Friday, July 17, 2015

Planned Parenthood Launches Counter Attack With Ersatz Apology

Fork Tongue



In this video Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “personally apologizes for the tone and statements” of “one of our staff members.” That “staff member” happens to be Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services and those “statements” happen to be about the on-going practice of killing babies before they have a chance to see the light of day, turning the mother’s womb into the most dangerous place in America. But Richards is not apologizing for the mass murder she presides over. After all, she promotes it. In fact, the video is not really an apology at all. It is an attack that is full of lies. Richards states that Planned Parenthood “follows all laws and ethical guidelines,” has as a top priority “the compassionate care that we provide,” and is committed  “to life-saving research.”

Ethical guidelines? Compassionate care? Life-saving research? In fact, Planned Parenthood has failed in its ethics and care. Its work is to end, not save, lives.

206 comments:

  1. That's really disappointing of you. You are saying they are lying. Maybe you could provide some proofs ?

    If they do things against the law it should not be too difficult to find what they are doing wrong no ?

    You are being over emotional thus forgetting the goal of objectivity of science.

    How disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that killing Jews under the Nazis regime was legal did not mean that they were not doing anything wrong.

      Delete
    2. Again holocaust references. It's a shower of Goldwin points. Aren't you tired ?

      It doesn't change the fact that Mr Hunter call them liars whithout any evidences for it.

      Delete
    3. Calamity:
      It seems to me you don't actually read what CH writes.
      "Richards states that Planned Parenthood “follows all laws and ethical guidelines,” has as a top priority “the compassionate care that we provide,” and is committed “to life-saving research.”

      Ethical guidelines? Compassionate care? Life-saving research? In fact, Planned Parenthood has failed in its ethics and care. Its work is to end, not save, lives."

      Delete
    4. PhillyMike:

      It seems to me you don't actually read what CH writes

      This happens commonly. Evolutionists have a point to make, regardless of the facts.

      Delete
    5. I read it. Still the subtitle of your post is "forked tongue", then you use "It is an attack that is full of lies." to describe the video.
      Again you don't provide any shred of evidences that they are actually breaking their own guidelines. It's just your unsupported opinions.

      Delete
  2. "Ethical guidelines?" Do you have any evidence that they are violating any ethical guidelines that they are required to follow?

    "Compassionate care?" Do you have any evidence that they do not provide compassionate care to the women seeking abortion?

    "Life-saving research?" Do you have any evidence that the tissues provided by PP are not being used for life saving research?

    Again, everybody wishes that women never felt the need to have an abortion. What solutions are being offered by those opposing it other than to make felons out of the doctors and women who have abortion.

    All I have heard from those opposing choice is to criminalize it, say that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and that the only birth control that should be used is celibacy or the rhythm method.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing's for certain. They sure don't provide those things for the baby.

      Delete
    2. How about love? Do the loving thing for the mother and for the baby.

      Delete
  3. "How about love? Do the loving thing for the mother and for the baby."

    And what would that be? Prevent them from legally obtaining an abortion, thereby making them criminals if they do have one ? We have already tried that. It didn't work.

    Any other solutions out there? I am all ears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am serious. Provide practical details on how "love" will prevent abortion?

      I agree that the goal should be to minimize the number of abortions (reaching zero is an unachievable goal). As I see it, there are two options.

      1) provide proper sex education, make safe and effective birth control, and provide support for women who have unwanted pregnancies.
      2) make abortion illegal.

      We have tried number two. It did nothing other than increase the risk to women.

      If you have another option that may work, present it.

      Delete
    2. William,
      Your idea, you cant stop it so allow it, is the same one deployed by the mayor of Baltimore. That foolish female gave the thugs room to destroy. Look how that's turning out.

      Delete
    3. Marcus, again, what is your proposal? At least I am suggesting something. All I have heard from the other side is to criminalize women. I am serious that I would love to see a solution that would reduce the number of women who feel that abortion is their best option. But not if the alternative is s criminal record.

      Delete
    4. William,
      My proposal is a result of the self evident fact that babies in the womb are valuable in the same way you are. Of couse it should be outlawed as all murder should be. You have to believe the unborn is no more valuable than a decayed tooth. We have two completely different understandings of the facts. We will never agree... it's very sad.

      Delete
    5. I am serious that I would love to see a solution that would reduce the number of (babies) who feel that PP's "compassionate, ethical and life saving research via death by crushing is not their best option.
      "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact." Dr. Nucatola

      Delete
    6. Marcus: "Of couse it should be outlawed as all murder should be."

      Why? If we can significantly reduce abortion rates without criminalizing it, where is your objection? Could it be that you are also opposed to effective sex education and birth control as well? If so, this is a religious argument not a biological one.

      The reason for the opposition to the pro life argument is that it is absolutist. Unfortunately, the world is full of grey zones.

      Delete
    7. People who are OK with abortions have no place to talk about gun violence.

      Delete
    8. Joe: "People who are OK with abortions have no place to talk about gun violence."

      Can you point me to someone who is "OK" with abortion?

      Delete
    9. Every person who allows it without saying something or doing something to stop it.

      Delete
    10. "People who are OK with abortions have no place to talk about gun violence."

      People who are OK with (and especially people who are members of) 'Abrahamic' religions, or any other religions that have any history (and/or current actions) of harmful/deadly dogma and/or behavior have no place to talk about abortions or anything else that they claim is 'immoral'.

      And that goes double for you, joey-virgil, since you're a muslim.

      "A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem, relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad."

      Delete
  4. William,

    "The reason for the opposition to the pro life argument is that it is absolutist. Unfortunately, the world is full of grey zones."

    Tens of millions of aborted children is pretty black and white. No grey zones there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Calling them children doesn't make them children.

    I still haven't heard anyone propose a solution that would have a reasonable possibility of stopping abortions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William

      "Calling them children doesn't make them children."

      That is the most idiotic, asinine statement I have ever heard. What kind of mind is it that would even try to argue that it is not a child. Really, grow up!

      Delete
  6. Cornelius, it's quite revealing of the despicable, two-faced morals of yours and the other 'abrahamic god' pushers to watch you all get so bent out of shape about alleged baby murder while you believe in, promote, and WORSHIP a so-called 'god' that is depicted in your so-called 'holy books' (bible, koran, etc.) as the most malicious, sadistic, blood thirsty, monstrous MURDERER (including babies and unborn fetuses) of ALL TIME.

    You're in no good position to bash anyone for anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT, it is possible to disagree with someone and still have a civil discussion. Your behaviour is as bad as Joes.

      Delete
    2. William Spearshake-Acartia-blah-blah-blah, are you turning into an IDiot-creationst or have you been one of them all along and just pretending to be against them with all of the 'uncivil' (I'm sure they would think so) remarks that you've made to and about them on multiple sites? You sure are acting like them, especially in the high and mighty, two-faced department.

      Delete
    3. No, the ID side has several "uncivil" and arrogant jerks like Barry,Mullings and Joe, and I have no problem saying this. But you act as if they are all like this.

      I think that Cornelius tends to generalize too much, and I have told him this. But he has always been polite to me so I return the favour. Why is that do hard for you to understand?

      Delete
    4. I do unto others as they do. So stuff it you hypocritical ass.

      Delete
    5. Another example of Joe not understanding something. The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Not "Do unto others as they do unto you".

      But nobody expects any different from Joe.

      Delete
    6. LoL! Talk about failure to understand:

      "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

      So evos always try to insult us- always. So they must want us to fire back. Duh.

      You get what you give, dummy.

      Delete
    7. "You get what you give, dummy."

      Right back at you, dummy. LOL

      Delete
    8. "You get what you give, dummy."

      Right back at you, dummy. LOL

      Delete
  7. Hey two-faced creobots, where's your outrage about all of the billions and billions and billions of so-called 'spontaneous' human abortions (aka miscarriages, etc.) that your chosen, so-called 'God' has designed-created-guided and continues to do so? After all, you don't believe that anything in nature is 'spontaneous', so NO abortions can be 'spontaneous', right? And according to your so-called 'holy books' your chosen, allegedly all powerful, allegedly all knowing, so-called 'God' designs-creates-guides-controls absolutely everything, which would even include all of the abortions done by doctors. So, why do you believe in, promote, and WORSHIP such a murderous designer-creator-guider monster while pretending to care about babies/fetuses?

    Add to that all of the 'God" designed-created-guided abortions in animals throughout time and what do you think the total number of 'God' designed-created-guided abortions would be, so far?

    Hmm, I can't help but wonder how many other planets there are with life on which your allegedly 'omnibenevolent God' is murdering babies and fetuses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the whole truth,

      "allegedly all powerful, allegedly all knowing, so-called 'God' designs-creates-guides-controls absolutely everything, which would even include all of the abortions done by doctors."

      With a statement like that it is more than ironic that you label yourself with the title of truth. All you've done is demonstrate your utter ignorance of Christian theology, and your utter ignorance of the nature of God.

      The fact you can spew such a ignorant, venomous rant demonstrates he is not the vengeful being you believe him to be. Your anger is betrayed by your tone, which makes me wonder, why are you so angry at a being you insist does not exist. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.

      Delete
    2. So, Nic, your chosen, so-called God' isn't all powerful and all knowing and didn't/doesn't design-create-guide-control everything, eh?

      Have you ever read the 'holy bible'?

      And how about this part of it:

      http://biblehub.com/romans/12-19.htm

      Delete
    3. Nic said:

      "All you've done is demonstrate your utter ignorance of Christian theology, and your utter ignorance of the nature of God."

      Yeah, as if theologians, christians, or christian theologians agree on 'christian theology'. That's a laugh.

      So, how do you know what your chosen, so-called 'God's' "nature" is, and what is 'his' "nature"? Be careful that your response is completely in line with the bible ('God's word') or 'God' might get mad and be vengeful. According to the bible 'his' wrath is a terrible thing to behold, if there's anyone or anything left alive to behold it.

      Delete
    4. whole truth,

      "so-called God' isn't all powerful and all knowing and didn't/doesn't design-create-guide-control everything, eh?"

      "And how about this part it:
      http://biblehub.com/romans/12-19.htm"

      I'm sure it was not your intent, but all you've accomplished is a further display of your ignorance of Christian theology and the nature of God.

      "Yeah, as if theologians, christians, or christian theologians agree on 'christian theology'. That's a laugh."

      How does this demonstrate you are not ignorant of Christian theology?

      "So, how do you know what your chosen, so-called 'God's' "nature" is, and what is 'his' "nature"?"

      His nature is revealed in his word. If you were willing to read it with an open mind it will be there for you to discover.

      However, for you to acquire the necessary open mind you will need to deal with the all too obvious anger and hatred you harbour for anything resembling religion. Your level of anger and hatred is such that any time you even approach the idea of God it overwhelms your mind and all rational thought disappears.

      The truth is God does love you and does care for your life. However, he has given you the free will to choose him or reject him. If you choose to reject him he will honour that choice.

      With choices come consequences and right now your choice is to reject him and the consequences are showing in your anger and hostility towards him and anyone who has placed their faith in him. You can direct as much hostility towards me and my faith as you wish, it affects me not, other than to make me sad you are missing such a wonderful truth.

      Delete
    5. Nic said:

      "How does this demonstrate you are not ignorant of Christian theology?"

      Which "Christian theology" are you referring to, out of the thousands-millions-billions to choose from? There are as many so-called 'christian theologies' as there are (and have been) christians, theologians, christian theologians, etc.

      "His nature is revealed in his word."

      Well, isn't the bible alleged to be "his word"?

      "If you were willing to read it with an open mind it will be there for you to discover."

      I've read it with an open mind, and you're right, "his nature" is revealed, and what a despicable "nature" it is.

      "However, for you to acquire the necessary open mind you will need to deal with the all too obvious anger and hatred you harbour for anything resembling religion. Your level of anger and hatred is such that any time you even approach the idea of God it overwhelms your mind and all rational thought disappears."

      For you to read "his word" with an open mind you first need to deal with your all too obvious delusions..

      "The truth is God does love you and does care for your life."

      That's "The truth"? LMAO. Actually, that's your wishful delusion, and the wishful delusion of all other worshipers of the so-called 'Abrahamic' god (or any other so-called 'God').

      "However, he has given you the free will to choose him or reject him."

      Free will would be impossible under a so-called 'God' that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and has a 'plan' for everyone and everything.

      "If you choose to reject him he will honour that choice."

      Yeah, your imaginary, so-called 'God' will honor my rejection of 'him' by tossing me and everyone else who doesn't worship 'him' (Does 'God' have a penis?) into a lake of fire for eternity. What a nice, honorable sky daddy.

      "With choices come consequences and right now your choice is to reject him and the consequences are showing in your anger and hostility towards him and anyone who has placed their faith in him."

      Yep, with choices come consequences, and you've chosen to believe in, practice, and promote a religious history and dogma that is packed with barbaric, murderous, oppressive, enslaving, brainwashing, robbing, raping, conquering, destructive, two-faced, grossly immoral, genocidal, ecocidal dictates and actions, so don't be surprised when sane people challenge, reject, mock, and/or outlaw your theocratic agenda.

      "You can direct as much hostility towards me and my faith as you wish, it affects me not,..."

      Yeah, sure, Nic.

      "...other than to make me sad you are missing such a wonderful truth."

      Your alleged "wonderful truth" is a pack of horrible lies.

      Delete
    6. http://www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm

      Delete
    7. And no, Nic, I'm not angry and hostile toward "him". I'm angry and hostile toward people who use their imagined "him" (i.e. 'God') as a threat and a weapon to selfishly and monstrously rule over and/or kill others and ruin this planet.

      Delete
    8. whole truth,

      Your anger and hostility is obvious to all. You have severe issues and should seriously seek professional help.

      I don't believe for a moment you have read the Bible with an open mind, or have read it at all for that matter. There is simply too much hatred in you for that to happen.

      Please, seek some help.

      Delete
    9. Want to see an example of anger, hatred, and hostility, Nic?

      Here's one, and there are many more where it came from (the so-called 'holy bible'):

      The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

      Of course someone self-righteously and self-servingly tossed the "The LORD is good." part in there, even though it is contradicted by everything else.

      And "slow to get angry"? What a crock.

      Your belief in, worship, and promotion of such a despicable, imaginary sky daddy clearly shows (to anyone who is sane) that it is you and your fellow theobots who need "professional help", and plenty of it ASAP.

      Delete
    10. Hey Nic, did you see this comment below by Cornelius:

      "This is evolutionary ethics, in the raw. It is utterly nonplussed at moral outrage against the killing of innocents. Must be those fundamentalists trying to lay their morality on us again. This is why eugenics happened, why the 20th century atrocities occurred, why the rewriting of history is OK, why the blackballing is OK, and so forth."

      With 'christian theology', anger, hatred, hostility, atrocities, killing of innocents, ethics, moral outrage, murder, and morality in mind, and especially with the "rewriting of history" and self-righteous, self-serving, willful blindness (by you theobots) to what is actually in your so-called 'holy book' in mind, read this whole page:

      http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

      Read the bible again, Nic, and this time don't ignore the parts that actually describe the "nature" of your chosen, imaginary sky daddy.

      Delete
    11. An example of the imaginary christian god's "nature":

      The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

      Hey two-faced theobots, where's your "moral outrage" against the murderous sky daddy that you believe in, worship, and promote?

      Delete
    12. The whole truth you have serious emotional and anger issues. You need to get some professional help.

      Delete
    13. whole truth,

      "The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you."

      What's the context? You must take the context into account. You can't simply pull verses out of context and then attack them. You're not allowed to do that with any piece of literature and especially not historical documents.

      Delete
    14. Nic: What's the context? You must take the context into account. You can't simply pull verses out of context and then attack them. You're not allowed to do that with any piece of literature and especially not historical documents.

      Nic, what do you think the particular context is in the scripture that WholeTruth quoted?

      Delete
  8. Cornelius, do you have evidence to show that only "evolutionists" get and/or do abortions? I already know that you don't and that you're just making things up to push your theocratic agenda, as usual.

    Do you really believe that smearing anyone who accepts that evolution occurs with your despicable and false accusations will please your imaginary 'God'? Yeah, I already know the answer to that question too.

    Either religion has totally screwed up your mind or your mind was already totally screwed up and you chose your religion because it fits so well with your totally screwed up mind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ch:
    Ethical guidelines? Compassionate care? Life-saving research? In fact, Planned Parenthood has failed in its ethics and care. Its work is to end, not save, lives.


    Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 80 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
    Planned Parenthood services help prevent approximately 516,000 unintended pregnancies each year.
    Planned Parenthood provides nearly 400,000 Pap tests and nearly 500,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
    Planned Parenthood provides nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including 700,00 HIV tests.
    Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
    Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs and outreach to 1.5 million young people and adults each year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What services do they offer to actually help people plan to be good parents?

      Delete
    2. And the Nazis made a great car:

      http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/vw.htm

      So the ends justifies the means, or murders, in this case.

      Delete
    3. Alethinon:
      What services do they offer to actually help people plan to be good parents?


      By planning when to be parents,the rest they can learn by watching the Duggars.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "By planning when to be parents,the rest they can learn by watching the Duggars."

      Killing the unborn doesn't help people plan to be good parents; it helps them avoid becoming parents.

      Delete
    6. CH:
      So the ends justifies the means, or murders, in this case.


      No, just pointing out your statement is contrary to the facts unless the only humans that matter are the unborn.

      Delete
    7. Alethinon:
      Killing the unborn doesn't help people plan to be good parents; it helps them avoid becoming parents.


      True,does birth control kill the unborn?

      Delete
    8. Cornelius sarcastically and self-righteously said:

      "So the ends justifies the means, or murders, in this case."

      Apply that to your religion.

      Delete
  10. Abortion is a topic that generates outrage and passion among evangelical Christians. Given their belief in the sanctity of life this stance is understandable.

    What puzzles me though is that so few Christians seem to have a similar sense of urgency and passion for many other social injustices - the fate and treatment of children in so many parts of the world, hunger, the downtrodden. The list is a long one. That of course is a generalization, and there are indeed Christian groups who do speak out and take action.

    I am not saying that the concerns about abortion should be less or greater than these other injustices, but why is it that so many churches (at least in the US) seem so apathetic to these concerns?

    After all, Jesus never spoke out about abortion (even though I believe it was practiced at the time), but he did speak out fervently about the needs of the poor, sick and downtrodden (Matthew 25 etc). But I don't see the same sense of outrage about these matters in the church. Why is this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JD:

      What puzzles me though is that so few Christians seem to have a similar sense of urgency and passion for many other social injustices - the fate and treatment of children in so many parts of the world, hunger, the downtrodden.

      I didn't know that.

      As for abortion, are you puzzled that some Germans in the 1940s were concerned about the holocaust but not hunger in Africa?

      So why don't evolutionists have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?

      Delete
    2. I was just trying to understand why opposing abortion has become such all-consuming focus of some parts of the church, even to the point (to my outsider view at least) of demoting the Great Commission, or the social injustices that Jesus himself saw as so sorely needing addressing in Matthew 25 and elsewhere.

      I guess again the puzzle is not that Jesus probably didn't care about abortion, but best we can tell there where other imperatives he saw as more important (and perhaps dealing with those would deal with root causes that cause abortion?).

      I realize I won't get an answer.

      So why don't evolutionists have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?

      Don't know, I'm not an evolutionist, so somebody else would have to answer.

      Delete
    3. Ch:So why don't evolutionists have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?

      Since the Pope qualifies as an evolutionist to you, some do. Is the acceptance of evolution evil?

      Delete
    4. Cornelius sanctimoniously asked:

      "So why don't evolutionists have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?"

      Why don't evolution deniers and other religious people who get abortions or are okay with abortions have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?

      Why don't religious people have a sense of urgency and outrage over the so-called 'spontaneous abortions' that are designed-created-guided by 'God'? After all, there's no such thing as 'spontaneous' in biology/life/death, right? So 'God' is responsible, right?

      Cornelius, your despicable singling out of "evolutionists" to blame for every shitty thing that you can falsely conjure up is a profound example of how screwed up you and your religion are.

      Delete
  11. So why don't evolutionists have a sense of urgency and outrage over abortion?

    Why should anyone have a sense of urgency and outrage over a legal medical procedure? Having an abortion is serious decision that is between a woman and her physician. If your religion teaches you abortion is wrong then don't have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should anyone have a sense of urgency and outrage over a legal medical procedure? If your religion teaches you abortion is wrong then don't have one.

      How about the baby who doesn't want to be crushed?
      "I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact."
      If that's your outlook stemming from your evolutionary religion and you're not outraged, you're heartless.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "Why should anyone have a sense of urgency and outrage over a legal medical procedure? Having an abortion is serious decision that is between a woman and her physician. If your religion teaches you abortion is wrong then don't have one."

      So all it takes for the most heinous action to be acceptable is for it to be made legal, is that your reasoning?

      I'm sorry, it's not just religion which staggers at the atrocity which is abortion on demand, its human decency in general. A society cannot carry out a wholesale slaughter of its future and expect that future to be prosperous and fruitful. We are only beginning to see the effects of this rabid mayhem.

      Delete
    3. This is evolutionary ethics, in the raw. It is utterly nonplussed at moral outrage against the killing of innocents. Must be those fundamentalists trying to lay their morality on us again. This is why eugenics happened, why the 20th century atrocities occurred, why the rewriting of history is OK, why the blackballing is OK, and so forth.

      Delete
    4. Blah blah blah baby killers Nazis murder the innocent gas chambers blah blah blah. It's just outrageous that a majority of the population has a different opinion than you. That a woman's right to control her own body outweighs imagined "fetal rights".

      While you guys are busy wailing your moral anguish consider this. According to Johns Hopkins Medical Institution between 30-50% of all pregnancies end early due to spontaneous abortions, also called miscarriages. Why aren't you demanding that women who have miscarriages be tried for manslaughter because they were responsible for a 'baby killing too? How can you stand to worship a God who kills millions of unborn children in the womb Himself every year?

      Delete
    5. Umm if women are too dim to decide BEFORE having sex perhaps they shouldn't be given the right to choose after they become pregnant.

      Miscarriages prove how miraculous life is as obviously it is a very intricate and complex process. Miscarriages speak of the wrought of genetic entropy.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "How can you stand to worship a God who kills millions of unborn children in the womb Himself every year?"

      God is not responsible for miscarriages, he doesn't exist. Remember?

      Besides, the argument against the abomination which is abortion can be made solely upon moral, ethical, medical and societal grounds.

      So, instead of continually bashing what you consider a non-existent God, why not try to make your case based on those arguments?

      Delete
    7. So, instead of continually bashing what you consider a non-existent God, why not try to make your case based on those arguments?

      I've never argued again your belief in your God. Just pointing out your hypocrisy in letting all the God caused abortions slide. You also ignored the question about whether women who have miscarriages and kill their baby even accidentally should be charged with manslaughter.

      BTW my "case' has already been made. Abortion is already legal in the U.S. because a majority of people think it's a woman's right to control her own body. No one I know likes abortion or thinks that every woman should have one for fun. They just think women should have that legal option if that is deemed best. It's the woman's choice, not yours.

      Delete
    8. Blah blah blah baby killers Nazis murder the innocent gas chambers blah blah blah. It's just outrageous that a majority of the population has a different opinion than you.

      The problem is that the oppressed (Jews, Christians, Africans, indigenous people, Chinese, Japanese, unborn, etc.) never seem worthy of rights, at the time. Why in the world should we respect the ______?

      Delete
    9. CH:

      The problem is that the oppressed (Jews, Christians, Africans, indigenous people, Chinese, Japanese, unborn, etc.) never seem worthy of rights, at the time. Why in the world should we respect the ______?


      Religion doesn't seem helpful, Christians denied rights and slaughtered most of those groups. Don't forget women in your list.

      Delete
    10. CH: "This is evolutionary ethics, in the raw. It is utterly nonplussed at moral outrage against the killing of innocents."

      I don't mean to pick at nits, but isn't a foundation of Christianity that we are born in sin? Doesn't that mean that there are no innocents?

      CH: " Must be those fundamentalists trying to lay their morality on us again."

      I have no problem with fundamentalists imposing their morality on themselves. But I do have a problem when you try to impose it on others.

      Right now, we have but jobs like Rev. Charles McVety trying to prevent the upgrading of the sex education curriculum in Ontario because of his puritanical beliefs. If he had his way, the sex education curriculum would be limited to "don't do it".

      Delete
    11. Joe: "Umm if women are too dim to decide BEFORE having sex..."

      Ummm, you didn't have many second dates, did you? Big surprise.

      Delete
    12. ghostrider,

      "Just pointing out your hypocrisy in letting all the God caused abortions slide."

      There are two problems with your line of reasoning. First, as God is omnipotent if he were to cause a miscarriage it would be within his purview to do so and the result would be ultimately for good. We cannot make the same claim for abortion.

      Second, miscarriages are the result of a sinful world living under the burden of entropy caused by our sinful nature. To argue all miscarriages are the result God causing them is to display a poor understanding of the nature of God.

      "You also ignored the question about whether women who have miscarriages and kill their baby even accidentally should be charged with manslaughter."

      I ignored it because the idea that a woman who suffers a spontaneous miscarriage is guilty of a crime is palpable nonsense. However, a case could be made for a woman who is guilty of blatant disregard toward the health of her unborn child and behaves in a way which ultimately causes the death of that child.


      "Abortion is already legal in the U.S. because a majority of people think it's a woman's right to control her own body."

      So legality and or popular opinion is all that is necessary to make such carnage acceptable? You have been asked this question before I believe, and seem to never answer.

      A woman does have control over her own body. However, in the case of abortion she is exerting control over the body of another. That is a right she does not have, legal or not.

      Delete
    13. Nic

      First, as God is omnipotent if he were to cause a miscarriage it would be within his purview to do so and the result would be ultimately for good. We cannot make the same claim for abortion.


      Sure we can. God wanted those women to have an abortion so he directed them to go to the clinic. I can make ad hoc religious justifications that are just as valid as yours.

      A woman does have control over her own body. However, in the case of abortion she is exerting control over the body of another. That is a right she does not have, legal or not.

      The scientific community, the legal community, and our secular laws disagree with you. They're not swayed by over-the-top "Nazi baby murderer carnage!!!!" emotional rhetoric either.

      Delete
    14. William Spearshake,

      "Right now, we have but jobs like Rev. Charles McVety trying to prevent the upgrading of the sex education curriculum in Ontario because of his puritanical beliefs. If he had his way, the sex education curriculum would be limited to "don't do it".

      You have a lot of nerve calling Charles McVety a nut job. Please William, display some level of integrity and tell the readers the sickening content of the curriculum McVety and thousands of parents all across the province are fighting against, and then try to defend it.

      Maybe while you're trying to defend the curriculum you could also point out the man, Benjamin Levin, who when he wrote the curriculum was the Deputy Minister of Education in Ontario, was recently sentenced to three years in prison on charges related to child pornography. You could tell the readers Levin, a father of three, was given a sentence of six months for possession of child porn, 12 months for making child porn and 18 months for counselling to commit sexual assault. You could also tell them he bragged on child porn forums about how he had abused his own daughters.

      Come on William, let us hear you defend this curriculum and its author.

      Are you really going to argue that is the type of man you would want teaching your children or anyone's children, anything? You're sick if it is.

      Delete
    15. Joe G

      Umm if women are too dim to decide BEFORE having sex perhaps they shouldn't be given the right to choose after they become pregnant.


      So on Planet Joe couples never have sex because they love each other, or for emotional bonding? Married couples never have sex just for fun? Every time a mating occurs it's with the specific goal of getting pregnant?

      No wonder you're a YEC.

      Delete
    16. ghostrider,

      Nic: 'We cannot make the same claim for abortion."

      GR: "Sure we can. God wanted those women to have an abortion so he directed them to go to the clinic. I can make ad hoc religious justifications that are just as valid as yours."

      You can try, I doubt you will be successful, except in your own mind.

      Nic: "A woman does have control over her own body. However, in the case of abortion she is exerting control over the body of another. That is a right she does not have, legal or not."

      GR: "The scientific community, the legal community, and our secular laws disagree with you."

      Truth is not founded on popular opinion, the scientific community or the legal community. None of these forces are omnipotent and are therefore subject to error. In regards to abortion, they are in error.

      "They're not swayed by over-the-top "Nazi baby murderer carnage!!!!" emotional rhetoric either."

      I'm sure they are not. They are not in the mode of rational thought, they have an agenda and all must submit to that agenda.

      As for it being rhetoric, it may well be. But it differs from the usual concept of rhetoric in that is has solid factual evidence backing it up.

      Delete
    17. ghostrider,

      "So on Planet Joe couples never have sex because they love each other, or for emotional bonding? Married couples never have sex just for fun? Every time a mating occurs it's with the specific goal of getting pregnant?"

      So in effect you're arguing for abortion as a form of birth control. The couple did not plan the pregnancy so it is okay to murder the child. Does that sound reasonable to you?

      Delete
    18. "You have a lot of nerve calling Charles McVety a nut job."

      Ah, a McVety fan. OK Nic, let me educate you. Charles McVety started at the University of Toronto but left after two years (reason never explained). He then obtained a degree and a masters degree from his father's unaccredited Christian college in Toronto. He then obtains a doctorate from a mail order divinity college in California and has since advertised himself as Dr. McVety.

      Nope, nothing suspicious here. Nothing to see, keep moving.

      He is now in charge of the unaccredited Christian college that his father started.

      He had a TV show on Crossroads network but had it removed because he repeatedly lied about the facts to support his twisted views. Did he apologize? Of course not. Rather, he repeatedly lied about why he was removed from the air.

      And then he started making claims that the curriculum was advocating for homosexuality and teaching kids how to masturbate and how to have analysts sex, none of which it does. Again, lies.

      So, yes, I claim that he is a nut job.

      If you have a problem with the curriculum, bring it up. Because it certainly has flaws. But if you are going to believe anything that McVety says, you are not starting from a strong point.

      I could also have mentioned his history of providing charitable tax receipts for his many "organizations" that do not qualify for charitable status, but why muddy the waters with facts.

      Delete
    19. William,

      "He is now in charge of the unaccredited Christian college that his father started."

      You are a sick puppy. You really think attacking McVety's credibility legitimizes the sickening curriculum Wynn and her government are trying to introduce into the education system of Ontario?

      I don't care if McVety has a legitimate degree or not, he could be a farmer for all it matters. The question in play is not McVety's education, it is whether or not he is justified in attacking the government's planned curriculum on sex education. Leave it to an evolutionist to introduce a red herring argument.

      The plain truth is you display a very troubling attitude towards the education of the children of Ontario by trying to defend the curriculum the government wishes to impose.

      I notice you did not try to argue a convicted child sex offender is responsible for at least some of the content of the curriculum. That such an individual as Levin had a role in the formation of that curriculum should be enough to make you sick. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case.

      Delete
    20. William,

      "Ah, a McVety fan."

      As a post script; I had never heard of McVety until you mentioned his name, so I am hardly a fan. My objection to you attacking him personally was based solely on the fact that for you to call anyone who opposes this sickening curriculum a nut job for that reason is indefensible.

      Delete
    21. Nic

      So in effect you're arguing for abortion as a form of birth control. The couple did not plan the pregnancy so it is okay to murder the child.


