Stocking Stuffer: An Abortion Gift Certificate
Planned Parenthood is offering gift certificates this year that can be used for a wide range of heath services, including pap smears, birth control, and abortions.
“Women in particular are likely to forgo basic medical needs when faced with putting gas in their car or food on the table,” said Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s president and CEO, Betty Cockrum.
Planned Parenthood provides contraception, pap smears and other routine health services for women, as well as abortions. The gift certificates, ranging in values from $25 to $100, can be redeemed for all clinic services.
This is sure to inflame certain folks who have their own agendas, but let’s face it, this is about health care. Sure, one of the services Planned Parenthood offers is controversial, but shall we get all worked up over every controversial gift that’s available?
This is ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!!!
A gift certificate for abortions!!!!
Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. An absolute travesty.
Since Roe-V-Wade, abortion doctors have killed almost 50 Million babys.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
The title of this post is mighty sensationalistic. It is a gift certificate for clinic services. One of many available services is abortion.
Kinda funny that Alan titles the blog entry “Stocking Stuffer: An Abortion Gift Certificate”
then closes with: “This is sure to inflame certain folks who have their own agendas, but let’s face it, this is about health care. Sure, one of the services Planned Parenthood offers is controversial, but shall we get all worked up over every controversial gift that’s available?”
I mean, I expect Alan to be a bit sensationalistic to drum up interest and participation in the blog and radio show. But to close with a condemnation of getting all worked up, when he is obviously working people up?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
To the best of my knowledge the only stocking stuffers are Christian, so I wonder if Alan is suggesting that only Christians would need the services of PP? This might just be the most sacriligious “gift” I’ve ever heard of giving or receiving. The PP “gift” idea defiles the very meaning of Christmas. What will the libs think of next?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Don’t act so shocked, Willy. We’ve lost over 4000 post born Americans and millions of innocent Iraqi men, women and children in 6 years (and still counting).
I guess it doesn’t matter if they die after they’re born, huh?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
TDRO,
That argument is old.
I am offended and disgusted not only as the parent of a young lady but as a woman myself. First off, I don’t like the idea of no age limits on hush hush abortions (not what this board is about, but still a PP issue nonetheless). Excuse me, but if my kids need permission to go on a field trip, they certainly need my permission to have an abortion.
They had to know that this would cause a stir. I think it is a bad idea. I don’t like it one bit.
But, much like the atheist who I saw on TV today sounding crazy like a fox about the “winter solstice” and how Christians “stole” that holiday from human beings, the PP kooks who came up with this grand idea are drumming up bad PR for their organization. With no help needed from Christians OR Pro-lifers necessary.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
T. Mason:
I don’t care if you are offended and/or disgusted. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one – simple as that.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
TDRO,
I don’t plan on it. It is refreshing to see that someone who preaches to everyone about lives being lost is so in favor of murdering human babies in the womb.Pat yourself on the back for that one
December 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
T. Mason:
Put it this way: I’m more concerned about saving human lives, which is why I’m so against this war and and senseless killing.
Again, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one – simple as that. I’m sure nobody’s twisting your arm.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
But Christmas’s winter date and some rituals ARE stolen from Pagans and the winter solstice. How is it bad to acknowledge that? You’re being ahistorical if you think its false. Sure it doesn’t have that meaning in today’s society, but its the truth.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
im pro choice and this disturbs me. why do this? its like showing up at a Yanks game in a Sox jersey…..
December 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
TDRO, what do you think an unborn baby is? A salamander?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
actual,
Their beef isn’t with the winter solstice. It is with the nativity scene.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Alan,
Why not invite Betty Cockrum to speak on your show? I believe Laura Ingraham had her on to discuss this.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Hi Allen,
You are extreme liberal, I am extreme conservative. How Hannity abides you, I know not.
I do want to complement you on your interveiw of your BEAUTIFUL wife. Pride in your wife, love FOR YOUR WIFE AND JOY IN HER WAS JUST SO EVIDENT AND i SO APPRECIATED YOUR HAVING HER ON THE SHOW.
iT SHOWED ME ANOTHER SIDE OF YOU AND i LIKE THIS SIDE.
oUR LORD’SBLESSINGS TO YOU BOTH,
December 4th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
TDro,
If you don’t want slaves, don’t own them. Don’t infringe on my right to have slaves.
Same logic. Faulty as hell…taking a group of people and dehumanizing them. Making them property.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
T. Mason:
So sue me for being more concerned with post born children rather than pre-born. I’m sure your next comment will be that I’m going to hell.
Okay. As the old saying goes “hand in hand we’ll share the heat”
December 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I have no problem with a woman having rights over her body, but that goes for the woman (or man) inside the womb as well as outside the womb. Too bad PP doesn’t afford the same rights to the woman INSIDE the womb. I guess they aren’t very sincere feminists after all.
Additionally, I do not see the sense in the oxymoron, “pro-choice.” It didn’t work for slavery; why should it make sense for abortion? Moral issues are either right or wrong. Killing innocent lives is an intrinsic evil. The choice comes BEFORE conception, not after the fact.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Flap:
Your logic makes no sense. Slavery is illegal, abortion is not.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
If abortion is such a personal choice,shouldn’t it be paid for with personal funds?—not tax dollars.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
PLANNED PARENTHOOD–
ONE BILLION DOLLARS GROSSED THIS YEAR IN THE BABY KILLING INDUSTRY….
OH YEAH, BTW, I THINK I’LL PASS ON THE “GIFT”
CERTIFICATE….SOME “AWARD” (?)
CONGRATS TO HUMANITY …. (HECK NO–I EVEN BOYCOTT THE BIG BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT PLANNED PARENTHOOD ).
I GET THE LIST FROM LDI INTERNATIONAL IN DC….
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MURDERERS… USING THE SAME TACTICS THAT NAZIS INVENTED (ABORTIONS) AND THE BIGOTRY OF MARGARET SANGER (THE FOUNDER) TO ANNIHILATE THOSE OF COLOR —
OH ,IF YOU WANT TO PAY (DONATE)FOR A CERTAIN RACE TO BE ABORTED , THAT’S OKAY WITH THEM TOO –( VIDEOS ON YOU TUBE)…
….JUST AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE BLOOD MONEY POURING IN AND THE DECEPTION GOING…BIG BUCKS , Y’KNOW !
SORRY, NO WAY TO WHITEWASH THIS AGENCY. THEY ARE NOBODY’S “FRIEND’.
“WHATSOEVER YOU DO TO THE LEAST OF MY PEOPLE, THAT YOU DO UNTO ME”—JESUS—
December 4th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Please avoid using the ANNOYING PRACTICE OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
You gotta love the free market system, theres even money to made in killing babies
December 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I just can seem to understand why abortions are even still necessary? We have condoms, We have Birth control pills, we have Implants, and of course always abstinence(i am not naive :)
Abortion as a form of birth control is absurd! no woman should be allowed multiple abortions…. (of course exceptions for rape, health of mother and baby ect…)
I am pro choice, but even the most liberal of all liberals can’t possibly try an justify having 5+ abortions! That is just insane. Republican and Dems need to find some middle ground on abortion and just put this issue to rest once and for all!
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Yee without sin,cast the 1st stone. This subject baffles me. The right wants less gov,t,but wants to imposed gov,t on this issue. Some on the left want to cram this issue down everyones throat. I agree, a middle ground has to be found on this issue.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Steve…. interested in being my Vp candidate for 2012!(smiles)! We don’t need a third party, only 2 parties that will co-op with eachother to actually get something done, not just throw around blame
December 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
“Killing innocent lives is an intrinsic evil.”
Then our country has committed evil acts all over the world, beginning in Iraq, and we call it “collateral damage”.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:20 am
two seperate issues iraq and abortion… both are wrong!
December 5th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Odd some wacky right winger would toss the Nazi card down.
Under the Third Reich, abortion was a capital crime. Both the doctor performing the abortion and the woman seeking one would be tried in a criminal court.
First time: fines and a stern warning.
Second time; Bigger fines, prison time and doctor loses lisence.
Third time: both are executed.
Does not Christianity tell us that we are all born sinful and unclean?
It’s not a baby until it’s born anyway.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The gift certificate is for clinic services, not just for abortions.
Also note that some PP clinics do not perform abortions, maybe most of them.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Right wingers please explain this for me: You disapprove of abortion but you will kill people as punishment and you will turn a bind eye to Iraq and the fact that the US has been indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths! Please explain this as a non American it is hard to work out!
December 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Nice typo. I read “heath” as “death”.
@John:
Your question is good. A distinction with which you might not agree is that actions undertaken by a state, e.g. “war”, are not the same as actions undertaken by an individual, e.g. “murder”.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Maggie Mae-
How does a woman or man fit inside a womb? An embryo becomes a fetus about the 9th week after fertilization.
How does a fetus go about asserting his/her rights? Possibly by letter, or email, or by phone? Perhaps one kick for yes, two kicks for no. Perhaps the fetus should be consulted on what food should be eaten. Maybe the fetus wants to go hear a movie, or a concert, which rights, if not all, should the fetus be allowed? All of this is ridiculous, of course. A fetus is not viable, if left outside the womb it would not be able to perform human functions on its own, it would die. A fetus cannot think and it cannot act. Evidence has indicated that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.
Abortion is a personal issue, that every woman has the right to choose for herself. Personally, I would never get an abortion, but that doesn’t give me the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.
Atomaino-
There have been many conceptions while practicing birth control, they are not always 100% effective. And no, I don’t think abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Rape and incest are two reasons some seek to have an abortion.
Late term abortion, in my opinion, should only be exercised if the mother is in jeopordy of losing her life.
Planned Parenthood is not an abortion clinic. They provide many other health services that many women would not receive otherwise. They do not go around advocating abortion, they provide women the opportunity to maintain a healthy body and provide choices they may not find elsewhere.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
HEY JOEL, WHAT’S UP? JUST THOUGHT I WOULD ANNOY A LITTLE. LOL
December 5th, 2008 at 8:08 am
TDRO,
To bad all those brave soldiers died during WWII for your sake. If it weren’t for the American soldier you would probably be talking Japanese or German. It sounds like there is nothing worth fighting for in your world.
I find that fighting for the unborn is an honorable thing to do. That is why I align myself with the pro life movement. How does it really feel being a pro abortionist? Does it give you a good feeling knowing that millions of babys are murdered every year by pro abortionist? Is 50,000,000 babies murdered over the past 35 years not enough for you?
Help me to understand your way of thinking.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
So tell me, Willy. Why did we attack Iraq. What threat did they pose to the U.S.? Was it necessary to murder hundreds of thousands of people?
And don’t hand me that “it sounds like there is nothing worth fighting for in your world” shit. I served in Viet Nam, you unpatriotic turd!
Help me understand your thinking. You’re more concerned with saving a fetus than post born children.
I can only surmise that you need to save the fetus so when it becomes 18 years old you can send it to fight in a war to save your cowardly ass!
Were 59,000+ dead Americans murdered in Viet Nam and 4000+ (and counting) killed in Iraq not enough for you?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Hey Willy? How many kids have you adopted since you’ve been fighting for their rights to “live?” Do you feel compelled to do anything to support the children you make women give birth to? What’s your stance on going after deadbeat dads? Federally-funded daycare?
Help me, as you say, to understand your way of thinking.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I will never for the life of me understand how you can be against the death penalty for some scum bad who has killed someone and wrecked lives but you have no qualms about killing a baby. Can some body explain that to me?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
It’s not a baby until it’s born.
Why is it that every so-called ‘anti-abortion’ group I’ve ever heard of has yet to advocate birth control?
Most of those groups are actively working AGAINST some or all birth control methods.
Q: What do you call people who practice the rythem method of birth control?
A: Parents
December 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
How does a fetus go about asserting his/her rights? Possibly by letter, or email, or by phone? Perhaps one kick for yes, two kicks for no. Perhaps the fetus should be consulted on what food should be eaten. Maybe the fetus wants to go hear a movie, or a concert, which rights, if not all, should the fetus be allowed? All of this is ridiculous, of course. A fetus is not viable, if left outside the womb it would not be able to perform human functions on its own, it would die.
A newborn baby left alone will die also, it is not viable outside the womb, in must be cared for, for a considerable period of time.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Gayle: “I will never for the life of me understand how you can be against the death penalty for some scum bad who has killed someone and wrecked lives but you have no qualms about killing a baby. Can some body explain that to me?”
You’re going to take the emotional tack– fine. Let’s go with it.
How many kids have you adopted? Are you in favor of preventing abortions by advocating for free/affordable, accessible and safe birth control for both sexes? Do you encourage sex ed in schools? Do you favor schools dispensing birth control?
What are you doing to advocate the prevention of accidental pregnancies, incest, and rape in the first place?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The term fetus is used in a clinical fashion to dehumanize it, to describe a human being in a term that robs it of it’s dignity.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Kinda like describing their mothers conservative-style, as “Welfare Queens.”
December 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
You know what’s interesting?
The same people who claim polygamy, bestiality, and homosexual marriage are non sequiturs will jump all over warfare and compare it to abortion in an attempt to argue their point.
I’m wrong to do this, but it’s ok for you to do it?
Killing is killing, and sex is sex.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Thank you, Dr. Trees, for that lucid, well thought-out description. Now hurry down to the adoption agency and adopt some of the unwanted children.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It sounds like Trees has already taken a few adoption trips to the Humane Society. He can’t stop talking about bestiality and incest.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
What happened to late term abortion?
What happened to Partial birth abortion?
Maybe we should just consider full birth abortion of the unwanted children?
I’m just taking the ball and running with it.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“The same people who claim polygamy, bestiality, and homosexual marriage are non sequiturs will jump all over warfare and compare it to abortion in an attempt to argue their point.”
How do you kill something that isn’t born yet?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Trees,
The same people who claim polygamy, bestiality, and homosexual marriage are non sequiturs
The three things have nothing to do with each other (other than the tenuous link which would also be shared by heterosexual marriage).
I can understand someone holding a religious view that homosexual marriage is wrong (though I obviously disagree with that view). People who equate homosexuality with bestiality, however, are twisted. I really thought you would step away from those types of remarks upon reflection, but you seem to continue to try to find ways to link homosexuality and bestiality.
I don’t think I’ll be asking you to dog sit for me anytime soon if you really don’t see the difference.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Let me rephrase that: How can something that hasn’t been born, die?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
How do you kill something that isn’t born yet?
Perform an abortion
December 5th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Trees, before you “take the ball and run with it:”
1) How many kids have you adopted?
2) Are you in favor of preventing abortions by advocating for free/affordable, accessible and safe birth control for both sexes?
3) Do you encourage sex ed in schools? Do you favor schools dispensing birth control?
4) What are you doing to advocate the prevention of accidental pregnancies, incest, and rape in the first place?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MURDERERS… USING THE SAME TACTICS THAT NAZIS INVENTED (ABORTIONS) AND THE BIGOTRY OF MARGARET SANGER (THE FOUNDER) TO ANNIHILATE THOSE OF COLOR — SORRY, NO WAY TO WHITEWASH THIS AGENCY. THEY ARE NOBODY’S “FRIEND’.
“WHATSOEVER YOU DO TO THE LEAST OF MY PEOPLE, THAT YOU DO UNTO ME”—JESUS— Posted by EMO”
Mankind performed abortions before the 1930-40s. Your wrong about the nazi thing. I challenge you to produce proof of some form about the founder being a racist. I think you picked that up off some radical right site and can’t quote any source beyond that. PP doesn’t exist for people like you and you never need to concern yourself about what others use it for. They are indeed friend to many people but these people are those who are actually in need of services.
Do you know anyone that ever went to PP? Or have you ever talked with a PP rep? Well I have and abortion is a very small percentage of what PP does. Mostly they tell young women to use protection and tell them the truth about SDTs. Public health is not a religous issue and if you seek to deprive education or services from these young women then you’ll have me and ten million more standing in your way.
Jesus’ words are taken so many ways by so many people and I believe he knew that would happen. So I submit to you that if Jesus wanted us to focus our lives and our faith on the unborn then he would have been literal and clear on this in scripture. He was not. You say the least of my people means unborn and I say the least of my people means those who have little or no faith in anything, even themselves. Remember that Jesus came not with flaming swords and vengence for the wicked but rather as a peaceful man seeking unity under God’s love. What unity exists between us right now? Not much. Jesus would rather we gave each other a hug than bicker at each other via keyboard.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Sarah the homosexuals started trying to make the absurd normal, not me.
And no one has denied them their right’s.
Gay men have the same right to marry women as I do.
Gay women have the same right to marry men as you do.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Tdro,
Do I have your permission to destroy American Bald Eagle eggs?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Sarah the homosexuals started trying to make the absurd normal, not me.
It is absurd to marry the person you love?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
If we base our decisions on feelings and things we love to do, then Pandora ’s Box is opened, that’s the basis of my argument.
Are you ready for polygamy?
That is a fair question.
Although once we begin redefining where do we stop?
Who then are you to determine anything?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
1) How many kids have you adopted?
Zero, I’m adopted however and am willing to adopt later in my life. Still Pro-Choice.
2) Are you in favor of preventing abortions by advocating for free/affordable, accessible and safe birth control for both sexes?
Absolutely, only some intertesed in ideology over facts would say otherwise. Still Pro-Choice
3) Do you encourage sex ed in schools? Do you favor schools dispensing birth control?
Yup, a lot of issues surround the method of education and what age should you start sex ed. Dispensing birth control is just fine; condoms don’t do anything on their own. Still Pro-Choice.
4) What are you doing to advocate the prevention of accidental pregnancies, incest, and rape in the first place?
I have two sisters, 15 and 16, and I do what I can to get through to a teenager to make good decisions and wait until they are older to engage in sex. And I’m still Pro-Choice.
I guess I need to say that all this comes down to the parents. If you are not ready for children and all the responsibities that come with then don’t have them. That is not a message for the young but rather for everyone. If you don’t feel right talking about sex with kids then don’t have kids. If your not ready to educate them and confront the hard issues then don’t have them in first place.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Trees, please just answer my prior questions.
Incidentally, “Sarah the homosexuals started trying to make the absurd normal, not me. And no one has denied them their right’s. Gay men have the same right to marry women as I do. Gay women have the same right to marry men as you do.”
Trees, it is YOU who are trying to make the absurd normal (not that “normal” even exists. I think you mean “traditional”).
The fact is, homosexuality & bisexuality (I know you’re not going to want to hear this) is absolutely normal and part of the animal kingdom.
If you don’t believe me, try National Geographic.
By the way, the American Bald Eagle is an endangered species– the human race is hardly so.
Let me know when you answer those pesky questions of mine.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
If we base our decisions on feelings and things we love to do, then Pandora ’s Box is opened, that’s the basis of my argument.
If you want to argue against homosexual marriage, argue against homosexual marriage. This slippery slope stuff is meaningless. The slippery slope arguments always start where the person making the argument wants it to. I could use your same argumentation, starting one step earlier than you, to say we should do away with marriage altogether.
‘If we allow a man and woman to marry, are you ready for polygamy? Because that’s coming next brother.’
December 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Amen, Eric. Preach it, brother.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
By the way, the American Bald Eagle is an endangered species– the human race is hardly so.
And so that makes human life less valuable.
I think maybe I’m getting it now, thanks Sarah.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Nope. I didn’t establish the marriage covenant, God did.
The starting point for the slope was established before I was born, I just understand that it exists.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Nope. I didn’t establish the marriage covenant, God did.
If marriage is just a God thing, then what business does the government have doing things like granting marriage licenses? Why aren’t folks railing against folks married in civil ceremonies?
The God part of marriage isn’t really what is up for debate. Plenty of churches marry same sex couples, so clearly there are Christians who disagree with your view, even if it were a religious question.
Same sex married folks just want the same rights as a couple that a heterosexual couple married in a civil ceremony have.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
None
Yes
It depends on the curriculum, and no as I believe this is a parental authority issue. The children don’t belong to the state, and the state shouldn’t be openly promoting sexual intercourse.
Donating money, and spending time discussing my beliefs to any interested party or individual.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
To those of you who brought up the Iraq questions and the capital punishement questions….Why would you think that anti-abortion people aren’t concerned about these deaths as well as abortion? The fact is the subject of this essay was abortion. So why talk about Iraq and capital punishment? All are wrong and one is no more wrong that the other. To deny that an unborn child is human is a fairly unsophisticated argument not even worthy of consideration by intelligent people.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hi um cara. I see you read the old post, so there’s nothing new under the sun here today.
We can respectfully disagree. I hope you’re doing well, and I mean that sincerely, your friend trees
December 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Should we allow polygamy?
Why not?
They just want the same governmental goodies the married folks have.
It’s a fair question
December 5th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
We can respectfully disagree.
If you stop comparing homosexuals with those who engage in bestiality, we can respectfully disagree. Otherwise I see you as grossly insulting some friends I care about very much.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Here’s the root of the problem.
Don’t you think homosexual marriage is grossly insulting to those who hold a traditional Christian view?
Don’t you think we have the right to raise our children and instill our values in them?
Being called bigoted, hateful, and evil because we don’t agree with their practice, that’s not insulting?
Being demeaned for our religious views is not insulting?
December 5th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The polygamists will be the next group to be grossly insulted.
Who are we to tell them they’re not normal?
Watch and see
Californians voted.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The civil rights argument doesn’t hold water.
We are not talking about racism
We are talking about behavior
You don’t think the African American is insulted when his plight is lumped into the homosexual activist’s agenda?
Skin color cannot be changed, behavior can
December 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“Do I have your permission to destroy American Bald Eagle eggs?”
I can’t authorize that, but if you want to destroy eagle eggs, I can’t stop you. Let me know how that goes for ya.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Trees, why is homosexual marriage grossly insulting to those who hold a traditional Christian view?
Are you saying that if two homosexuals want to live next door to you, but not get married , then you have no problem with it? But if they want to file a joint income tax return, then its insulting to you?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Also, what difference is there in the values you instill in your children if the homosexuals living next door to you are married or not?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Trees- perhaps you don’t know the definition of viable- capable of growing and developing, capable of existence and development as an independent unit, having a reasonable(not extreme or excessive) chance of succeeding. A baby that is brought to term is viable outside the womb, in that his/her organs have developed enough to sustain independent life. A baby can breathe, his lungs are mature enough to pass gasses through the bloodstream. A fetus is a medical term, if taken out of the womb, would not be able to breathe on its own not even with a respirator. While a baby still requires care, a baby is develpoed enough to live and breathe on its own. There is a big difference. There is no chance to feed and care for the fetus, once it is detached from the womb, it will die.
You cannot dehumanize a fetus, it is a medical term used to describe a developing mammal after the embrionic stage and before birth. (medical, that’s part of science) A fetus has no individuality, compassion or civility.
“the children don’t belong to the state” so if the state has no authority to supply information to children, how does the government have the right to tell me what I can do with my body? or decide who can marry and who can’t? Besides, sexual education is exactly what it implies, understanding of the human body, differences in sexes(not the acts), how the body works, how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it. Sexual intercourse is not the primary function of sexual education in schools.
“If we base our decisions on feelings and things we love to do…” That’s a ridiculous statement to make when arguing against same-sex marriage, isn’t that the main reason heterosexuals get married? Where’s Pandora now?
December 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The main reason hetero’s get married is to acknowledge and legally solidify an environment for childbearing.
This is why hetero’s have been recognized for ever, and homosexuals have not. They are an aberration, they can not procreate.
That’s why you have to redefine reality, because reality does not conform to your views.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
You cannot dehumanize a fetus, it is a medical term used to describe a developing mammal after the embrionic stage and before birth. (medical, that’s part of science) A fetus has no individuality, compassion or civility.
That statement is dehumanizing.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Here is the Champion of the planned parenthood crowd,
Have a look. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
December 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Don’t you think homosexual marriage is grossly insulting to those who hold a traditional Christian view?
No, I do not. I don’t think your specific church should be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, however. Do you find marriages by those who do not marry in the church grossly insulting? That would seem to be much more insulting than Christian homosexuals who marry.
Don’t you think we have the right to raise our children and instill our values in them?
Yes
Being called bigoted, hateful, and evil because we don’t agree with their practice, that’s not insulting?
I, at least, have not done that. I don’t think you bigoted, hateful or evil because you don’t agree with homosexual conduct. I do find you bigoted and hateful when you equate homosexuality with bestiality. I also find you ignorant when you make such comparisons (which somewhat offsets the bigotry and hatefulness).
Being demeaned for our religious views is not insulting?
Could you point out where I have ever demeaned anyone for their religious views? The one example I can think of (which I have pointed out, and apologized for before) was when I made fun of Palin for believing in witchcraft. I was ignorant of the fact that many evangelicals believe in witchcraft. When I was informed of the fact that many evangelicals believe in witchcraft, and thus relieved of my ignorance, I apologized and refrained from teasing Palin about witchcraft.
If I and others explain to you that bestiality and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other, thus correcting your ignorance, will you apologize and refrain from future comparisons?
December 5th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Trees,
The main reason hetero’s get married is to acknowledge and legally solidify an environment for childbearing.
I know many folks who marry without plans for children. Should they not have married?
This is why hetero’s have been recognized for ever, and homosexuals have not. They are an aberration, they can not procreate.
There aren’t enough humans on the planet? We all have to procreate to be good little people? I don’t have any kids, am I an aberration?
That’s why you have to redefine reality, because reality does not conform to your views.
Huh?
December 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
They are an aberration, they can not procreate.
Are infertile men and women an aberration as well? Should they ask God for forgiveness for their inability to procreate? Will he grant forgiveness for their infertility, or are aberrations beyond forgiveness? (I’m pretty sure He forgives all those who sincerely ask for forgiveness and are repentant, but I’m not 100% sure these aberrant sterile folks are OK with Him or not. Aberrations are pretty bad… Yes, I’m extremely irritated and sarcastic, in case you were wondering. I am however curious as to your view on these aberrant sterile folks, however)
December 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“They are an aberration, they can not procreate.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Perhaps you should inform the animal kingdom that they are indulging in amoral behavior.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Tdro,
Why do you think they are called ‘fruit’ bats?
December 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Um cara,
Ok, I will try and refrain from bestiality references when attempting to make a point; I do have respect for you.
I am not trying to provoke you by submitting the following two verses, I am attempting to show you that my arguments have some basis, these verses are in order and show that historically there is linkage, that immoral behaviors when accepted give rise to further immoral depravity.
I know you don’t like slippery slope arguments, but they do exist and there is a reason, it is reasonable to believe the slide will continue once it begins, that’s my opinion, and it’s supported above.
At some point the societal consciousness shifted in relation to the institution of marriage, and the reasons for being married have been refocused.
No, you are not an aberration. I don’t discuss end times prophecy with unbelievers or Christians I am not really familiar with, but your question regarding overpopulation should raise concerns for everyone.
That was directed towards those who hold post modern worldviews
December 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Um Cara,
There’s no need for my comment, it would have been exactly what you said. Although, I would like to know how you legally solidify an environment? I believe there are many children living in a solid environment without the legality of marriage. Does that make them less of a child? I don’t understand the redefining of reality either. In my reality I see and know many gay people, I don’t believe I made them up. They actually exist.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
You might be interested in this article I found Tdro
“Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior.
Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
1. There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,
2. It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.”
December 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I don’t discuss end times prophecy with unbelievers or Christians I am not really familiar with, but your question regarding overpopulation should raise concerns for everyone.
I wasn’t talking about overpopulation, I was just stating that there are enough people to not be concerned that every one of us procreate. I think it is really creepy when people start talking about population limitations and such – We’ll figure out how to feed the ‘extra’ folks (and no baby is ‘extra’). It’s politics, not overpopulation that causes starvation.
I will try and refrain from bestiality references when attempting to make a point; I do have respect for you.
I appreciate that, and your arguments will be much stronger without such baggage.
But have you ever had a good friend who was homosexual? If so, why not refrain from bestiality comparisons out of respect to them, instead of me. I’m really not worthy of a whole lotta respect – I’m pretty unrespectable ; )
I apologize for my earlier sarcasm.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I believe there are many children living in a solid environment without the legality of marriage. Does that make them less of a child?
It makes their situation less secure, a parent can walk out very easily.
If a marriage less environment is superior why don’t we see that trumpeted as the ideal?
Why don’t you champion the dissolution of marriage?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I have known people who are homosexual, but I have never had a homosexual friend, meaning, I have never socially interacted in anything other than a casual way.
I told you about the guy that worked at the deli in NYC, he would flirt with me and I would find him humorous, plus he would load me up with whatever I was buying.
I never felt threatened and I never felt sexually insecure.
There was another guy that worked in a grocery store, and he would come and put my arm in his and lead me on a tour of the store specials, I never recoiled, and he never made a further advance, it was just him acting out his personality.
I have never felt hatred for them, and these experiences were prior to my becoming a Christian.
You had asked me earlier about the ten commandments, and I had prepared this,
Well, actually my interpretation is that they are listed in order of priority.
The first four are in relation to God directly, the fifth applies to our parents, His appointed representatives and the final five pertain to our conduct with our siblings, the brotherhood of man
You are right; there is no direct admonition against homosexuality in these commandments.
However I don’t view the commandments as existing within a vacuum.
Earlier in the book we are given God’s clear instruction regarding his ordained roles as pertaining to sexual relations, “therefore a man, (one) shall leave his father and mother, (heterosexual couple), and be joined to his wife, (one) and they shall become one flesh.
Now if we go back to the commandments we see #7,
You shall not commit adultery.
My interpretation is that this applies to all sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant as outlined in Genesis, one man and one woman, any sexual activity outside of marriage is adultery, and fornication also falls into this category.
So, while homosexuality isn’t specifically mentioned, it’s covered by the broader interpretation.
Ultimately I won’t be deciding the issue, so it’s just my opinion.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I can relate, I’m pretty wretched myself.
No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I’m also guilty of that at times, sometimes I allow things to bother me and I forget the God who I serve.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
And who are you, Trees, to determine what is “irrational behavior” in man?
Why do homosexuals bother you? Do they not pay their fair share of taxes? Are you afraid they are going to “turn you gay”? Are you afraid homosexuality is contagious?
I don’t understand why you want to deprive them the happiness they so desperately want.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Alan,
In one of your previous posts, you brought up religious symbols–trees, nativity scenes, menorahs, etc.–or the atheist position of none on public property.
While I am not taking a position on the merits of “gift certificates” provided by Planned Parenthood, I question the symbolism of Christmas in the background. Should anything related to a “religion”, even part of a Christmas tree, be part of the promotion when public (government) funding is provided to Planned Parenthood?
Once again, I think it would be interesting to have Betty Cockrum of Planned Parenthood of Indiana as a guest.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
By they way, Trees, what do you think of Newt “Mr. Morality” Gingrich? He’s had so many mistresses he’s lost count. Doesn’t is say somewhere in the bible something about adultry?
Seems to me many of the right wingers love to use the bible as a tool against homosexuality, but not against adultry.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
TDRO,
We have not “murdered hundreds of thousands of people” in Iraq.
Why do you seem to get so angry if you don’t agree with my comments?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The Bible is a very good tool to use to explain irrational behavior. God has set the rules to live by. I guess you could say that the Bible is the owners manual that God has given us to help us through life.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
TDRO,
It seems to me that left wingers want to make it appear that simply because you are conservative and have faith that you HAVE to be perfect.
WRONG
Noone is perfect except one. When you throw that up it really is juvenile.
Humans are mammals, not just animals and we actually have a much higher level of reasoning so we can discern right from wrong. I don’t smack a mouse around for fun like my cat. And I don’t know anyone who goes around humping legs.
Comparing us to animals is a cop out.
Abortion should not be a solution for unwatned pregnancies, birth control and or abstinence should. Nor should abortion be pushed as a solution for overpopulation.
I don’t know anyone who says “gee, I want a kid I think I’ll get married”. People get married for a lot of different reasons, but I don’t think having kids is at the top.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
We were created in God’s image and given dominion over the animal kingdom.
There is a pure solution to unwanted pregnancies. It is called abstinence. Try it. It works everytime. I can guarantee it.
OK, before all you libs get your knickers all bunched up, let me say this. I know human nature won’t allow everyone to have total self control so some form of birth control should be used. But I am not referring to the “day after” pill, whatever it is called.
But, if you don’t want a baby then don’t do the act.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I don’t determine it Tdro, I interpret it. Determination implies a determiner, who then should be our determiner, who is our moral authority?
They don’t. This doesn’t mean I approve, why is that concept so hard?
I am concerned for them as well as for society.
Have you ever actually considered them?
Or do you just grab the banner and wave it?
I don’t believe the vast majority of them are born that way, it’s a behavioral condition, and is caused by a variety of factors. They also suffer from a wide variety of other problems, besides their sexuality.
We all pay taxes, even the immoral adulterers
No.
Like a disease? No. It’s a behavior, is it a mental illness? Quite a few people in the mental health community think so.
Am I trying to insult homosexuals?
No.
Alcoholism and substance abuse are behaviors and also are classified as mental health issues.
Is its popularity influencing young people to consider it?
Well, if you look at our culture it is quickly rising in popularity, its mainstream acceptance is becoming widespread, a lot like drug abuse.
Is it healthy for our society to promote it? I don’t think so, that’s my honest opinion.
No one is depriving them; society is attempting to adhere to its long held standard.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Do I condone adultery?
No.
Why did you fail to mention Bill Clinton?
December 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
why do so many believe that the larger portion of a civilization should “change” to make a smaller portion of a civilization “happy” and feel as if they are being treated “fairly”?
I, for one, don’t agree with abortion. I think I am in the majority. many think abortion is cool and a “choice”. They want to force their opinion on me by giving “gift” certificates to customers for Christmas “presents”. I don’t like that, but they still want me to conform to what they think is right.
I don’t see any law telling homosexuals they can’t be homosexuals. Granted, the army has don’t ask don’t tell. Really, why do you need to announce your sexual persuasion in the first place?
I do see a law that has been in place since the foundation of our contry (to my knowledge), and an even greater law derived from a book that many use to guide their lives. It teaches and I (along with millions of others, including people in california) believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.
Now why is it so hard to accept that most want the law to stay the same? Aren’t you supposedly the party of acceptance? And shouldn’t you be leaning more to the center since you obviously elected a centrist?
Just curious
December 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
the bible condones polygamy so I guess we’ll have to allow it.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Trees,
<b… is it a mental illness? Quite a few people in the mental health community think so.
Not really. There are very few psychologists who consider it a mental illness – I’m guessing the ones that do hang out with the ’scientists’ who think creationism is a viable scientific theory.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
T. Mason said:
I, for one, don’t agree with abortion. I think I am in the majority. many think abortion is cool and a “choice”.
Everyone out there who thinks abortion is ‘cool’, speak up.
I don’t see any law telling homosexuals they can’t be homosexuals. Granted, the army has don’t ask don’t tell. Really, why do you need to announce your sexual persuasion in the first place?
Do people know you are heterosexual? How would you like to have to keep a huge part of your life a secret just to stay in the military? It isn’t a matter of ‘announcing’ something, it is a matter of having to be a secret agent, covering your tracks, living in fear that someone might discover that you are a chick that digs chicks (or dude that digs dudes). Don’t ask don’t tell is lame and cruel.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Trees: “This is why hetero’s have been recognized for ever, and homosexuals have not. They are an aberration, they can not procreate.”
I can’t stand you anymore. This isn’t the first time I heard you say this, but it’s going to be the last.
What about the people who can’t procreate and they get married anyway? Does that make them an aberration in God’s eyes to you? Huh? If heteros can’t procreate? Because that’s EXACTLY what you’re saying is the litmus test for marriage. And anything who can’t procreate is a natural “aberration.”
You seriously need to re-think the religion you’re practicing, if this is the kind of crap they’re shoveling in your congregation.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Or maybe YOUR god (whatever god that could be, because I certainly don’t recognize it) signifies his disapproval of some women by making them infertile?
That it, Trees?
So infertile women, just shouldn’t marry?
Or can they adopt?
And if they can adopt, why can’t two married guys or two married girls (many of whom, unlike some hetero women, CAN get pregnant)?
Whatever. I’m done with you for awhile.
December 6th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I see, discredit anyone who disagrees;
Meet Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position.
Meet astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of his extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe.
There is also Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory, and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.
Another case of censorship in American universities has come to light. In September 2007, Baylor University took offline the Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory website that had been administered by Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, because the administration claimed there were anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design.
This is the third instance in which Baylor University has restricted free speech and punished a faculty member because of their views on intelligent design.
In 2000, the University administration caved in to pressure from Darwinian activists demanding they shut down the Michael Polanyi Research Center, established in part to do research on intelligent design theory.
In 2006, legal scholar Francis Beckwith was denied tenure by Baylor administrators in part because of his writings supporting the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design.
The Board of Regents reversed that decision and Beckwith was granted tenure, but only after a long public battle.
Casey Luskin, a spokesman for Discovery Institute, America’s leading think tank on intelligent design, says: ‘There is a troubling pattern of scientists and scholars at Baylor University coming under attack for questioning evolution. The freedom of scientists, teachers and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.
‘What has happened to Professor Marks is censorship, pure and simple.’
Dr Marks has gone the extra mile in trying to accommodate any legitimate concerns Baylor administrators may have had about his evolutionary informatics website, even agreeing to put a disclaimer on the site making clear that it represented his views as a faculty member, not the university as a whole.
But Baylor administrators have now spurned Marks’ efforts to accommodate them, apparently reneging on a compromise brokered by Marks’ attorney.
But scientists who support intelligent design shouldn’t be surprised at their predicament. Before the particular subset of anti-Darwinism known as ‘intelligent design’ arrived on the scene, creationist scientists had been systematically persecuted for decades, and still are today.
For example, when Dr Marcus Ross, a young paleontologist at the University of Rhode Island, submitted his doctoral thesis on mosasaurs—giant extinct marine reptiles—he was ‘outed’ as a young-Earth creationist.
The revelation, in The New York Times, sparked an impassioned debate about whether his views should preclude him from his chosen profession.
The fact that he is a brilliant scientist, whose research is described by colleagues as impeccable, seemed irrelevant to the orthodox Darwinists, who called for him to be sacked simply because he expresses different scientific views to theirs.
Is academic censorship also taking place in the UK? If anything, it’s probably worse on Darwin’s home patch.
Mark Pickering, head of student ministries at the Christian Medical Fellowship, says that there is systematic bias in the scientific world against intelligent design:
‘I have academic colleagues who do not yet have tenure who cannot own up to their professors that they have sympathy with intelligent design because that would be the end of their career. This is despite them already proving themselves as good scientists’ (Student British Medical Journal, June 07).
In December 2006, The Guardian reported that an influential group of academics were demanding a change in the law to ensure UK scholars are given complete freedom of speech in universities.
More than 60 educators from Academics for Academic Freedom called for laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to ‘question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions’.
In today’s political climate it is harder than ever for academics to defend open debate.—Academics for Academic Freedom
A statement on the AFAF website says:
‘In today’s political climate it is harder than ever for academics to defend open debate. Restrictive legislation, and the bureaucratic rules and regulations of government quangos and of universities themselves, have undermined academic freedom.
‘Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions. Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship.’
The very fact that such a campaign is necessary seems to prove that free debate and research in the UK are under threat.
Richard Dawkins has publicly called for Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds to be sacked simply for claiming evolutionary theory is wrong. (Note: the title ‘professor’ is given only to the highest academic rank at UK and British Commonwealth universities, unlike in American universities.)
Howard Taylor, chaplain at Heriot–Watt University in Edinburgh, says: ‘At Caltech University in Los Angeles, a lecturer has complained that the scientific hierarchy is behaving like the “mother church” of the Middle Ages and intimidating those of a different view.’
While the lecturer was talking about scientific dissent on global warming, it appears that the comparison is just as applicable to evolution.
It seems the scientific establishment has nullified the Royal Society’s motto: ‘Nullius in verba’1 , which refers to open, unprejudiced, uninhibited inquiry and unstifled debate.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Those who have kept track of homosexuality’s status in American society know that homosexuality was taken out of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM list of mental disorders back in 1973.
This laconic defense ignores problems with the decision.
Even sympathizers with the APA’s decision admit that politics, rather than science, was the chief reason for removal.
Gay gene proponent Simon LeVay concedes, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.”
Also, the final tally was not impressive. The vote was 5,584 to 3,810 out of about 30,000 APA members, meaning that only about 37 percent of the APA took part in the decision.
In total, only approximately 20 percent of the organization actually said yes to removal, meaning that as much as 80 percent of the APA in 1973 might have opposed removal.
Furthermore, the decision did not fully eradicate psychology’s condemnation of this now acceptable act, as “ego-dystonic homosexuality” remained on the books until the 1980s.
Yet, as Dr. David S. Holmes noted, “because of changes in social norms and strong political pressures … homosexuality was not listed as a disorder.”
In other words, not science, but politics, was the chief factor.
Even APA elites condemn that portion of the political intrusion into psychology, with the current APA President Gerald P. Koocher stating at a town hall meeting, “APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.”
Many have said homosexuality is acceptable because the homosexual does not feel distress over his or her sexual orientation.
From the 1973 decision and to this very day, that argument has been used extensively and advanced continually as seen with gay parades, movies and of course organizations who name themselves “Pride” Alliance.
However, just because an individual does not directly feel distress over a disorder does not make the disorder normal.
There are a whole host of mental disorders known as ego-syntonic disorders.
An ego-syntonic disorder is a mental disorder in which the sufferer considers their disorder to be crucial to their sense of self.
Individuals who suffer from an ego-syntonic disorder seldom feel distress directly.
Homosexuality would not be the only ego-syntonic paraphilia, as frotteurism and voyeurism have ego-syntonic variations.
Others have argued that homosexuality is genetic and therefore cannot be any more unnatural than being red-haired or black.
Now, the argument of a genetic origin for homosexuality is dubious unto itself, but assuming the claim is true would make no difference.
Several disorders, including Down syndrome, depression and schizophrenia, have genetic origins.
None of these disorders are being taken out of the current DSM-IV.
So, if these various reasons for keeping homosexuality out of the DSM list of paraphilias are poor, are there good reasons for putting it back?
There are three characteristics found in every mental disorder: extent of distress, impairment in life and abnormality of behavior.
Granted these earmarks for disorder are often socially constructed, but still one can feasibly have homosexuality fit all three.
Regarding distress, there are plenty of homosexuals who do not desire their sexual orientation.
On the ego-syntonic level, homosexuality has been shown to be co-morbid with borderline personality disorder and gender identity disorder.
Impairment would involve social requirements being missed.
This can be applied to individuals who are able to perform the cross-culturally required reproduction and continuation of the community but do not because they feel mentally unable to.
Abnormality of behavior is obvious, given the strong correlates with counterculture, various drug excesses, and Gender Identity Disorder, or as I see it, the next disorder to be taken out of the DSM because of politics.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
No one is persecuting homosexuals, they can freely practice their lifestyle choice, and the issue is the redefinition of marriage.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
UM,
If i don’t like the morality clause of a company I choose not to work for that company. I would never, as a nurse assist with an abortion…period, nor would I work at planned parenthood. If you are gay, and don’t like the military’s stance on it then don’t go to work for them. There are other ways to serve your country.
Lots of women think the option of getting an abortion is “cool”. I have friends, yes friends who I completely disagree with who have said and I quote,”Oh well, if I accidently get pregnant I know I can just get it taken care of”.
Lame lame lame
December 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
It is a baby before it is born. Whoever came up with that cockamamy idea is one fry short of a happy meal. What is it in the womb? A cat, dog, worm, fish? It is a HUMAN BABY.
Saying otherwise just makes it easier to take their life.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Why did you fail to mention Bill Clinton?”
Because Bill Clinton never claimed to be part of the “moral majority”. Newt Gingrich led the prosecution of Clinton for his “immoral behavior” while at the same time, Newt was cheating on his wife.
Talk about right wing hypocracy
December 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Sarah~ not trying to be emotional, just would like an answer to my question. I really don’t understand how someone would want to save the life of someone who has wrecked a family but has no qualms about killing a baby. Why can’t someone explain this to me?? I’ve asked this question before and not one person gave me an answer.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I see, discredit anyone who disagrees;
It’s not me discrediting them, it is the vast majority of folks in their fields. The contrarian view is the correct one sometimes, for example when Galileo went against the then current orthodox view and stated that the sun was at the center of the solar system (which contradicted what the bible supposedly said – so he was imprisoned by the church). I guess the church has decided by now that everything isn’t revolving around the earth (or have they?).
However, whether it is psychology or the natural sciences you seem to think the folks on the fringes are correct and everyone else is wrong. I certainly am not going to go as far as the church did with Galileo and suggest these contarians be imprisoned for holding their kooky views – but I’m not going to assume that the vast majority of scientists and psychologists are wrong either.
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
and the issue is the redefinition of marriage.
No it isn’t. Some churches marry homosexuals, and they are married whether the government gives the rights and responsibilities or not. The issue is equal civil rights and responsibilities for homosexual and heterosexual married couples.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
It’s not baby until it’s born. until then, it’s a fetus, zygot, embryo, what ever.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
Choice is the definition of freedom.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Choice” in this topic is murder.
What do you call something with a beating heart? How can a baby be removed at a very early state in pregnancy and survive not be a living human being?
If you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I agree, Willy, Everybody agrees that if you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant. The problem is the right is advocating abstinence and it just doesn’t work (case in point; Palin’s daughter).
Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, “gee, this is a great day to have an abortion”. Many teens who become pregnant are scared and are looking for any way out.
If abortion was illegal, many of these women would resort to back-alley tactics and end up losing thier own lives along with the life of the baby.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I must correct you on one point, TDRO. Abstinence does work every time. Guaranteed.
Those back alley abortions should be enough to scare the dickens out of kids who are thinking of being permiscuous.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The earliest term baby I know of to survive was born at 21 weeks, 5 days. He was born in Canada. He was saved using conventional life-support methods available in NICU units across the country.
To say that a “fetus’ isn’t a human life just because they can’t breathe without help is the same as saying someone in respiratory arrest who can’t breathe on their own is worthless and not a real human life.
to deny care or to insist that simply because they require care they aren’t important when they are born early or via botched abortions is barbaric and not conducive with a supposedly “civilized” population.
I might add that while capable, a full term fetus may not always begin “breathing” on their own once delivered because of idopathic stenosis of the ductus arteriosus. Does that mean that infants who have this very common birth defect aren’t viable simply because they are biologically incapable of delivering oxygenated blood through their body?
Continue de-humanizing these tiny humans. It only demonstrates a clear disregard for humanity.
December 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
-Faith
Birth Control is not 100% effective? Come On seriously!!!! the pill is 99.7% effective, Condoms 92%, Withdraw ~90%, no protection 27% effective, Combining multiple forms of birth control 99.996% Effective!
You can argue that my numbers are incorrect, but my point is as follows: Clearly too many people are relying on abortions as a means of birth control![1.37 Million (1996) ]
Like i previously stated there is no excuse for women recieving multiple abortions….! And don’t give me the rape excuse-Rape is a horrible thing and no normal person disputes that abortion is justified for rape victims/or when health is an issue.
Just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it ok… just no illegal, so how about not using abortion as birthcontrol! Please limit how many abortions one person can have performed as this will please both left and right wingers! GB.USA
December 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Why am I not surprised that Colmes isn’t upset over giving someone a gift certificate to kill a baby, for a Christmas present?!?!? After all, he was defending statutory rapists on his show last night….
December 6th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
All I can assume is that Alan Colmes does not believe in Freedom of Speech, at least, from those who submit what he does not agree with. Do the words offend? Do they convict or are they simply annoying to someone who has an agenda different than Mine?
Very well. I will offer the concept once more for those who have ears to hear:
Planned Parenthood is offering the chance to give someone the gift of the death of a child to celebrate Christmas, which represents when I gave the Gift of My Son for this world. Interesting concept and direct proof to how far this country has fallen. What’s next? You can give gifts to bring forth the death of old people, perhaps, a Jew or a black person in your neighborhood? When will it stop? It all reflects the hearts of the people in the United States who now celebrate death by offering it through a gift card. And I’m not suppose to comment? Alan, son, you are accountable for all the people who you lead astray. Is it your job to silence Truth and what are the consequences? Can you bear the consequences? And to whose heart is due the punishment for the children left unborn – snuffed out in the womb? The “womb” which is the United States begins to cave and abort its child – you and you writhe and complain about the injustice of it. At least, you were afforded Truth to avoid this abortion – the child within the womb, innocent and vulnerable is offered nothing. Do you crave life? Do you hope to see a new day tomorrow? Does your blood flow surely and fully each hour? How are you different from a child in the womb? Abortion comes…… Mark My Words. Where can you hide? There is only One hiding place, you will discover which is safe from the Judgment to come. ONLY ONE. And that is the One you despise.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Atomaino-
Thank-you, you confirmed my statement. Birth control is not 100% effective. Period. There have been many people that have gotten pregnant while using birth control. My daughter was on the pill when she became pregnant. I have a friend who got pregnant using the IUD.
As I said before, I DO NOT advocate multiple abortions. I DO NOT advocate abortion as a form of birth control. I will give you the rape excuse, clearly, I stated that as one reason a woman might get an abortion. If it was illegal they would not have that option.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:51 am
lord god almighty-
Surely, if you are almighty, a few spam filters wouldn’t get in your way.
If you are all powerful, you have the ability to stop planned parenthood or any other clinic that may offer abortions. Or you just let your soldiers do your dirty work for you and allow them to bomb clinics and kill doctors. That’s okay.
The United States is one of many states that abortion is legal. Why fixate on the U.S.? Where is your concern for the children dying in Darfur? Sudan? Zimbabwe? and the many, many other countries whose children are dying daily?
UNICEF stats
26,500 children die every day worlwide(5 yrs. and younger)
The stats are significantly higher if you add older children
1 child dies every second
by poverty, hunger, easily preventable dieases/illnesses, lack of hygiene and access to water.
These stats do not reflect child murders.
1999 stats by The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspective
61% of the world population allows for abortion
115,000 abortions worldwide
3,700 in US (they have been declining)
37.4% abortions by women indentifying themselves as protestants
31.3% identify as catholics
1.3% identify as jewish
23.7% no religious affiliation
18% born-again/evangelicals
52% of abortions occur before the 9th week.
Seems to me most of the religious folks are the ones having the abortions. I think money, time, energy would be better spent worrying about the many children of this world who do have individuality, live, breath, laugh, cry, have compassion, feel pain and are dying every day at the hands of parents, custodians, lack of food, lack of water, diseases, these children need our help more. You want to talk about dehumanizing, this is the outrage you should be defending.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Statistics don’t make it right, or cool, or okay. If you listed statistics for why murderers commit murders or what background they come from the argument would be just as silly.
It doesn’t matter WHO is getting them.
As for your assanine argument that REAL children live, breath, laugh, cry, fell pain, and die….do you not know that babies in the womb breathe (though differently from us), feel pain, react to stimuli, LIVE and die?
Guess not. And i fell outrage anytime anytone tries to take away the sacredness of life….from conception.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:42 am
If it’s IN the womb, it’s not a baby.
Just because ONE infant survived at a very early birth, doesn’t mean that most will or can.
The ICU used much more that usual and standard techniques to save it; exaggerating you claims doesn’t work around here.
If god doesn’t want abortions you’d think he’d have mentioned it in the bible. He didn’t.
That, of course, doesn’t stop the arrogant and self-righteous from ‘correcting’ god’s mistakes. They know better that he; right?
December 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
My husband I and are on the opposite side of the fence on this and not the one you would think.And Im going to tell you men what I tell him. Oh there Is LIFE in there I can feel and I dont mean when it starts kicking .A mother knows. So all men shut the hell up because you dont know.That why GOD picked us to do such an important job.Erma Bomback said this is the on time we get to share. in a miracle with God.And that is what it is.I know you libs think its your right to choose. But Im on the Baby the miracle and Gods side.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
T. Mason-
Just as it was important which party was throwing around the family values issue, while Gov. Palins’ daughter was pregnant, ministers and priests involved in their sexcapades, it is important to know who the majority is that’s having abortions. While I’m sure it upsets you to know that the highest percentage of abortions are by people of faith, it pleases me to know your high morality that you preach isn’t any better than my own or people without any religious background or us folk with no morals would be having all the abortions. That’s why it’s important to know.
And while I appreciate you noting my post, I would appreciate it even more if you didn’t misquote me. If you reread my post, I never said REAL children, I said, the MANY children. Neither did I say abortions were “cool”.
I don’t consider my argument to be asinine. I’m not trying to take away any value of a fetus. My sole concern is there are exceptions to every rule. If abortion was not legal at all, it would not be available for the many women who may have the need. Furthermore, religion is the crux of the argument and as in many other posts on here, religion has no place in deciding laws of our government.
By the by, your god sure doesn’t have any problem with murdering children as seen many times in the verses of your bible. So don’t talk to me about what’s sacred.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I wonder how I can get a bunch of these gift certificates? I would send them to the many girls who were molested, raped, and impregnated by their daddy or other “significant other” male partner in the house of their mother. That way, the girls wouldn’t have to consider asking someone to get them the money to do away with the obscene bunch of cells that their rapist deposited inside their unprepared and unwilling bodies.
Anyone who wants to make abortions unavailable or even more difficult for young people to access have never faced that agony. Try it on for size….it’s ugly, and all too often…there.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Give me statistics on how many women who get abortions really are raped or victims of incest? Let’s break it down and get the real nitty gritty.
And I wonder, just wonder how many of you would actually PERFORM an abortion? You never forget the sound of the sucking machine, nor the depression and grief the woman feels afterwards. I wonder how many of you would preach to those of us who are pro-life if you actually saw one in person?
December 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
boogieman,
I have cared for MANY MANY pre-term infants in the NICU. The technology is amazing and saves MANY pre-term babies.
You are wrong. What exactly is in the womb if it isn’t a baby? A worm, a snake or a dog?
December 7th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Something about privacy…and that’s what it’s all about.
We don’t know and shouldn’t know. Those who are raped may, or may not press charges. It is their choice. It is their choice that they terminate the pregnancy…in private. That is what the argument is all about. Privacy and choice..options, if you will. I have seen the depression of the after….I have heard the sucking sound…..I will still preach the privacy and choice of those who have that right.
I won’t forget that sound….for I believe about abortiona as you probably do, but I also know what it means to support someone else at times when they need support and not judgment.
And, I will never forget that tragedy, but I will not deny others the right to privacy and choice…it is not my right to do so.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Well then, it should be a private matter anytime anyone decides to snuff out a life to suit them.
Did you know for instance that more women who are raped and have abortions do NOT press charges? did you know that nurse at planned parenthood who urged the undercover girl to LIE about how old the fake guy was so she could get the abortion and the authorities wouldn’t have to be called in broke the law?
Nice work they do over there.
I find it ironic that the same people who say those on death row have the right to live don’t offer the same rights to the unborn.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Mason, I applaud your work. My son was born at 2 lbs 12 ounces in 1972. The neonatel work was in it’s own infancy. The marvelous work at the University of Washington saved the little guy’s life…and he ended up playing tight end in high school….and now is a computer tech.
My daughter taught me the term, “date rape” and we went through a tragedy that I have already said too much about. I applaud your work and opinion, but cannot support the abolition of the right to chose.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
robert,
Please know that I do not take off the table extreme cases. I have a daughter too. but I do not and cannot in good conscience support any woman who uses abortion as birth control…and the majority do.
I do find it offensive that many act like it is not a big deal to have an abortion, like it’s just going to the doctor. They have obviously never known anyone who went through that.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
While the mojority of abortions are elective. There is no way to know the exact percentage of rape/incest victims that choose abortion. The statistics of these are shady at best. Some people don’t report the rape, and as most incest happens to young girls most of them are unreported as well.
And T. Mason, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to put all people that work at PP in the same category.
Look, I applaud your work as well. The problem still remains, if abortion was not legal it would not be available for the people that need it.
I have had three miscarriages, I know the pain of losing a pregnancy, the procedure is the same for an abortion, I know the mechanics as well. I still stand my ground and say it is private and personal and people should have the right to choose.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
T. Mason:
I don’t care if you are offended and/or disgusted. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one – simple as that.
In response to T.Mason,
I don’t care if you are offended and/or disgusted by murder. If you don’t agree with murder, don’t kill anyone – simple as that. Do you understand the flaw in your arguement?
December 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
The problem is that life begins at conception but that tiny person is incapable of defending himself/herself. Think something is not a life until it looks like it will when it is finished developing? Just try breaking that bald eagle egg and tell the judge that it wasn’t a bald eagle, yet. See how far it takes you. I see people condemning for war and capitol punishment where people are capable of running or fighting (war) or where people destroyed other peoples’ lives, sometimes without any reason, and made their choice. I see the same people vehemently arguing that women should have the right to snuff out the lives of helpless innocents who can’t run, can’t defend themselves, and have never done anything to anyone (including babies that are the product of rape, they are not at fault. Find the daddy and kill him). I am not saying that war is right in all cases. I do know that at times it is unavoidable and necessary and that at least people usually have some chance of getting out of the way. Unborn babies don’t have that option. As far as the question way back about how do you kill something that hasn’t been born, yet, it doesn’t have to have been born to be alive.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
As far as the whole marriage thing, I agree that it could be insulting to compare homosexuals with those who use animals. I find it equally insulting that homosexuals think that they need to take marriage and use it to define what they do. They say that there is no comparison. I agree. There is also no comparison between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man. The arguments that you would then here could be applied to compare homosexuality and bestiality. I don’t think they quite fit but neither do I think that comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality fits. It is indeed true that once you take down the barrier, you have opened the door. Those who engage in acts of bestiality would protest that what they do is perfectly normal, too. That you can also see that in nature. Then that becomes a legal marriage, too. Polygamists would say that what they do is perfectly normal and that you can see that in nature and then that becomes legal. Where does it stop? Who draws the line? The line was drawn long ago and that is why we fight to hold it. God drew the line. You can cross it if you want but don’t try to take something pure and bend it to fit what you want to do. You are welcome to get married. Men find a good woman and get married. Women find a good man and get married. Here’s a concept for you: If all of the “men trapped in women’s bodies” and all of the “women trapped in men’s bodies” would just get together we wouldn’t have this problem. Maybe a slight case of role reversal but that we can deal with. Gay man marries lesbian woman and everyone is happy.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm