to have other bloggers who think like you line up and plant their lips on your ass.
I dare anyone to post an opinion on Jeremiah's blog and see if it gets posted.
7 comments:
"It's not about his position on abortion that has me pissed, its the fact that now Jeremiah says that he wants to hear everyone's opinion on why women get an abortion, but at the same time, he's enabled this nifty feature on his blog."
He should ask Jenna Bush. I am sure she ahd her abortion by now.
He's a lying coward.
I went there,engaged rationally,no vulgarity and respectfully.
He got upset cause I handed him his poor wittle ass.
He's even acknowledging it with his post. Then he's got the "abscence of nuts" to come to my blog and ask me to take him off my "hit list"?
Shit,he was never on any hit list. I don't have one. He was jsut another Conservotard fool I made show his real face:
As a whining,pewling,ignorant pusstard.
Well, guys, I tried it with THIS, but I am not holding my breath:
The element missing from this survey is the key "control question" of whether or not the woman responding to the survey had adequate access to family planning information, including effective contraception techniques.
I would suggest that including this information in the survey data might yield some very informative results which might well contradict your position that it's all "abortion-on-demand." It might just show that the issue is more "abortion-on-ignorance-of-alternatives."
If the goal is to ensure that every child born into this world is loved, welcomed and cared for, then education on birth control must be a part of the picture, or the dilemma of children growing up in poverty and under poor care will only increase.
BTW,new post on Ill repukes about some more of Jeremiah's nuttiness.
This is a fairly decent one too. Caught him flat out in being a dumbass.
Whaddaya know...he let it through, but as expected used it as an occasion to mount his shining and pure soapbox to preach at me.
I think I'll continue and see what transpires...
OY - what happened? I thought I'd posted this here already. Sorry.
Here's the latest I left on his site. We'll see what happens next.
-ET
- - - -
I appreciate your civility thus far. Allow me to expand the discussion.
First, I am entirely aware of Planned Parenthood and how its role in society is viewed from camps of all political stripes. I have no clear sense of your age group, but I can assure you there is no need to “talk down” to me. I am a parent well past the 30-something demographic and find myself only just stopping short of suggesting that you may be trying to “teach your grandmother to suck eggs,” if you know the phrase. So let’s speak on a peer-to-peer level, please.
Sanger was, inevitably, a product of her time, and her philosophies reflected viewpoints which were in their day considered in the mainstream. I think it is disingenuous and somewhat dishonest to suggest that birth control and family planning efforts today have the same goals in mind as Sanger once espoused. The world has changed; family planning has necessarily changed with it.
You suggest that the women surveyed were surveyed in order to achieve a particular result – and of course we all know the famous quotation about “lies, d***ed lies, and statistics” – but you do not present any backup details that support your assertion of selective polling. It reads, instead, that because you discount the source’s validity from the outset, you assume their survey data to be misleading and/or false. Stronger proof of the desire to skew the outcome and the mechanics employed to do so might be helpful.
I am – you may have gathered – more rather than less on the “liberal” end of the spectrum. I do not live a “deviant and unclean” lifestyle, nor do I actively encourage the same, as your response somewhat suggests (a blanket statement that I find rather unfair). But I also have to look at our society through a lens of realism, and that view tells me that you can shout about abstinence as loud and long as you please, through as many megaphones as you please, and there will still be children born unwanted and unloved. In my view that is a sorry state of affairs.
If broader awareness about, access to, and practice of contraception techniques can reduce the number of children who come into this world unwelcomed, then I must applaud that effort, because it enriches and improves society when every child arrives loved and embraced into a family unit. Surely you must agree that it is better, on the whole, to prevent unwanted pregnancies through whatever means possible, than to present any young (or not so young woman), and the father, with the dilemma of abortion?
I have to also take exception to your religious underpinning to the abstinence issue. I understand that you come from an evangelical viewpoint that colors your discourse, and that is fine. But I also think it is possible to educate a child in the point of view that “I will not have a child until I have the personal, emotional and financial stability to support that child to a productive adulthood, because that is the right thing to do” without interjecting religion into the equation.
One other question for you. This has so far all been about the woman. HER reasons for abortion, HER focus on abstinence, HER choices.
Where, may I ask, do you see the woman’s partner in this equation? You speak of the persuasion for a woman to “murder her baby.” Where is the male in this equation? What is his responsibility, his role, his obligation, his culpability? It takes, as they say, TWO to tango.
Again, I appreciate your civil discourse thus far.
A further exchange published, to which I responded thus:
Sorry, Jeremiah, but I think there are a few things in your last post which must lead me to part ways in this discussion and abandon it as an “agreement to disagree.”
First was your assertion that “Young or Old, Reason belongs to people of Faith.” I do not believe that Faith is a precondition for Reason, but that Reason is achievable across the spectrum of mankind, with Faith (in whatever creed) as an entirely peripheral issue. Reason is not dependent on religion. The capacity for Reason is inherent in the human condition, provided we have the dedication to cultivate it.
“Most animals, with as little intelligence as they have, are smart enough to know that the responsibility to bear and care for their babies is quite simply, their only choice.” Again, this is not proven in Nature, nor is your assertion that the male rather than the female among the animal kingdom is the one to exterminate the newborn. Many mothers devour their young (look at polar bears in German zoos recently for one example) if they somehow feel the environment is not viable for their survival.
Your viewpoint re: contraception baffles me. You claim that ready access to contraceptive techniques “encourages more sex,” but you do not offer anything that would “reduce [more sex] in moderation,” which is the outcome you proffer as the alternative. What in your viewpoint would “[reduce sex] with moderation”? You go on to say that you believe abstinence is the only choice. How does that “moderately” reduce sexual activity outside of marriage? Is it Either, Or, or Maybe? I can’t parse your response amongst these choices.
Also, you again put the abortion decision squarely on the mother, and on how she may have been “influenced by her peers.” I say again that it Takes Two To Tango, and the Fornicating Father has a lot to answer for in the equation. What is HIS role in putting the woman into that dilemma? Doesn’t HIS responsibility to hold back, trump any choice the woman might be forced into as a result? Who’s looking over HIS shoulder?
You use that word “Liberal” very broadly and you seem to equate it with all kinds of promiscuity. I think that is a stretch. My politics are admittedly Liberal in many ways, but I have raised my child – without a faith-based framework, and very successfully, too, thanks – in a lifestyle that is responsible, practical and not conducive to what you would look upon as “abomination.” So I hope that you will consider moderating your language so as not to demonize those of us who may not share your faith. Believing as you do is not a prerequisite to living a decent, responsible life.
On that point, again, based on your prior commentary, we may have to agree to disagree.
PS – On your “intrinsic” point. Where do you define “intrinsic”? Is the stillborn child of “intrinsic” worth? Is the small cellular mass created at the moment of conception “intrinsic” worth, even though it may turn into the stillborn child above?
I daresay that you define “intrinsic worth” at the instant of fertilization, and that is of course your right. For my part, I am more concerned with the children born into this world. I would prefer to see all their “intrinsic” worth honored and supported.
Post a Comment