      See Nic, when you say incredibly stupid things like "people use abortion as birth control" and 'it's OK to murder the child" you confirm you're a spittle flying fanatic not worth discussing the issues with.

      That point is further driven home by your inability to offer any sort of compromise. Ranting religious fanatics never do.

      Delete
    22. Nic, trust me, I am calling him a nut job for numerous reasons. The opposition to the curriculum is just the latest. And I am OK with opposing the curriculum. But when a person has to lie about what is in it, that qualifies him as a nut job.

      But I am interested. Why do you call it sickening? It is not advocating for homosexuality, or trans gender, or masturbation, or conventional sex. It is not condoning them. It is simply acknowledging that they exist, which is nothing new to children.

      Delete
    23. ghostrider,

      "See Nic, when you say incredibly stupid things like "people use abortion as birth control" and 'it's OK to murder the child" you confirm you're a spittle flying fanatic not worth discussing the issues with."

      What's really incredibly stupid is the fact that is exactly the argument you made and you are too dull to realize it.

      "That point is further driven home by your inability to offer any sort of compromise."

      Who says there must be a compromise. I favour the banning of abortion on demand, no compromises.

      Delete
    24. William,

      "Nic, trust me, I am calling him a nut job for numerous reasons."

      Do you not get it? It is not about McVety, it's about the curriculum. Attacking McVety is simply a red herring.

      "It is simply acknowledging that they exist, which is nothing new to children."

      Now that is completely naive, If you're not aware of that fact I pity you.

      Delete
    25. Nic

      Who says there must be a compromise. I favour the banning of abortion on demand, no compromises.


      What's really incredibly stupid is the fact you are demanding your religiously based personal fantasies be forced on everyone and you are too dull to realize it.

      Enjoy your spittle flying rants while the rest of us behave like adults.

      Delete
    26. Nic, you seem to really have a problem with the proposed curriculum, which is similar to that in other provinces. And the only objection you have raised is that one of the numerous people involved in drafting it was subsequently convicted of possessing child pornography. As vile as this is, by your logic we should discard all of Christianity because of pedophile priests.

      Please provide some concrete examples of how the curriculum is sickening, not just the McVety style talking points. Keep in mind that I have actually read it, unlike many of those who oppose it.

      I await your response.

      Delete
    27. WSilliam,

      "As vile as this is, by your logic we should discard all of Christianity because of pedophile priests."

      Wow, your logic is beyond woeful. Pedophile priests are not writng Christian Doctrine, they are in direct violation of it. Really, try to think at least a little bit.

      "Please provide some concrete examples of how the curriculum is sickening,..."

      Teaching children in grade 3 that their gender is fluid and depends on how they 'feel' and not their anatomy is one example.

      Delete
    28. ghostrider,

      "What's really incredibly stupid is the fact you are demanding your religiously based personal fantasies be forced on everyone and you are too dull to realize it."

      I fully realize I'm advocating for the adoption of certain moral standards and I don't apologize for it. As such you can fling all the invectives you wish, they will not affect my position.

      Delete
    29. ghostrider spews:
      So on Planet Joe couples never have sex because they love each other, or for emotional bonding?

      Condoms work, moron.

      Married couples never have sex just for fun?

      Condoms and/ or timing



      Every time a mating occurs it's with the specific goal of getting pregnant?

      There are many ways to prevent pregnancy, moron.

      No wonder you're a YEC.

      And yet I am not a YEC but you are obviously a loser and a moron.

      Delete
    30. Joe: ","Condoms work, moron."

      78% of the time.

      "Condoms and/ or timing"

      Timing, 76% of the time

      So, it seems that birth control is not as certain as you suggest.

      "There are many ways to prevent pregnancy, moron."

      With the exception of your left hand and abstinence, none of them are fool proof. Add on to this the catholic church's prohibition on birth control and you have a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

      Delete
    31. If used properly there is only a 2% chance of pregnancy with a condom. Then you add the timing and that 2% shrinks closer to 0.

      Delete
    32. Joe G, do I take it you are in favor of teaching sex education in Jr. High School as well as providing a ready supply of free contraceptives?

      The best way to prevent abortions is to make them unnecessary, right?

      Delete
    33. William Spearshake,

      "Charles McVety started at the University of Toronto but left after two years (reason never explained)."

      Did you ever think it may have been no one's business but McVety's as to why he left The University of Toronto?

      "He then obtained a degree and a masters degree from his father's unaccredited Christian college in Toronto."

      If you're referring to Canada Christian College in Toronto it is now fully accredited to grant degrees. Up until 1999 when it was granted the status to issue degrees by the Ontario Government it was able to grant degrees under a charter in Manitoba. That would lead one to believe it may not be as shoddy as you would like to have people believe.

      Delete
    34. YEC joey-virgil barked:

      "Condoms work, moron."

      "Condoms and/ or timing"

      "There are many ways to prevent pregnancy, moron."

      Ah, so you are pro birth control. Isn't that baby murder, joey-virgil? After all, just think of the millions of human babies that would have been and would be born if it weren't for birth control. And you do realize, don't you, that abortion is a type of birth control?

      What about animals that have birth control (including abortions) forced on them? Is it immoral and murderous to force birth control on animals? Are they given a choice?

      How about animals that are manipulated/forced to get pregnant and produce more of their 'kind' so that humans can then slaughter countless billions of them as food (and other 'products') for humans and other animals, including pets?

      "And yet I am not a YEC..."

      Yeah you are, YEC muslim joey-virgil.

      Delete
    35. "BTW misrepresenting the opposition is the surest way to admit your arguments have lost."

      In that case, YEC muslim joey-virgil, you and your creationist ilk are surely admitting that your arguments have lost.

      Delete
    36. Nic said:

      "God is not responsible for miscarriages, he doesn't exist. Remember?"

      But you and your fellow 'God' pushers believe that "he" exists and you praise and worship and promote 'him', even though 'he' is, according to your so-called 'holy book', the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent designer-creator-guider-god of everything, which includes miscarriages (aka abortions). Apparently, 'God' isn't really into the "be fruitful and multiply" thing or 'he' wouldn't "murder" so many unborn 'fully human beings' that he 'specially created in his image'.

      Tell me, Nic, or any of you other 'God' pushers, when a couple, especially a very religious couple, really, really want to have a child/children, but the woman of the couple has one or many miscarriages (aka 'spontaneous' abortions that of course cannot actually be 'spontaneous' because there's nothing 'spontaneous' in or about biology/life/death - just ask Cornelius), is 'God' demonstrating 'his' "good", perfectly moral, omnibenevolent love by 'murdering' their unborn 'fully human baby/babies', and is 'he' allowing the couple to have the free will to choose to have a child/children?

      Delete
    37. "If you're referring to Canada Christian College in Toronto it is now fully accredited to grant degrees. Up until 1999 when it was granted the status to issue degrees by the Ontario Government it was able to grant degrees under a charter in Manitoba. That would lead one to believe it may not be as shoddy as you would like to have people believe."

      Actually, it is not accredited by anyone. It is just recognized by the province, as all schools are. The recognition is not the same as being accredited.

      It is run by a guy with no recognized credentials, yet he goes around calling himself Dr. McVety. That says a lot about the quality of the education that someone can expect from this school.

      Delete
    38. William,

      "Actually, it is not accredited by anyone. It is just recognized by the province, as all schools are. The recognition is not the same as being accredited."

      Do what you should have done before spouting off, look it up, It is licensed by the Government of Ontario to issue degrees and has been since 1999. Prior to that it was licensed by the Government of Manitoba. Your credibility is shot, pal.

      "That says a lot about the quality of the education that someone can expect from this school."

      I have quite a bit of university level education and over those years had many professors. Some of them had an impressive list of degrees from some highly respected schools. Yet there were some of those who were a total waste of time and space in the teaching department. What degrees a man holds does not necessarily reflect his ability to educate others.

      Admit it, you have a negative view of McVety and it would matter not one bit if he possessed a list of degrees from Oxford with honours. You just hate the guy and therefore he's an idiot.

      How very mature of you.

      Delete
    39. Nic, maybe you should take my earlier advice and look it up. The college was given the authority to grant degrees by a bill written by Frank Klees, a former baptist pastor, during the conservative Harris government. It should also be mentioned that McVety donated $1000 to Klees' re-election campaign. A cynic might question this.

      As a college that obtains recognition by legislation, it is not required to undergo external assessments of its programs, as is required by accredited schools. Would you send your child to a school that requires and has no oversight? I know I wouldn't.

      "What degrees a man holds does not necessarily reflect his ability to educate others."

      I agree. But how many of your profs claimed to have degrees that they didn't have?

      Delete
    40. William,

      "Nic, maybe you should take my earlier advice and look it up. The college was given the authority to grant degrees by a bill written by Frank Klees, a former baptist pastor, during the conservative Harris government."

      I saw a poster recently which said 'sometimes you just have to laugh.' This is one of those times.

      You're seriously saying that Canada Christian College was granted a license to issue degrees as a reward for a $1,000 donation to a Conservative member's campaign fund? Do you know how absolutely asinine that sounds? Knowing your past arguments, probably not. You probably believe it's true.

      Do you have any idea how trivial a $1,000 donation is to a campaign fund for members of provincial legislatures? It hardly rates a letter of appreciation let alone ramming legislation through the house. I must admit you're entertaining though, coming up with hoots like this.

      You must have a tremendous amount of hatred for McVety to grasp on to such pathetic arguments in an attempt to discredit him. Truly pathetic.

      "But how many of your profs claimed to have degrees that they didn't have?"

      Due to the nature of my argument, that is completely irrelevant.

      You have a hard time grasping this logic thing, don't you?

      Delete
    41. whole truth,

      "is 'God' demonstrating 'his' "good", perfectly moral, omnibenevolent love by 'murdering' their unborn 'fully human baby/babies', and is 'he' allowing the couple to have the free will to choose to have a child/children?"

      You know, you're really quite boring. You've more than amply demonstrated your total ignorance of Christian theology so why do you feel you have to keep on proving it over and over and over again?

      We live in a world that is no longer perfect. It is a world corrupted by sin and all who live in it are guilty of sin and must pay the consequences. that includes Christians.

      So no, God does not murder babies via miscarriages. Women suffer miscarriages as a consequence of sin.

      That is a concept a child can understand. However, apparently you cannot. Make of that what you will.

      Delete
    42. Nic: "You must have a tremendous amount of hatred for McVety to grasp on to such pathetic arguments in an attempt to discredit him. Truly pathetic."

      I don't have to "attempt" to discredit him. He does this quite well all on his own.

      I never said that he paid $1000 to get the legislation passed. The money was given after the fact. If anything, it was just a thank you. No, what I am implying is that rather than going through the normal process of accreditation, he called on his evangelical buddies in the Conservative government to gain recognition for his college through legislation. It is rather interesting that this approach allows him to operate the college without the third party oversight that accreditation affords.

      Are you suggesting that McVety's lying about his credentials does not have an impact on his credibility as an educator? Seriously? You do realize that this is a Christian school, purporting to place a large emphasis on truth and ethics?

      Let's get back to the sex Ed curriculum. Could you quote the sentence(s) about teaching children how to have anal sex? Or the sentences about advocating for homosexuality? Or the sentences about teaching children to question their sexual orientation and their gender? If I am falsely attempting to discredit McVety you should have no problem finding these as McVety says that they are in it.

      "you must have a tremendous amount of hatred for McVety..."

      Actually I don't. If anything, I just feel pity for him. But I do despise people who blindly accept anything someone like him says without finding out the facts for themselves.

      Delete
    43. William,

      "Are you suggesting that McVety's lying about his credentials does not have an impact on his credibility as an educator?"

      My gosh you're incredibly slow to catch on. But I'll try one last time.

      This is not about McVety's credibility or credentials, it's about whether or not he was justified in confronting the curriculum. You seem to be of the opinion that because his credentials are not to your liking he has no right to speak out. I'm trying; vainly it appears; to point out to you that his credentials to be a principal of an institution are irrelevant in this case. He has the right as a citizen to challenge the curriculum if he wishes. Thus is the nature of a free society.

      "Actually I don't. If anything, I just feel pity for him. But I do despise people who blindly accept anything someone like him says without finding out the facts for themselves."

      I'm sure he will appreciate your pity.

      As for the facts, it is quite obvious there varying interpretations of the facts and they obviously do not all agree with you. There are a very large number of parents in Ontario who oppose this legislation and surely you are not naive enough to think they are all taking what McVety says without looking into the situation themselves.

      It's rather arrogant of you to take the attitude that you are the only one who has read the curriculum and understands what it entails. All these people are not fools and only William is enlightened. Time to grow up buddy, and realize people are able to think for themselves and don't need people like you to tell them how to think.

      Delete
    44. Nic, I never said that McVety can't comment on the curriculum because he lies about his credentials. I said that his lies call into question his reliability as an educator.

      I have no problem with people criticizing the curriculum when they can identify parts of it that they disagree with and propose modifications. But McVety doesn't do this. He claims that the curriculum says things that it doesn't. As is easily verified. I also noticed that you were unable to provide sentences from the curriculum that say what McVety has claimed.

      I am surprised that you would defend someone who has quite obviously lied about the curriculum's content in order to stop it. I guess that for some people the ends justify the means.

      Delete
    45. William,

      "He claims that the curriculum says things that it doesn't. As is easily verified."

      As he is not the only one saying these things it tends to lend credibility to his claims.

      As for the curriculum itself I doubt very much that you have read it. If you're talking about what is posted on the government web site that is not what the teachers will be teaching from. What they will be using has a lot more content than what is provided on the web site.

      "I am surprised that you would defend someone who has quite obviously lied about the curriculum's content in order to stop it."

      If he has lied it is very easy to shut him up, simply release to the public the entire contents of the curriculum. Problem solved.

      Delete
    46. "As he is not the only one saying these things it tends to lend credibility to his claims."

      There are also many people who claim the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and alien abductions. That doe not make them credible. What would lend credibility to his claims would be for you to provide the text from the curriculum that talks about the things that I listed earlier (McVety's claims). That shouldn't be difficult. Do so and I will apologize for calling McVety a liar.

      "If he has lied it is very easy to shut him up, simply release to the public the entire contents of the curriculum. Problem solved."

      Boy, now we are getting into the realm of paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe you need a new tinfoil hat.

      Delete
  12. Nic,
    Scientifically it should be crystal clear, the unborn are human. Why do you think it's so hard for people to get that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus,

      "Scientifically it should be crystal clear, the unborn are human. Why do you think it's so hard for people to get that?"

      Ultimately I do believe they understand that fact. However, they somehow are able to convince themselves otherwise. I don't think any of them could justify abortion in their mind if they did not use the delusion of the fetus being non-human to placate their conscience.

      Delete
    2. A developing human fetus is human tissue but it is not an individual human being yet. Legally that distinction isn't granted until birth. Some places have extended the law to cases where the developing fetus could potentially be viable outside the womb, i,e. mid to late in the third trimester. Nowhere under U.S. laws is a first trimester fetus considered an individual person.

      Abortion is not a procedure that is taken lightly by anyone I know. It can have lasting psychological effects on women who undergo one. The laws we have now in the U.S. are a good compromise between unlimited access to abortion and complete denial of the procedure. It's rare for any medical staff to authorize a third trimester abortion. Usually that occurs only if there is a direct threat to the mother's health.

      As mentioned before the legalization of abortion has prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of women who would still have an illegal "back alley" job done. Go ahead and offer your compromise that doesn't remove a woman's rights to her own body and own future.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "A developing human fetus is human tissue but it is not an individual human being yet. Legally that distinction isn't granted until birth."

      The words of Mr. Bumble come to mind; "if the law supposes that, then the law is an ass, an idiot"

      "As mentioned before the legalization of abortion has prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of women who would still have an illegal "back alley" job done."

      It may have prevented the deaths of women seeking back alley abortions, but it has resulted in the deaths of 50 million children, the vast majority of whom would have been born, I'm sure, if the women's only choice was a back alley job.

      Do you really see that as a legitimate trade off, 50 million to save a desperate few?

      As stated before, every women has the right to control her own body. However, when she is pregnant it is no longer just about her body.

      Delete
    4. It may have prevented the deaths of women seeking back alley abortions, but it has resulted in the deaths of 50 million children, the vast majority of whom would have been born, I'm sure, if the women's only choice was a back alley job

      Then your butcher God has been responsible for the deaths of 500 million children. Why should anyone worship such a baby murdering butcher?

      I know it frosts your fundy butt that you can't force your religious views on everyone. Boo hoo hoo, too bad. Guess you'll just have to deal with it.

      Delete
    5. Nic,
      So ghost says the unborn are not human yet. I just don't understand how she comes to that conclusion. If a scientist were to perform a DNA test on the unborn, it would show the signature of a different human than the mother. So the question really is, when is it OK to murder a human.

      Delete
    6. Nic,
      I agree with your conclusion about their conscience. What other reason would ghost give for not wanting more abortions to happen? Ultimately we all have to address our guilt! I feel terrible for mothers who are seduced by the Planned Parenthood murder machine.
      I cry for the unborn children cought up in that nightmare!

      Delete
    7. ghostrider,

      "Then your butcher God has been responsible for the deaths of 500 million children."

      I should know better than to ask, but how do you come to that conclusion?

      "I know it frosts your fundy butt that you can't force your religious views on everyone. Boo hoo hoo, too bad. Guess you'll just have to deal with it."

      I don't force my views on anyone. I present them with courtesy and respect. It is up to the individual to either accept or reject my arguments. I'm fully aware not everyone will accept my position. "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

      I am disappointed if a person rejects the love of God, but I am not surprised.

      Delete
    8. A developing human fetus is human tissue but it is not an individual human being yet.

      Your entire life is a development, from conception until death.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      I don't force my views on anyone. I present them with courtesy and respect.


      In Nic world calling someone a baby murderer and a Nazi is a sign of courtesy and respect? I'd hate to see what you do to show your disrespect.

      I am disappointed if a person rejects the love of God, but I am not surprised.

      Disagreeing with your fanatical position on abortion is not rejecting the love of God. There are many devout Christians who support safe and legal abortion. I've never met a fanatical Fundy who didn't claim God agreed with him on every one of the Fundy's personal opinion.

      Delete
    10. In Nic world calling someone a baby murderer and a Nazi is a sign of courtesy and respect?

      You have reading comprehension issues.

      If someone is a baby murderer and a Nazi do you really think they mind being called that?

      Delete
    11. Marcus

      So ghost says the unborn are not human yet.


      Thank you for lying about what I said Marcus. Jesus must be so proud of you. I never said a fetus isn't human. I said scientifically and legally a fetus is not considered an individual human being yet, which it isn't.

      Lying about the opposition is the surest way to admit your arguments have lost.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. LoL! What is the difference between:

      the unborn are not human yet.

      and

      a fetus is not considered an individual human being yet,?

      Please be specific.

      Is a siamese twin an individual human?

      Delete
    14. ghostrider,

      "In Nic world calling someone a baby murderer and a Nazi is a sign of courtesy and respect? I'd hate to see what you do to show your disrespect."

      You call evil what it is. I'm sorry if that upsets you. Maybe you need to consider why that upsets you.

      "There are many devout Christians who support safe and legal abortion."

      Then they need to step back and determine what it is they really believe.

      "I've never met a fanatical Fundy who didn't claim God agreed with him on every one of the Fundy's personal opinion."

      All I endeavor to do is live the way God wants me too. I am not always successful, nor is any Christian. I am sure I displease God on many occasions.

      Delete
    15. Marcus,

      "If a scientist were to perform a DNA test on the unborn, it would show the signature of a different human than the mother."

      It has long been an established fact that a fetus is a human being entirely separate from its mother. It has never been a case of a woman having control over her own body. When she is pregnant the fetus is an entirely different human and as such by all rules of logic, common sense and law should be considered an individual human worthy of the same protection afforded to others.

      "So the question really is, when is it OK to murder a human."

      That question used to be easily answered, not anymore. The range of acceptability in terms of murder is ever expanding.

      Delete
    16. Marcus,

      "I agree with your conclusion about their conscience. What other reason would ghost give for not wanting more abortions to happen?"

      I don't think it is fair to say ghostrider wants more abortions to occur. I don't get that from the comments. What is clear is that ghostrider is fine with abortions being available on demand.

      "Ultimately we all have to address our guilt!"

      That appears to be a very real and very common consequence for women who have had an abortion. I have heard many confess to overwhelming sadness and guilt for many, many years afterwards.

      "I cry for the unborn children cought up in that nightmare!"

      What amazes me is that so many people who are supportive of abortion seem to function under the delusion that there are no consequences, either for the individual or for society and humanity as a whole.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      It has long been an established fact that a fetus is a human being entirely separate from its mother.


      No, it isn't. A fetus has the potential to grow into a human being separate from its mother but it's not one yet, especially in the first two trimesters.

      Science is very clear on this. Secular law is very clear on this. Religiously motivated Fundies, not even close to understanding.

      Delete
    18. Being a human is a developmental process that starts at conception and ends at death. Science confirms that.

      ghostrider is confusing the opinions of scientists with science.

      Delete
    19. ghostrider,

      "No, it isn't. A fetus has the potential to grow into a human being separate from its mother but it's not one yet, especially in the first two trimesters."

      Palpable nonsense. A human fetus is human from the moment of conception. By any form of reasoning what else would it be? This nonsensical argument that it is not yet human is common among pro-abortionists. IIt is fallacious and as stupid as the day is long.



      "Science is very clear on this. Secular law is very clear on this. Religiously motivated Fundies, not even close to understanding."

      Science and secular law are not the arbiters of truth, as much as this fact might upset your delicate little world.

      Delete
    20. ghost:"Thank you for lying about what I said Marcus. Jesus must be so proud of you. I never said a fetus isn't human. I said scientifically and legally a fetus is not considered an individual human being yet, which it isn't."

      I fail to see the difference and I don't think I lied about what you said.

      I think we are human at conception. If you were to analyze the DNA it would show human. Physically the most basic level of being human but human none the less. The entire life cycle as Joe points out. The unborn human should be protected just as you or I am.

      Just for clarification, when does the 'unborn' become a human for you?

      Delete
    21. Nic

      Science and secular law are not the arbiters of truth, as much as this fact might upset your delicate little world.


      You can believe any fantasy "truth" you want in your little religious pillow fort. Out here in the real world science and secular laws say a woman can choose to have a safe and legal abortion if that's her best option.

      Delete
    22. ghostrider,

      "You can believe any fantasy "truth" you want in your little religious pillow fort. Out here in the real world science and secular laws say a woman can choose to have a safe and legal abortion if that's her best option."

      Brilliant rebuttal, ghostrider. Did you have your fingers in your ears, were your eyes shut and were you stomping your feet when you came up with that?

      Your little world says science and the law know best. Fine, you're welcome to your little world, but it is in no way the real world.

      Delete
    23. Nic said:

      "What amazes me is that so many people who are supportive of abortion seem to function under the delusion that there are no consequences, either for the individual or for society and humanity as a whole."

      How about the consequences to individuals, society, and humanity as a whole (and to everything else on this planet) if there were no birth control, including or not including abortions? How many people do you think that this planet can support in a healthy manner? And is everyone who is already 'born' being supported in a healthy manner?

      Yeah, it would be nice if every possible person could live and thrive, but the "consequences" of human overpopulation are going to kill "humanity" and our only available world. The damage already done is enormous, and in many cases irreversible and irreparable. Do you really believe that everyone on this planet or even in your town lives as well as you do, or even has the opportunity and resources to live as well as you do, Nic?

      Since you and Cornelius and all of your fellow high and mighty, anti-birth control 'God' pushers are so outraged over what you claim is 'murderous' birth control because it prevents 'fully human' beings from living and thriving (or at least the opportunity to do so), then why don't you all do whatever it takes to insure that all of the already born people and all of the ones that will be born (both children and adults) who are or will be starving, thirsty, ill, homeless, unloved, unwanted, abused, family-less, friendless, lonely, desperate, destitute, disabled, deformed, oppressed, miserable, uneducated, unskilled, enslaved, wrongfully imprisoned, injured, hopeless, helpless, etc., etc., etc., live a much better, healthier life?

      You could start by adopting a child. I adopted a child a long time ago and I totally love and treasure her, and I'm just an evil, heartless, godless, atheistic, sinful, rotten, blaspheming, good-for-nothing "evolutionist".

      Your imaginary, so-called 'God' obviously really screwed up by not making the Earth a lot bigger (and with unlimited necessary resources) and by not making a lot of other planets easily available planets for human expansion. Bad 'God'. Go to your room, and no more ice cream for you.

      Delete
    24. whole truth,

      "You could start by adopting a child. I adopted a child a long time ago and I totally love and treasure her, and I'm just an evil, heartless, godless, atheistic, sinful, rotten, blaspheming, good-for-nothing "evolutionist"."

      If you treasure and love your adopted daughter as much as you claim, get some help. No parent should be harbouring the level of hate and anger you demonstrate.

      "Since you and Cornelius and all of your fellow high and mighty, anti-birth control,..."

      Do you distort the truth for a living or is it just a hobby? Please point out where I said anything against birth control. I clearly objected to using abortion as birth control. But only the truly wicked would see abortion as an acceptable form of birth control.

      "then why don't you all do whatever it takes to insure that all of the already born people,..."

      Adoption used to be a very common practice, until people who think like you started murdering the potential adoptees. You couldn't be a bigger hypocrite. Promote the wholesale slaughter of the unborn and then complain that people don't adopt enough children. You are one seriously messed up individual.

      "really screwed up by not making the Earth a lot bigger,..."

      Do a little homework instead of spewing hatred towards God and those who follow him. The world is plenty big enough. You can fit the entire population of the world into Los Angeles. So please, stop this nonsense that the world is overpopulated.

      Delete
    25. It's no wonder that you are willingly a christian, Nic. It's a two-faced, despicable, brain-dead religion that fits you well.

      And overpopulation is nonsense? Can and does the land area of Los Angeles supply all of the necessary resources for all of the people who live in that area, let alone the entire population of this planet?

      Gawd damn you're stupid.

      Delete
    26. whole truth,

      "And overpopulation is nonsense? Can and does the land area of Los Angeles supply all of the necessary resources for all of the people who live in that area, let alone the entire population of this planet?"

      "Gawd damn you're stupid."

      The stupid label would fall on you for thinking that was the point of my argument. Give it some thought and see if you can figure it out.

      Get back to me if you can. I won't be waiting with bated breath, however.

      Delete
  13. Cecile Richards has a lot in common with Hitler, he too was able to convince many people that murdering humans was a rational choice for the betterment of the public.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Condoms work, Educated married couples have sex when she is not ovulating.

    There are many ways to have sex without getting the women pregnant. Many- or I would have many, many children.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joe G

    There are many ways to have sex without getting the women pregnant. Many- or I would have many, many children.


    I'm sure your solution works for you but most people don't consider mating with barnyard animals an acceptable substitute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You try to mate with barnyard animals, ghostrider. You also appear to be very ignorant about sex, so that explains that.

      Delete
    2. BTW misrepresenting the opposition is the surest way to admit your arguments have lost.

      Thank you

      Delete
    3. A knock-out blow by Joe with the time-tested I know you are but what am I argument.

      Delete
    4. Wow, such a devastating refutation! Too bad your parents went through with your birth.

      Delete
    5. Joe, maybe you should look up the definition of "refutation".

      Delete
    6. YEC muslim joey-virgil puked:

      "Too bad your parents went through with your birth."

      Ah, so you are pro-abortion, as long as you get to choose which unborn 'fully human beings' were or are aborted before birth. If it's an unborn 'fully human being' that may or will 'develop' into a person who doesn't kiss your theocratic/autocratic ass and the imaginary ass of your imaginary sky daddy, abortion is a perfectly legitimate, fully moral, thoroughly desired action to 'end the existence of' ("murder") your potential or eventual "opposition", eh joey-virgil?

      And if you can't or don't get rid of all the potential or eventual "evolutionists" via abortions, you can always "Go NRA!" and 'end the existence' of the ones who make it through birth, right?

      Your choice of religion (islam) fits you well.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps as science progresses they'll eventually be able to do DNA tests that will enable them to determine which unborn children would grow up to support legalized abortion, and which would grow up to believe that the unborn should be given the opportunity to continue to live and reach their full potential. Then they could pass laws stating that only the mothers whose unborn children would support their decision to abort them be permitted to do so.

      And we know, of course, that if someone who supports legalized abortion were to find himself swept up in a time irregularity which placed him face to face with his own mother, pregnant with him, in the doctor's office, contemplating an abortion and on the verge of changing her mind, he'd reassure her that she has the opportunity to change history, and that if she should decide to change it so that he's never born, he'll fully support her decision, because he's "pro-choice".

      Delete
    8. Alethinon said without thinking:

      "Perhaps as science progresses they'll eventually be able to do DNA tests that will enable them to determine which unborn children would grow up to support legalized abortion, and which would grow up to believe that the unborn should be given the opportunity to continue to live and reach their full potential. Then they could pass laws stating that only the mothers whose unborn children would support their decision to abort them be permitted to do so."

      Wow, if you don't see what's wrong with that in regard to your claimed anti-abortion position, and you obviously don't see what's wrong with it or you wouldn't have said it, you need to get a clue.

      Delete
    9. Here's a hint Alethinon61: The "suppose your mother had aborted you!" argument is the dumbest of all the dumb emotional arguments offered against the pro-choice position. For one, I'd be happy that my mother could control her own destiny and make a choice that led to a better life for her and my siblings. For two, I would never know about it because when I was aborted I had no consciousness, indeed no brain activity at all. In that condition the worst that could happen is someone might mistake me for a Creationist and anti-choicer. :)

      Delete
    10. @ghostrider:

      With that comment you reveal:

      A. We can add "dishonest" to the character traits you've displayed here, and

      B. You are a troll.

      I have a policy that once I'm able to determine that someone is a troll, I don't interact with them any further. This is for the benefit of all, especially the troll (ironically), as interacting with people who argue for the "fun" of it only feeds their sickness.

      Take care,
      ~Sean

      Delete
    11. Fundy cowards always scream "troll!!' then run when they get their inane arguments disemboweled and have no coherent reply. It's been the same for decades.

      Delete
    12. "Fundy cowards always scream "troll!!' then run when they get their inane arguments disemboweled and have no coherent reply. It's been the same for decades."

      Thanks for confirming that I've made the right decision.

      Delete
    13. Thanks for confirming that I've made the right decision

      Thanks for confirming my assessment of your craven tactics and inability to defend your nonsense.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. William,

    Nic: "If he has lied it is very easy to shut him up, simply release to the public the entire contents of the curriculum. Problem solved."

    William:"Boy, now we are getting into the realm of paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe you need a new tinfoil hat."

    Are you serious? The curriculum is a public document, why should they not release it to the public. I don't live in Ontario, but as far as I know they have not released the entire contents to the public and were allowing only one hand picked parent from each division to see it.

    And no, I don't think it is a conspiracy by withholding it from the public. I do think it is cowardly, deceitful and incompetent. But that is just general practice for the Wynne government, and McGuinty before her.

    William, it is time to admit you have lost this rabbit path discussion and get back to the subject at hand, Planned Parenthood. If you wish to discuss that situation fine, if not I'm sick of dealing with your hatred for McVety and will entertain it no longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic: "Are you serious? The curriculum is a public document, why should they not release it to the public."

      Who told you this nonsense? Or are you saying that this 244 page document is not the complete curriculum?

      http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health1to8.pdf

      Sure looks like it to me. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

      Delete
    2. William,

      "Or are you saying that this 244 page document is not the complete curriculum?"

      The one found on the government web site is not the document teachers will be using in the classroom. It is simply an overview document.

      Delete
    3. "The one found on the government web site is not the document teachers will be using in the classroom. It is simply an overview document."

      This is this curriculum that teachers must follow, and that school boards must ensure that their teachers follow. If you claim that there is another document that teachers must comply with, provide a link to it. I would be interested to see it.

      Delete
    4. William,

      "This is this curriculum that teachers must follow, and that school boards must ensure that their teachers follow."

      What the teachers will be given to use in the classroom will be much more comprehensive. That is what you will need to see to know the details of the curriculum.

      I would be surprised if there is a link to the actual curriculum. And that goes for virtually any subject, so I am not implying a conspiracy to keep this curriculum under wraps.

      Delete
    5. "What the teachers will be given to use in the classroom will be much more comprehensive. That is what you will need to see to know the details of the curriculum."

      Sorry to break the news to you, but the document that I linked to is the only sex education curriculum produced by the Ontario government (previous versions published in 2010 and 1998). You keep claiming that the government has a far more comprehensive (more sickening, I assume) curriculum that is not made publicly available. If one existed, do you seriously think that it would not be made public by teachers who disagree with it? Yet none has surfaced. Could this be because it does not exist?

      Delete
    6. William,

      "Could this be because it does not exist?"

      Could be, but I doubt it.

      I don't know how much you have looked into the background of this whole scenario but what comes up is not good. The OISE is heavily connected to this document and that can be nothing but bad news.

      Delete
    7. "Could be, but I doubt it."

      Not exactly what you were saying earlier. But I do give you credit for admitting that you may be wrong.

      But let's get back to basics. What is it about the curriculum that you have a problem with?

      Delete
    8. William,

      "But let's get back to basics."

      That would be a good idea. Get back to the basics of sex education and drop the nonsense of teaching gender fluidity and that homosexual behaviour is normal.

      Delete
    9. And where does it say that any of this is normal? Again, you are saying things that the curriculum doesn't say. All it says is that they exist (which they do) and that it is not acceptable for kids to discriminate based on this. Do you have a problem with this?

      Delete
    10. William,

      "Do you have a problem with this?"

      Yes, I have a problem with the increasing societal acceptance of homosexuality and gender fluidity as being normal. And if you think this curriculum is not trying to normalize these beliefs, you are way beyond naive.

      As I said OISE is heavily represented in this curriculum and that does not seem to be a concern to you.

      Delete
    11. Nic, when I was a kid we used to tease and taunt other kids who were "different". We would call them "fags" or "homos". That is not a part of my life that I am proud of. Are you suggesting that it is OK to treat other people in this way?

      Here are two facts. Some people, for whatever reason, are homosexual. And some people, for whatever reason, are trans gendered. Centuries of demonizing and marginalizing these people have not changed these two facts. Since they are not doing any harm to anyone, I prefer to allow them to live the lives that they would like. What is wrong with that?

      What I find amazing is that us atheists are handling this in a more Christian fashion than many who call themselves Christian.

      Delete
    12. William,

      "Are you suggesting that it is OK to treat other people in this way?"

      Not for one minute do I think that is acceptable. However, there is a difference between treating someone with the respect and dignity they deserve as a fellow human being and condoning a lifestyle which is by any standard deviant.

      "Since they are not doing any harm to anyone, I prefer to allow them to live the lives that they would like. What is wrong with that?"

      I would agree that many just want to live their lives in peace. The problem lies with the activists who insist on pushing the gay agenda in people's faces on a continual basis. A fine example of this type of activity is the growing number of so-called Gay Pride Parades. What do you think would happen if a bunch of heterosexuals wanted to hold a similar parade and carry on as they do in the gay parades?

      This is no longer about equality under the law, it is now an agenda to change society into the image of the activists.

      As for doing no harm, the lifestyle itself is responsible for a great deal of harm to those who live it. On this I speak with first hand experience with family and friends. I'm sorry William, but the lifestyle is anything but gay.

      "What I find amazing is that us atheists are handling this in a more Christian fashion than many who call themselves Christian."

      In that I can agree with you 100%. I am very often dismayed at the actions and attitudes of those who claim to follow Christ, as their conduct does not reflect at all what Christ has asked of us.

      Delete
    13. Not for one minute do I think that is acceptable. However, there is a difference between treating someone with the respect and dignity they deserve as a fellow human being and condoning a lifestyle which is by any standard deviant.

      So on the one hand you agree it's not acceptable to treat people in a certain way, but in the same breath you call them deviant. Don't you think having that kind of attitude is going to affect how you treat them?

      What do you think would happen if a bunch of heterosexuals wanted to hold a similar parade and carry on as they do in the gay parades?
      It's called Saturday night in Las Vegas!

      I'm sorry William, but the lifestyle is anything but gay..

      My experience is the opposite. I have many gay friends. They are all very happy well-balanced people, most in well-paying professions, and several have been in relationships for over 20 years. And many are now married (I live in California) and retired and growing old together in very contented fashion.

      I also have some Christian friends who are among some of the most miserable, fearful and dysfunctional people I know. But I would not extrapolate and say all Christians are that way.

      But perhaps the reason some gays are unhappy is because they live in societies where they are not accepted, where their own families cut them off, or where they are fired from their jobs for no reasons, or they live in countries where they can be executed just for having a sexual orientation they have no control over. I think that would make anybody unhappy.



      Delete
    14. Nic: "However, there is a difference between treating someone with the respect and dignity they deserve as a fellow human being and condoning a lifestyle..."

      Could you point me to the part of the curriculum that is condoning the lifestyle?

      Nic: "...which is by any standard deviant."

      I think that you mean "which by your standard is deviant." I don't understand it, but I don't find any of it deviant, in the way I assume that you mean it.

      "The problem lies with the activists who insist on pushing the gay agenda in people's faces on a continual basis. A fine example of this type of activity is the growing number of so-called Gay Pride Parades."

      The last time I looked, nobody has made attendance at a gay pride parade mandatory. If it makes you uncomfortable, don't attend one.

      "What do you think would happen if a bunch of heterosexuals wanted to hold a similar parade and carry on as they do in the gay parades?"

      I think that we call it Mardi Gras and Carnival.

      "As for doing no harm, the lifestyle itself is responsible for a great deal of harm to those who live it."

      If you are referring to the spread of disease, that applies to any promiscuous activity (gay or straight) and I believe that they talk about STDs in the curriculum. If you are talking about the higher suicide rates for homosexuals, don't you think that this may be due to a large extent by the marginilization and treatment that is still prevalent in society? It is this aspect that the curriculum is trying to address.

      "I am very often dismayed at the actions and attitudes of those who claim to follow Christ, as their conduct does not reflect at all what Christ has asked of us."

      I agree. In fact, Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

      Delete
    15. JDRick,

      "So on the one hand you agree it's not acceptable to treat people in a certain way, but in the same breath you call them deviant. Don't you think having that kind of attitude is going to affect how you treat them?"

      There is no contradiction at all in my statement. I can treat someone with respect and dignity but that does not mean I need to accept as positive everything they do.

      As for homosexuality it is deviant in every way possible and because I believe they should be treated in a decent manner does not change the fact of that deviance.

      "They are all very happy well-balanced people, most in well-paying professions, and several have been in relationships for over 20 years."

      None of which alters the fact they are living a deviant lifestyle.

      "I also have some Christian friends who are among some of the most miserable, fearful and dysfunctional people I know. But I would not extrapolate and say all Christians are that way."

      So have I and I did not say all homosexuals were miserable and fearful. However, they are dysfunctional, there is no getting around that fact.

      "But perhaps the reason some gays are unhappy is because they live in societies where they are not accepted, where their own families cut them off, or where they are fired from their jobs for no reasons, or they live in countries where they can be executed just for having a sexual orientation they have no control over. I think that would make anybody unhappy."

      I'm sure that is true to some extent, but not universally. I agree that society can be cruel and families can be cruel, but to argue that they have no reason at all for their actions is false. Homosexuality is seen as a threat by many and people sometimes overreact in the face of threats. They can reject the lifestyle without hating or physically attacking the individual caught up in it. People should be caring but that does not mean they must accept cart blanch everything another individual does.

      As for not having control over their sexual orientation that may seem to be true, but in fact it is not. Homosexuality is a choice, they are not born that way.

      Delete
    16. There really is nothing left to say. I'm assuming your worldview is based on the Bible, either an inerrant view or perhaps something close to it.

      I personally believe the Bible is not infallible and wrong on many fronts, as all man-made writings are (although not all of it should be discounted).
      Until you are open to the idea that the Bible is not infallible, there is probably nothing I can say to change your mind.

      I can only hope that one day you may meet some gay people like my friends that would dispel some of your misconceptions that they are "deviant" and make you think differently. That's usually what makes the difference, but not always.

      Delete
    17. JD,

      "I personally believe the Bible is not infallible and wrong on many fronts,..."

      Therein lies part of your problem.

      "there is probably nothing I can say to change your mind."

      In all sincerity JD, I don't even need to bring religion into the discussion. Homosexuality is deviant, sociologically, biologically, physiologically, anatomically and psychologically. That's more than enough evidence.

      "I can only hope that one day you may meet some gay people like my friends that would dispel some of your misconceptions that they are "deviant" and make you think differently."

      I do have family and friends who are homosexual and I love them dearly. However, that does not change the facts. Deviant behaviour is just that, deviant. Because it occurs in family and friends does not magically change deviant behaviour into acceptable behaviour.

      Delete
    18. Therein lies part of your problem

      It's really not a problem, but an honest and open-minded assessment of the evidence conducted of many years.


      In all sincerity JD, I don't even need to bring religion into the discussion. Homosexuality is deviant, sociologically, biologically, physiologically, anatomically and psychologically. That's more than enough evidence.

      Well, in the USA nowadays homosexuality is no longer considered as deviant in the sense I think you are using. The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 (although it took until the 1980s for homosexuality to be completely removed from the DSM). And of course the Supreme Court recently made a decision that states should allow same-sex marriage. In the milleninial age group, being gay is now widely accepted and not seen as a big deal. Many states have legislation to protect the LGBT community from discrimination.

      These all point to a society where increasingly being gay is no longer considered deviant, at least in the sense I think you are using the word.

      You may have a personal (and religious) opinion that you think it is deviant, but the legal system and now increasingly societal acceptance has a different view than you do.

      Delete
    19. JD,

      "Well, in the USA nowadays homosexuality is no longer considered as deviant in the sense I think you are using."

      So it's just a matter of consideration? So, if in 20 years it is again considered deviant how will you feel? Surely you have a better mind than that.

      "but the legal system and now increasingly societal acceptance has a different view than you do."

      So, you're arguing everyone should just go with the flow and not really think for themselves, just follow the herd? My father-in-law used to call that the chicken instinct.

      I'm sorry, I was given a free mind by God and I am expected to use it, not just go the way of everyone else. If you wish to make your moral decisions based on what is currently the trend that's your prerogative.

      I think personally I am still with the vast majority on this question. I just happen to be one who is willing to stand up for what I believe, many, unfortunately, are not.

      Delete
    20. I'm sorry, I was given a free mind by God and I am expected to use it, not just go the way of everyone else. If you wish to make your moral decisions based on what is currently the trend that's your prerogative.

      It's not about accepting trends. But recognizing that homosexuality is an innate condition that happens to a certain percentage of the population. Rather than persecuting and demonizing these people or damage them further with "conversion therapy" (which has been ruled by several courts as damaging), it is better to respect that this is an immutable condition (and one that occurs in other species).

      No, I don't think you are in the majority. Google Pew Reports on Gay Marriage. In 2015 poll suggest that 73% of millenials support gay marriage.

      I have no issue that your religion takes a contrary view and in the USA that is absolutely your right, and even to stand up and speak up too! But if that stand involves restricting or removing other people;s rights who do not share your religious beliefs, yes then expect people to push back on you.

      And like it or not, gay marriage is now here to stay in the USA. I expect in time (as has happened in history) the church will eventually change its stance on the matter - even the Pope has realized a new attitude is needed, and demonizing people is not helpful for either side.

      Delete
    21. JD,

      "But recognizing that homosexuality is an innate condition that happens to a certain percentage of the population."

      It is not innate, it is a choice.

      "and one that occurs in other species."

      Palpable nonsense.

      "73% of millenials,..."

      Millenials do not constitute a majority.

      "I have no issue that your religion takes a contrary view,..."

      That's sincerely decent of you. However many in the homosexual lobby do not share that attitude and would love to see me and others put in jail for our refusal to accept their lifestyle.

      It is a perverse irony that the ones who scream for tolerance are the ones who are the least tolerant.

      "then expect people to push back on you."

      It was the homosexual lobby who started the pushing. How quickly we like to re-write history to suit our ends.

      "And like it or not, gay marriage is now here to stay in the USA."

      Even if true, it does not make it acceptable. As is always the case there will be that portion of the church which will alter its stance to satisfy the world. I am not part of that church.

      Delete
    22. NIc: "I'm sorry, I was given a free mind by God and I am expected to use it, not just go the way of everyone else."

      Does this mean that you are expected to use this free mind to develop your own opinions of right and wrong, moral and amoral, even if it contradicts what the Bible says?

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    24. t is not innate, it is a choice.

      Why don't you ask your gay friends and family members when they made a choice to be gay?

      Why would anywhere want to choose to be gay when there are people in the world ready to hate and kill them?

      When do you choose to be straight?

      Sorry but the studies and evidence point to the fact that homosexuality is very much not a choice.

      I really doubt that you have really had any real contact with gay people to understand their perspective, but instead you just seem to be parroting what you have heard from the pulpit.

      But fortunately society is becoming more accepting. Perhaps too it will help people view the Bible and religion in a less literalist way. And the sky isn't going to fall in either.

      Who said anything about putting in jail? Actually I really don't have any issue with free speech on this matter, even to the point of political incorrectness. It's when religious groups impose their views on others via legislation that it becomes a problem.

      Delete
    25. William,

      "Does this mean that you are expected to use this free mind to develop your own opinions of right and wrong, moral and amoral, even if it contradicts what the Bible says?"

      It means I was given free will. It means I am able to make choices, but those choices may not always be correct. It obviously means you can make choices which contradict the Bible, people do it all the time.

      Delete
    26. JD,

      "Why don't you ask your gay friends and family members when they made a choice to be gay?"

      Nice try, but no cigar.

      Of course most homosexuals believe they have always been that way and were indeed born that way. Just because you believe it does not make it true.

      "I really doubt that you have really had any real contact with gay people to understand their perspective,..."

      Of course you're free to believe what you want, but you would be wrong.

      "And the sky isn't going to fall in either."

      It will eventually, but not over this question alone.

      "It's when religious groups impose their views on others via legislation that it becomes a problem."

      Are you living in an alternate reality? When was the last time a homosexual had his business shut down due to personal beliefs and ordered to pay tens of thousands of dollars in penalties? Please, join the real world, it's the homosexual lobby which is imposing their views upon religious groups via legislation. To say anything negative about the homosexual lifestyle is to court charges of hate speech.

      A few years ago a Canadian Member of Parliament who was a licensed medical doctor was threatened with legal action for reading from a medical text book on the consequences of homosexual activity. He was spared due the immunity awarded to speech within the Commons Chamber.

      So please, do not try to argue that homosexuals are an oppressed group. That ship sailed a long time ago. It is now those who dare to speak against it who are oppressed, and the oppressors do so with impunity.

      Delete
    27. Of course most homosexuals believe they have always been that way and were indeed born that way. Just because you believe it does not make it true.

      What is your evidence for believing that gay people choose to be this way? I appreciate that it is what you believe, but where is the evidence for this? Again, is this what your preacher told you?

      So even though every gay person you ask will tell you categorically, no, they did not choose to be gay, you'll still going to believe they did?

      It's an amazing feat of cognitive dissonance!! But then if you're going to believe everything in religious scripture is true, I suppose one gets quite good at it! If my religious book tells me the moon is green, then it is must be green and it is all of us that can't see right!

      I think if I was a gay person living in the middle east I think yes I would really be an oppressed group since my very life would be in question.

      But it isn't about who is oppressed or who isn't, is about people having equal rights - in this case the freedom to marry who they want. You still have the right to speak against it of course and should if that's what you think.

      I think I will let Pope Francis have the final word...paraphrasing:

      "That the Catholic Church’s moral edifice might “fall like a house of cards” if it doesn’t balance its divisive rules about abortion, gays and contraception with the greater need to make the church a merciful, more welcoming place for all."

      Obviously as we have seen in this discussion it's very hard for opposing sides to come to any kind of agreement on issues like abortions and gays.

      Which was my point earlier - perhaps if the church did less moralizing and telling people how not to live their lives, and become more welcoming and about what their faith could do for them, well maybe there'd be more that are willing to listen. For example, when people like Nic just black-and-what categorize gays as "deviants" it's hard to see there is any real concern or reaching out. Why would any gay person want to go visit his church?

      For me in the USA I know all about what the church does not approve of. But I see and hear little of the good that it could do.

      Delete
    28. William,

      "I think that you mean "which by your standard is deviant."

      Nope, I meant what I said.

      "The last time I looked, nobody has made attendance at a gay pride parade mandatory. If it makes you uncomfortable, don't attend one."

      Attendance at any parade is not mandatory, but that is completely irrelevant to my argument and I think you know it. It would not be mandatory to attend a heterosexual parade either, but if they acted as homosexuals do you know as well as I criminal charges would be laid. Please, don't try and deny there is not a double standard in play. Mardis Gras and Carnival parades are mild in comparison and you well know it.

      "If you are referring to the spread of disease, that applies to any promiscuous activity (gay or straight)"

      One form of deviant behaviour does not justify another. Heterosexual promiscuity is no better than homosexual promiscuity. They both carry with them large and unhappy consequences.

      "If you are talking about the higher suicide rates for homosexuals, don't you think that this may be due to a large extent by the marginilization and treatment that is still prevalent in society?"

      I'm sure that is the reason behind many of the suicides in the homosexual community. However, there are many which stem from the unhappiness of not being able to overcome the obsession of homosexuality.

      "I agree. In fact, Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality."

      But he did talk extensively about sin and homosexuality is very clearly put in that category throughout the Bible. As well, Jesus' silence on a subject cannot be construed as approval. Jesus does not speak of pedophilia either, are we to assume his silence means it is okay?

      Delete
    29. Nic: "It would not be mandatory to attend a heterosexual parade either, but if they acted as homosexuals do you know as well as I criminal charges would be laid."

      I don't know any such thing. Do you have any evidence?

      "it is now those who speak out against it who are oppressed."

      Again, can you provide any examples? Keep in mind that suffering the consequences of breaking the law is not oppression. Name me a single Christian who's religious freedoms are being infringed upon because of your so called gay agenda.

      You still have the right to be homophobic and racist and sexist, and even to speak out about it, as long as you are not inciting hatred in doing so. But people criticizing you and your views is not oppression.

      Just because the Bible says something is a sin doesn't make it so. The Bible was written by men many centuries ago. It has many things in it that are praiseworthy and many that we find abhorrent today. For example, the Bible never says that slavery is wrong, only that mistreating your slaves is.

      Delete
    30. William,

      "I don't know any such thing. Do you have any evidence?"

      Come on, grow up!

      "Name me a single Christian who's religious freedoms are being infringed upon because of your so called gay agenda."

      Orville Nichols.

      "You still have the right to be homophobic,..."

      I'm not afraid sameness. In case you didn't know that is what homophobia really means despite our society's want to have it mean something else.

      "But people criticizing you and your views is not oppression."

      Really? Then why is it oppression when I criticize the views and actions of homosexuals. My gosh man, do you really not see the double standards at play here?

      "Just because the Bible says something is a sin doesn't make it so."

      Ah, yeah it does. Not to you as an atheist for sure, but as atheism is the definition of illogical you really won't get far with that argument.

      "For example, the Bible never says that slavery is wrong, only that mistreating your slaves is."

      Maybe a little bit of historical research and a few lessons in exegesis would be in order.

      Delete
    31. Nic: "Orville Nichols"

      Really? How was he oppressed. He refused to do something that his job requires him to do and he paid the consequences. By your logic, a Jehovah's Witness emergency rook doctor should be allowed to refuse to give a transfusion because it is against his religion.

      "Maybe a little bit of historical research and a few lessons in exegesis would be in order."

      OK, I admit that I could be wrong. Please quote the verse that says that slavery is a sin.


      "Really? Then why is it oppression when I criticize the views and actions of homosexuals."

      Who said it was. