Bernie’s Truth Bomb For Liberty University Crowd: GOP Cares About Fetuses, Not Children
If you’re a progressive politician in the United States, going to Liberty University to give a speech is a bit like walking into the metaphorical lion’s den of the far right in America. But leave it to Bernie Sanders to accept the challenge and not back down for a second.
Speaking at Liberty, which is a private Christian college in Virginia founded by Jerry Falwell, the Vermont Senator and 2016 Democratic Presidential contender was asked the following question by a student:
Sen. Sanders, you have talked in your campaign about how it is immoral to protect the billionaire class at the expense of the most vulnerable in society — children. A majority of Christians would agree with you, but would also go further and say that children in the womb need our protection even more. How do you reconcile the two in your mind?….READ MORE at LiberalAmerica
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
115 responses to Bernie’s Truth Bomb For Liberty University Crowd: GOP Cares About Fetuses, Not Children
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
arc99 September 14th, 2015 at 16:12
I can’t help but admire Sen. Sanders’ campaign. I am a 63 year old black man and am frankly sick to death of the criticism from the left about his outreach to black people. I find it more than a little condescending as if we do not care about issues unless they are directly relevant to the black community.
Horsesh*t….
Sen. Sanders speech at Liberty U demonstrates that he understands as President of the United States, he is the President of everyone, whether they agree with him or not, or vote for him or not.
If Sen. Sanders is on the ballot when the primaries reach California, he most definitely has my vote. And for those of you who persist with the bizarre argument that he is not doing enough to reach black voters, all I can say is that he has reached this black voter. So perhaps instead of relying on opinion pieces from career pundits and activists, talk to a few folks at the local barber shop. It might open your eyes a bit.
jybarz September 14th, 2015 at 16:24
I totally agree.
Mike September 14th, 2015 at 16:40
Excellent post.
Most of that criticism is coming from the extremes and the media…those who want to keep race issues alive for whatever their motives might be.There’s a faction that does not want us to come together.
Suzanne McFly September 14th, 2015 at 20:08
It is hard to sell news when no one is pissed off.
Carla Akins September 14th, 2015 at 18:05
and this white one. How pleasant it is not to have to parse his words or make excuses for him. He’s an actual good example for our children and grandchildren.
allison1050 September 14th, 2015 at 21:48
True words arc.
Larry Schmitt September 14th, 2015 at 16:14
So let’s see how the handle the hard truth.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 16:20
this should be interesting.
Mike September 14th, 2015 at 16:31
For Liberty U there seemed to be a lot of support for Bernie’s mention of letting women choose…Fundie’s seem to be losing their grip on today’s youth. JMO
BTW, it was a tough argument to refute.
jybarz September 14th, 2015 at 16:33
I love his answer.
I love how his answer will make the young minds see the EVIL that is the GOP.
He is a straight and honest talker with not a sign of pretension that I find very admirable about this man.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 17:11
The comparison is not symmetrical. The childhood equivalent of abortion would be killing a child. I think you will find that conservatives are wholeheartedly against that.
Reasonable people can disagree about how much assistance society should provide to children for food, clothing, education, entertainment, and all of the other things that children need. But the fetal equivalent would be seeing that the mother is well nourished, well clothed, well housed, and well cared for medically. And here again, reasonable people can disagree about how much assistance society should provide. In every society, parents are expected to do their best to ensure the welfare of their unborn or born children. Some societies provide more assistance than the US, and some provide a lot less. Every society has limits.
Larry Schmitt September 14th, 2015 at 17:14
Except that a fetus is not a child, or parents-to-be would celebrate the birth of their children at conception, and they would have a funeral after a miscarriage. So your equivalency is false.
Dwendt44 September 14th, 2015 at 20:03
they never seem to grasp the idea the ‘god’ is the greatest abortionist ever. Up to 80% of conceptions are flushed out of the woman body and flushed down the commode.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 20:11
I have made the same point myself, using nearly identical words. I am not particularly concerned about early-term abortions. But like most Americans, I have significant concerns about late-term abortions.
Dwendt44 September 14th, 2015 at 20:21
Late term abortions, third trimester ones, have been illegal under normal circumstances for a long time.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 20:37
According to this NY Times article, it depends upon where you live:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0
Dwendt44 September 14th, 2015 at 20:51
In 41 states late term abortions are illegal. Even in the 9 states where it’s not restricted, it’s rarely done.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 21:22
According to a Wikipedia article, about 730,000 abortions were performed in the US in 2011. According to the Everyday Feminism website, about 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. So we can say that roughly 7,300 late-term (after 20 weeks) abortions happen each year. While it’s a small percentage, it’s still a lot of fetuses.
I haven’t seen any recent studies on why women choose to have late-term abortions. According to a Huffington Post article:
“A very old 1988 Guttmacher survey of abortions taking place after 16 weeks — still the most detailed study on the subject — listed these reasons for why an abortion was happening late in the gestational cycle:”
71% — Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% — Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% — Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% — Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% — Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% — Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% — Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% — Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% — Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% — A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% — Other
It is interesting to note that 33% said they were afraid to tell their partner or parents. I wish they had broken that down into two questions. I suspect that most of that 33% is girls who are afraid to tell their parents, and then when they can no longer hide the pregnancy, the family is desperate to get a late-term abortion.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/the-inconvenient-truths-f_b_210821.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/truth-late-term-abortions/
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 00:28
20 weeks is not a late term abortion. The third trimester is week 25-36. THOSE are late term abortion. Just because some right wing legislature wants to make the choice of abortion ever more difficult, and restrict abortions after 20 weeks, doesn’t make it ‘late term’. IIRC those 20 week laws are being appealed.
tracey marie September 14th, 2015 at 22:45
mind your business
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 20:08
Funerals after miscarriages are rare, but they do happen. It is common for a woman to experience grief after a miscarriage that occurs well into her pregnancy.
A fetus does not become a child all at once, at least not from a biological perspective. Time after time, opinion polls have shown that most Americans are not very concerned about early-term abortions, but are very uncomfortable with abortions occurring later in the pregnancy. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in the early stages, and I think most people (including me) want to keep that legal. But like most people, I have some concerns about late-term abortions.
Most people are not comfortable with the notion that a fetus suddenly becomes a baby at the moment of birth. This definition may appeal to some people from a legal perspective, but it has no basis in biology, specifically embryology. It is a gross oversimplification of the biological reality. A fetus gradually becomes a baby over time, and the more it matures, the more people are concerned about its welfare.
Suppose a woman schedules a late-term abortion for Tuesday morning, but on Monday night she goes into premature labor and gives birth to a healthy baby before she can reach the hospital. Do you think she has a right to kill that baby on Tuesday morning? Or do you think that society has a duty to protect that baby and prevent her from killing it?
tracey marie September 14th, 2015 at 22:45
you are an idiot
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:46
bonafied.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 22:53
I love it when you talk dirty to me!
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:55
most fake “christian” repukes do. you’re just in the closet. get out. you’ll be happier.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 23:06
You’re right. I am actually a woman trapped in a man’s body. Please call me Roberta. See you ladies in the locker room!
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 23:46
no, that would be fine. you’re in the sad closet. get out.
Bunya September 14th, 2015 at 23:54
Late term abortions are extremely rare, and occur only when an abnormality is discovered like hydrocephalus, which is fatal, painful and a horrible, excruciating way for a baby to die.
.
By the way, how many homeless children have you adopted?
MBJR September 14th, 2015 at 18:45
I hate this argument, its like arguing religion. In my opinion this is the model of hypocrisy. Just your first sentence. “Conservatives are wholeheartedly against killing children” Really? Except when US needs to protect its self interest…well….shit happens, collateral damage or something. That’s not killing innocent children? War is just one big fucking abortion isn’t it? So you see, you can’t just roll your eyes. If you want to convince otherwise you need to tell me the difference between children here and children their. Or your augment is asymmetrical.
allison1050 September 14th, 2015 at 19:58
That was great MBJR.
Bunya September 14th, 2015 at 23:49
Excellent post! My thoughts exactly.
tracey marie September 14th, 2015 at 18:49
It is not yours or anyone elses riight to tell a women what to do with her body, mind your business and let a women decide what is best for her , there is no baby involved.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 19:38
Many people have proposed that it should be illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol because of the risk to the unborn child. This was a topic of discussion last year in the UK.
http://news.sky.com/story/1366952/drinking-in-pregnancy-could-be-made-illegal
Would you say that these people should mind their own business, and that a pregnant woman has a right to drink as much alcohol as she pleases? Why or why not?
tracey marie September 14th, 2015 at 19:48
this is the USA, anything else irrelevent to add?
Suzanne McFly September 14th, 2015 at 20:05
A child born addicted is a tragic incident that can be prevented. If a child is born with an addiction, there are multiple hurdles that child will have to overcome and even if the child survives, that child will deal with multiple issues that may prevent proper brain functioning or growth. I would not sit by as someone beats a child and I will not let a pregnant woman consume alcohol around me without me (once I am positive it is alcohol) saying something to her.
I am speaking about a child who will be born and you are comparing this child to a set of cells but yet you don’t see the difference. Do you understand how hard it is for a person to get into a conversation when you refuse to grasp the facts before you present you point of view? It is like explaining to a fish why you can’t breathe in water, the fish just looks at you wondering why you are making those noises in its direction.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 20:13
If we are talking about an early-term abortion (“set of cells”), I have no particular objection to that. I don’t see abortion as an all-or-nothing proposition. I do not want to outlaw abortion, but like most Americans I have concerns about abortions occurring in the latter stages of pregnancy. Don’t you?
tracey marie September 14th, 2015 at 22:40
No, and it is none of your business, especially as a male telling women what to do.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:45
that’s between a woman and her doctor where late-term is concerned. your RWNJ presidential wannabes don’t even give a damn if a womans life is at stake. so shove it. i’m asking politely by the way.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 23:02
You have clearly stated your opinion, but the majority of Americans favor restrictions on late-term abortions. That puts you in the minority.
Few Americans would deny a woman an abortion if her life were at stake. I was shocked when Gov. Walker expressed that opinion. I strongly disagree with him, and I think I have a lot of company. But we don’t have to choose between a total ban and total acceptance.
Suppose that you operate an abortion clinic that serves a community of immigrants who prefer male children. Large numbers of women get ultrasounds and if they discover that the baby is female, they get an abortion. Over time you see that 80% of the fetuses you abort are female. Clearly, this procedure is being used to select the sex of the child.
Do you continue to perform these abortions, even when the woman clearly states that the reason is because the baby is female? If this practice became widespread (as it appears to be in the UK), would society have an interest in curtailing it?
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 23:09
your party is insane and a threat to all women. your party, doesn’t even practice what it preaches. futhermore, i have no idea why on earth you’re shocked. it’s been their base all along. deal with it, or jump ship. but, the brain cells that function properly in my head, tells me, you’d rather cut off your nose to spite your face rather than to admit you all are nuts.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 23:17
“your party is insane and a threat to all women”
Half of the people in my party are women. YOU deal with it.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 23:43
ah, no.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 23:44
i will say though that, the women in your party are insane and brainwashed.
Bunya September 14th, 2015 at 23:47
First of all, Scott Walker is retarded. He couldn’t care less about saving babies. Like all republicans, he’s playing to his religious base.
Second of all, regardless of why the woman is having an abortion, it’s none of your business. That is a very personal and private matter between a woman and her doctor. It doesn’t concern you. Besides, there’s no shortage of women having babies out of wedlock and being forced to go on welfare.
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 00:01
I disagree with your opinion that late-term abortions are none of my business. I have posed the following question several times on Liberaland and nobody has answered it. Perhaps you’d like to take a stab at it.
A woman schedules a late-term abortion for Tuesday. But on Monday night she unexpectedly goes into labor and delivers a healthy baby before she can get to the hospital. Does she have a right to kill the baby on Tuesday morning? Do I have a right to stop her if she tries?
This calls for two yes/no answers. My answers would be “No” and “Yes”. Are you willing to go on record with Yes or No answers? Because nobody else has ever answered this question.
Bunya September 15th, 2015 at 00:08
Once the fetus passes through the birth canal, it becomes a baby and is no longer dependent on the mother to sustain it. If she killed the child, she’d be charged with murder, just as if she killed a 32-year-old man. I would hope that, if you could stop the woman without harming yourself, you’d do it.
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 00:37
Thanks for an unambiguous answer. We are in complete agreement about the rights and duties of other people after the baby has been born.
You mentioned the baby’s (fetus’s) dependence upon the mother to sustain it. Is that really relevant?
Suppose that a pregnant woman is the sole survivor of a plane crash high in a remote mountain location. The woman is uninjured and living in the plane’s wreckage where there is plenty of food and water. On day ten, no help has yet arrived and she begins to suspect that the search has been called off. Then on day eleven, she goes into labor and delivers a healthy baby.
The baby is completely dependent upon the mother to sustain it. Does this dependence give her the right to kill the baby? If not, then why would being “dependent on the mother to sustain it” be justification for a late-term abortion? Methinks the dependence issue is not relevant.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 01:53
Highly unlikely examples shouldn’t a national policy make. A meteor could fall to earth tomorrow and kill off all humans. Not likely but possible. Do we make all government decisions as if that meteor was a given?
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 02:48
Of course it’s highly unlikely. It’s a hypothetical, and the purpose is to explore a single principle in isolation. Think of it as a laboratory where a single specimen is isolated for study. We can forget about all kinds of mitigating factors and ask what should happen in this very simple case. The goal is to identify the principles that guide our thinking when we are faced with more complex examples. If you have a clear set of principles, then it should be easy to say how you would evaluate a hypothetical situation. And if you aren’t willing to say what you would do in a specific, hypothetical situation, then you are not operating on a clear set of principles. You are in effect “unprincipled”.
Bunya September 15th, 2015 at 12:02
” Is that really relevant?”
I don’t see how this has anything to do with anything, but to answer your question, it makes no difference. If she’s the sole survivor and the baby is born in a remote mountain location with nobody else around, she can do whatever she wants with that baby. Who will know?
Bunya September 14th, 2015 at 23:39
I still don’t think that’s any of your business. Maybe you should be more concerned about a republican winning the presidential election. If that comes to pass, it’s almost assured they’ll start another war, and you’re sure to see a lot of literal baby killing.
Suzanne McFly September 15th, 2015 at 07:15
Why would I be concerned? It has nothing to do with me. If a woman gets an abortion in the latter stages of her pregnancy it is due to a problem that occurred during the pregnancy. Why do you feel you can sit back and judge people who are dealing with a very personal situation that does not concern you at all?
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 10:27
“If a woman gets an abortion in the latter stages of her pregnancy it is due to a problem that occurred during the pregnancy.”
According to the Guttmacher Institute, fetal abnormality accounts for just 2% of abortions after 16 weeks gestation. According to their data, it would appear that the majority of abortions after 16 weeks are NOT due to a problem with the pregnancy.
Did not recognize the pregnancy 71%
Had difficulty making arrangements for abortion 48%
Was afraid to tell parents or partner 33%
Needed time to make decision 24%
Hoped relationship would change 8%
Was pressured not to have abortion 8%
Something changed during pregnancy 6%
Did not know timing was important 6%
Did not know abortion was an option 5%
Fetal abnormality was diagnosed late 2%
Other 11%
Source:
https://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
Many people say that the baby’s welfare is nobody else’s business until the moment of birth, and then it suddenly becomes a citizen with legal protection. But the biology tells us that a fetus does not become a baby all at once. I have no issues with early-term abortions. But as the baby gradually develops, I believe that it gradually becomes less acceptable to abort the pregnancy. By the time you reach 30 weeks, you’d better have a pretty damned good reason, because that’s no longer a “mass of cells”. That’s a baby.
Most people would say that society has a responsibility to protect a baby that is one day old. How can you even suggest that society has no right to be concerned about the welfare of a baby that is 40 weeks gestation, but not yet born?
As I see it, society’s responsibility for the baby gradually increases as the pregnancy progresses. In the early weeks, it is purely between a woman and her doctor. But at 40 weeks, there needs to be a damned good reason, and society has not only a right, but a duty to regulate that.
Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans agree with me. Americans generally have few concerns about early-term abortions, but serious concerns about late-term abortions. When we discuss the issue, we need to be specific about the stage of gestation.
highpckts September 14th, 2015 at 22:30
First of all it is none of your business if I want an abortion! Secondly, it is not a viable being until a certain number of weeks. So yes they are just cells!! I do see the difference and don’t condone late term abortions unless there are certain circumstances that require it. I would consider it unusually rude to tell me to not drink while pregnant! Again, none of your business!! I find it ironic that you are all concerned about “life” while in the womb but as soon as that baby is born, you are no where to be found!!!
Suzanne McFly September 15th, 2015 at 07:20
I don’t understand why you are so angry at me, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions and I don’t have time to discuss issues with anyone who comes out full of emotion and is wrong in referring to the actual conversation.
Larry Schmitt September 14th, 2015 at 20:36
You might as well say it should be illegal to smoke or eat steak.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 20:43
In the UK and also in Ontario Canada, it is illegal to smoke in a car when children are present.
http://m.snopes.com/2015/08/16/smoking-in-cars-illegal-uk/
I seem to recall hearing about a proposal to make it illegal in the US also. Not sure if any US communities actually adopted that law. If enacted, it would establish a precedent that could lead to outlawing alcohol consumption by pregnant mothers. I am not advocating such laws. I am just exploring the question of when society has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do (with her body) when her actions might result in harm to a child or a fetus.
William September 14th, 2015 at 21:40
It’s also illegal in Maine and has been since August 2008. California, Arkansas and Louisiana have passed similar laws, as have Puerto Rico. Pregnant women can still drink.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 22:06
Okay, so a pregnant woman can go into a bar and order a whiskey straight up, and another, and another, every day for nine months. But one day after delivery, if she lights up a cigarette on the way home from the hospital with her Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby, only then is she breaking the law. Why not let her smoke? The damage is already done.
William September 14th, 2015 at 22:31
At the risk of feeling like I am showing a card trick to a cocker spaniel, I’ll play your stupid game.
“Okay, so a pregnant woman can go into a bar and order a whiskey straight up, and another, and another, every day for nine months”
….
Because
A. It’s unenforceable, as the bartender cannot ascertain if a patron is pregnant, nor do liquor stores administer a pregnancy test to their patrons.
B. It’s actually possible for a police officer to see the driver smoking and the kids in the car.
Evidence and practicality.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:40
another spin on the bartender issue, unless he wants to risk a face full of, whatever she’s having, she just might be hefty. js.
William September 14th, 2015 at 22:46
Exactly. I don’t care if a woman is knitting a tiny little sweater while reading a babys R us catalog in the waiting room of an OB-GYNs office. I will NOT ask her anything that would suggest she is pregnant.
I like my nose just the way it is.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:49
i had a client come into the office. nice couple. had their 2 little boys with them. one was 3 and the other was 2. she is a very petite person and looked about 8 months. it was my first time meeting them as i had taken over their case. i was smiling and politely asked, so when are you due. she said, “i had her 3 weeks ago.” i’ll never ask again. i swear, i’ll never ask that again.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 22:47
My cocker spaniel just read your post, and he does not appreciate being stereotyped in that way!
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 22:50
But seriously, what if the pregnant woman is your friend and she told you she is pregnant? Are you going to give her any grief about her drinking? Wouldn’t you feel a sense of responsibility toward her unborn child?
William September 14th, 2015 at 23:42
Of course, but that wasn’t the gist of your post. You discussed the law, and the weird comparison with smoking in a car and fetal alcohol syndrome. You’re all over the page. Perhaps analogies are not your strong suit. Perhaps just sticking to the subject would add more brevity to the matter.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 12:56
It might be mentioned that excessive drinking could affect the fetus.
But bare in mind that all women back in the bible era drank wine everyday. Even children back then drank wine as the water wasn’t very good.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 01:46
The difference is: when smoking in a car, or a building, you are exposing others to second hand smoke, and according to some studies, second hand smoke is as bad or worse that first hand smoke.
When you drink you are only affecting yourself. As as William pointed out, no pregnancy tests are administered at a bar or liquor store.
highpckts September 14th, 2015 at 21:13
Oh but it’s not illegal is it! It’s a guideline. We offer guidelines yet do not make it against the law because we are a free nation. Something you would like to take away! Smaller government only when it suits your purpose? You only want laws that fit your beliefs and that goes against this countries Bill of Rights!
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 21:25
you’ve got him pegged.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 21:34
I have not taken a position on whether these things should be outlawed. I am simply pointing out what others have said or done. I tend to agree with you that guidelines and education are usually a much better approach to problems. But reasonable people can disagree. We have speed limits that are more than just guidelines. In my state we have seat belt laws that are more than just guidelines. Sometimes the public, through its representatives, decides that guidelines are not enough.
A lot of anti-abortion folks say that their Christian beliefs motivate their desire to restrict or outlaw abortion. I was raised as a Protestant and gained a pretty good familiarity with the gospels. I cannot recall a single example of Christ attempting to change either Hebrew laws or Roman laws to compel people to behave in a certain way. Jesus was in the business of persuasion, not compulsion. That is the example he set. I wish more Christians would follow it. So I share your preference for guidelines, but I also recognize that sometimes we need laws.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 01:42
As it is, there is no where in the bible that mentions abortions. In fact, god is the greatest abortionist. Up to 80% of conceptions are naturally flushed out, and washed down the drain.
whatthe46 September 15th, 2015 at 02:13
we also forget, that their god, as it’s in their bible, murdered the pregant, the unborn by way of total distruction of the world. that he also murdered the unborn if the mother was proven to have been unfaithful. i’m gonna be sick.
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 02:23
Yeah. And the belief that a soul begins to exist at the moment of conception does not appear to be biblically-based either. It’s just an assumption made by modern people after we learned about how conception works. Before microscopes existed, people had no clue about 500,000 sperm cells racing to get to a single egg cell, and one of them managing to wiggle through the cell wall. This is now the definition of when life begins, but it is purely a modern definition.
Imagine if things went this way instead:
And God spake unto Pat Robertson, saying “Thou hast made a grave error when thou didst assume that life begins at the moment of conception. For when Eve sprang from Adam’s rib it was ordained that a new life and a new soul shall begin each time an ovum is issued forth by an ovary at the time of ovulation. And this precious new life shall begin a journey to the womb where its cells will begin to multiply when a man’s seed shall arrive. And I have bestowed upon each man the gift of sexual desire. And it shall be the duty of each man to obey the sexual impulse which I have given unto him. And it shall be his duty to deliver his seed to every woman to whom he is attracted by the desire which I have placed in him. And his seed shall allow each new life to grow and its cells to multiply as I have intended. Therefore let all men heed their sexual desires at all times so that all ova may be fertilized as I have ordained. And any man who resists his sexual urges, let him be cast into the eternal flames, for all ova are precious, and all must be given a man’s seed as it has been ordained.”.
Okay, this is purely a thought experiment. But it shows how a small change in the assumption about when life begins can make a big difference!
Obewon September 14th, 2015 at 20:21
As few as 12% to a peak of 25% want to outlaw abortion. Unlike you, most Americans aren’t busibodies over last centuries SCOTUS guarantee for all women’s mere 10 weeks to privately choose and up to 28 weeks with her Dr’s approval.
4+ natural miscarriages precede each live human birth. You and your ilk should at least have the decency to embrace ObamaCare’s prenatal care, reducing USA’s 7/1000 stillborn birthrate to 6/1000 during the Obama admin.
Against Empire September 14th, 2015 at 21:15
The “conservative”/Republican Right is actively hostile to children, particularly low-income and minority children. Their draconian policies at all levels of government over the past several decades have all but ensured that there will be a permanent underclass in American society.
Hostility to abortion rights is fundamentally about controlling women and denying them the right to control their own bodies. Why should a relatively small group of wealthy, powerful men (and their indoctrinated supporters) get to decide whether a woman should have a baby? Oh right, patriarchy and sexism.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 22:25
A majority of women favor some restrictions on abortion, and a significant number of women want to ban all abortions. So it’s just not accurate to suggest that the only people concerned about abortion are wealthy, powerful men. Catholic nuns are neither wealthy nor powerful, but you’ll find very few who are pro-choice.
To say that conservatives are “actively hostile” to children is an abuse of the English language. Active hostility would mean taking an active part in harming children. When liberals criticize conservatives, it is usually because a lack of willingness to provide funding for programs to help children. You might be able to justify calling it passive neglect, but calling it active hostility goes beyond the pale.
And if you’re going to fault conservatives for not feeling a sense of responsibility toward low-income and minority children, then why aren’t you complaining about the high rates of fatherlessness in the low-income and minority communities? In Baltimore city, 2/3 of all children live in single-parent households. In the vast majority of cases, that parent is the mother, and the father is nowhere to be found. Why aren’t you holding him accountable for the welfare of those children? Children need a lot more than just money. They need things that only parents can provide. Single moms might do okay raising girls, but boys desperately need fathers. If we really care about children, we need to understand why the rate of fatherlessness is rising for children of all races, and why it is especially high for minority children. It wasn’t always that way. The rate of fatherlessness for black children has doubled since 1970. It has tripled for white children, but it started out lower. The trend lines are worrying for children of all races. I don’t know how to solve the fatherlessness problem, but it worries me that so many kids are growing up without fathers in their lives.
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 22:36
pulling shit out of your ass is nasty and wrong. just like what you’re doing now. and going to sites that promotes lies is not the way to educate yourself.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 01:39
In part it’s because of our lust for prisons. We feed the prison system with young, and sometimes not so young, men. Jail and prison for minor offenses, heavy handed against black youth, ignoring white crime to some extent, and so on.
whatthe46 September 15th, 2015 at 01:49
privatized is why so many black men and minorities in general are in prison. it’s b.s. to the max. a young black 17 yr old male is now labeled a sex offender for life. why? because he and his girlfriend shared pics (nude) of each other via cell phone. a white guy, was found guilty of the most disgusting things that can be done to a baby (2 yr old) he made a plea deal that would get him probation for 10 yrs and he will NOT have to register as a sex offender. go figure.
Bunya September 14th, 2015 at 23:30
First of all, the women who want to ban abortion have never been, or had a daughter who hasn’t been in that type of crisis. I could say I’m pro-waterboarding, but then again, I’ve never been waterboarded. And besides, those women are self-hating. As for nuns, they are controlled by the Catholic church. If the Vatican is anti-choice, so are the nuns.
.
A lack of willingness to provide funding for programs to help children certainly suggests disdain for those less fortunate, especially those they helped “save” from abortion.
.
Yes. Why aren’t we holding these fathers accountable? I don’t hear any of the politicians bringing this up in their campaign. You would think this would be #1 on their agenda, since they’re so interested in monitoring a woman’s reproductive system. Maybe they should put more emphasis on getting the fathers to pony up instead of the mother’s relying on the taxpayers.
Robert M. Snyder September 14th, 2015 at 23:50
“Maybe they should put more emphasis on getting the fathers to pony up instead of the mother’s relying on the taxpayers.”
My chief concern is not who pays for the children’s upkeep, but whether they have a father in their life. Government has an important role, but it can never replace a loving parent. And for most boys, there is a desperate need for a loving father.
Male teachers, preachers, and other men can serve as role models. But there is no substitute for a man who looks forward to spending time with his son(s). It doesn’t matter whether they are hiking, biking, playing catch, or just watching TV together. They key thing is having a man who makes you one of the most important things in his life. A man who “gets” you; who knows you so well that he can read your facial expressions and your gestures.
Not every boy can have a father. Sometimes men get killed in car accidents or in war. When that happens, a boy still feels loved. He knows that his father did not wish to leave him. But when a man abandons his son, and takes no interest in spending time with him and guiding him, then that is very painful to the boy. Nothing the government does can make this pain go away.
There is a role for government. But we should not make the mistake of thinking that the government can fix every problem. We need to think about non-governmental approaches as well.
I’m not a big fan of Rev. Farakkhan, but I think his million man march contained some good ideas. I don’t mean to suggest that fatherhood is only a minority issue. My neighbor is an elementary school principal in a mostly white community. He is very excited about a new program they have started to support fathers. The idea is to get fathers together on a regular basis to talk about their experiences and support each other. He said it is very popular and the fathers are taking it seriously and expressing a lot of gratitude.
I can’t help wondering if there might be a hunger for this type of thing. Maybe it could succeed in other communities. We need to make fatherhood “cool” again. We have seen too many sitcoms portraying dads as clueless, spineless, flabby dorks.
Bunya September 15th, 2015 at 00:00
Some men (boys) prefer to be merely “sperm doners”. If you have any ideas on how to convince a man/boy that it’s cool to take responsibility for his actions, I’d like to hear it.
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 00:21
I’d like to see some research on this issue. Why not talk to these men (white, black, brown, and Asian) and find out what makes them tick? I am white and most of my friends are too. But I don’t know too many deadbeat dads, and certainly not well enough to know how they think.
Fatherlessness is increasing for all races. Anything that can go up can also go down. The problem is that policymakers and people like me who really enjoy being a father do not usually hang out with men who don’t. So we don’t understand them. We talk to the single mothers (God bless them) who almost never abandon their kids. But I think there is a tendency to assume that the fathers are unreachable. So we simply leave them out of the equation.
We need to understand what is causing fatherlessness to increase. There may be numerous factors. Maybe it’s a perfect storm. We can speculate all day long, but this is crying out for research and creative thinking. We need to stop assuming that these men are unreachable. And we need to start changing the attitudes of young men about fatherhood *before* they actually become fathers.
For men who are already in this position, I think that the concept of “praxis” has something to offer. If you can visualize yourself doing something (e.g. having a close connection with your son and spending quality time together), then you can become it. Believing is becoming.
A related concept is empathy. Even if your own father didn’t give you much love, when you do loving things for another person (e.g. your son), you *feel* love at the same time. It’s kind of like how when you feed a baby you always open your own mouth when the spoon reaches your baby’s lips. When something happens to someone else, we can empathize and feel it happening to ourselves. One of the best ways to *feel* love is to *give* love.
We need to focus on helping men to discover the fatherhood instincts that they never knew they had. And that will require a leap of faith on our part.
We have to believe that men are capable of these things, and get them to believe it too.
bpollen September 15th, 2015 at 05:43
Active hostility would mean taking an active part in harming children.
Bushwah… You’re “qualification” is meaningless when conservatives and Republicans cut health care, cut school funds, send school funds to private companies and fraudsters with no accountability, send children to brainwashing camps so they can be “cured of the gay.” tell children that their gay parents are evil perverts who only want to sexually assault them, ensured children fleeing Central American violence would NOT have a lawyer representing them in immigration court, cut children’s programs and sports teams and after-school programs, cut music programs, cut art programs, give tax cuts to or create loopholes for the rich which directly cuts funds available for infrastructure repairs and school repairs, cut funds for special needs kids, teach children that dinosaurs coexisted with man, that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust, that dragons were real, that Gawd used the Trail of Tears as a Christian recruitment drive, that slavery wasn’t so bad and the Klan are OK too, environmentalists are trying to destroy the world’s economy, ad frickin’ infinitum…
I COULD go on, but I think that is more than adequate to show that “To say that conservatives are ‘actively hostile’ to children is an abuse of the English language…” is not only not factual, but it is glaringly obvious that it is untrue.
Robert M. Snyder September 15th, 2015 at 11:07
I could give you a long list of things that many Muslims say and do that you would also find objectionable. And you don’t have to look very far to find Muslims who are “actively hostile” to various categories of people, often including children. So I am wondering why we never see any criticism of Muslims in Liberaland. Why do liberals have tolerance for people who call themselves Muslims, but absolutely no tolerance for people who call themselves conservatives?
Do you share Muslim beliefs about the role of women or homosexuality? Why is all of this vitriol directed at conservatives, but not at Muslims?
Islam is a voluntary system of belief. A person may be born into a Muslim family, just as a person may be born into a conservative family. People can change. You clearly think that conservatives are wrong and need to change. Why do you not hold Muslims to the same standard? Why do you not show the same respect and tolerance toward conservatives that you show toward Muslims?
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 12:49
Maybe, just maybe, we don’t criticize Muslims much is because they aren’t a political force in THIS country. They have no political power and what happens in other countries is largely their problem. I’m worried about this country and the self centered greedy rich that empower the right wing.
bpollen September 15th, 2015 at 15:05
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Don’t deny it, deflect by attacking Muslims! Which is tantamount to conceding… You know, your mother probably told you more than once: “We’re not talking about those other kids… we’re talking about you, Bobby.”
Trying to say that other people do bad things, so your doing bad things is A-OK may still be a valid rhetorical flourish against grade school opponents, Bobby, but this ain’t Ms. Kelly’s 3rd grade class.
Additionally, little Bobby, “conservative” is not a religion. I could probably find numismatists that do objectionable things, but they aren’t a religion either, nor do they make conservatives less of a threat to children.
What you have shown, my petite bigot, is that not only are conservatives a threat to children, they also ARGUE like children!
Southern Logic September 15th, 2015 at 11:22
Must be why the democrat Margaret Sanger started planned parenthood. If I remember right it was to control the black populations. Need to know more..
http://www.trdd.org/EUGBR_2E.HTM
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 12:44
Some right wing French nut jobs isn’t much of a source. The wild eyed criticism of M. Sanger is often overstated and ignores the time she lived in. She wasn’t all that involved in the Planned Parenthood movement. That movement overtook and passed her by to a great extent.
Mann T. September 15th, 2015 at 07:57
Killing by inaction happens all the time and we all do it.
Tim Coolio September 14th, 2015 at 17:36
Yup, the right thinks pro-life means a nine month frame of time and that’s it!
amersham46 September 14th, 2015 at 19:15
One of the nasty things about learning , some of your childhood myths are blown away
whatthe46 September 14th, 2015 at 19:26
so true.
allison1050 September 14th, 2015 at 19:54
I would have loved to have heard some of the whispered comments after his remarks.
robert September 14th, 2015 at 23:07
I cant take away from a man who’s a straight shooter regardless who he has as advisers. At least bernie had the guts to tell the bible thumpers what he believes in. The gop would rather tell the thumpers what they want to hear.
LOL the best part is bill o’reilly’s hair is on fire tonight Way to go bernie !!!
Southern Logic September 15th, 2015 at 11:06
What a complete clown. Christians believe that children start at conception, and deserve our protection as do they after they are born. What an ignorant fool this guy is.
Mann T. September 15th, 2015 at 11:47
He pointed out Republican action reducing protection.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 12:38
Of course. Why would a ‘christian’ care what the bible says.
The ancient Hebrews that wrote the bible didn’t consider a baby a complete person until a month after it’s born.
Southern Logic September 15th, 2015 at 12:51
Source…
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 13:04
Do your own research. Google is your friend.
I read that from a Jewish scholar. Good enough for me, as I couldn’t care less what the ancient Hebrews thought.
Southern Logic September 15th, 2015 at 13:15
They were smart people, killing babies seems incongruent with what i have read about their beliefs.
Dwendt44 September 15th, 2015 at 14:10
That is due to your self serving reading list.
The thinking that a fetus was of import is of relatively recent vintage.
The Hebrew culture didn’t count a new born as a complete person. It shows in the bible writing of the times. Abortion was legal during the Roman Empire, and the bible doesn’t mention abortion at all.
But some point to several verses that show a disregard for new borns less than a month old.
Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels. A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls were of less value at three shekels; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.
Numbers 3:15 Take a census…including every male a month or more old. Only male babiesover one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration.
One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human. Another is that the death rate amongnewborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child
would live until it was at least a month old.
whatthe46 September 15th, 2015 at 14:33
there’s a call for murder in the bible of pregnant women. what’s that all about?
whatthe46 September 15th, 2015 at 14:30
laughing.
Bunya September 15th, 2015 at 14:13
It’s hard to tell what Christians believe nowadays. They’re forever interpreting their bible to say what fits their lifestyle. Take everybody’s favorite hypocrite, Kim Davis, for example. Apparently her god has no problem with divorced adulterers, but just can’t seem to stomach equal rights for all. How about Dubya? He’s a devout Christian who said his god told him to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Now THAT’S what they call “pro-life”.
No way out September 15th, 2015 at 22:13
Most Republicans are not Christian. They practice a bastardization of something that they watch on cable and listen to in the nether lands of our bad ,radio ridden frontier.
Southern Logic September 16th, 2015 at 00:24
No liberals are Christian, as they keep voting to kill all kinds of human life from infantcide to uthenasia to lynching with the democrat KKK. None of those liberal virtues is christian.
whatthe46 September 16th, 2015 at 00:28
STEP AWAY FROM THE PIPE!
Southern Logic September 16th, 2015 at 00:44
True, the abortion pipe dismembers viable babies for sale.
whatthe46 September 16th, 2015 at 00:59
seriously, step away from the pipe.
whatthe46 September 16th, 2015 at 00:29
also, here’s a copy of my previous post to you: “there’s a call for murder in the bible of pregnant women. what’s that all about?” now answer the damn question!
Southern Logic September 16th, 2015 at 00:43
Does not exist. Only in your mind.
whatthe46 September 16th, 2015 at 00:58
so, that means you’ve never read the bible. gotcha. google it, you’ll thank me from freeing you from all ignorance. hell, you might just be the first to be cured of stupidity.
Southern Logic September 16th, 2015 at 09:00
What a twisted snake you are. All those references were in response to ending a corrupt and sinful line. To clean the dna pool of idiots and idolitors. By your statements it seems God did not go far enough.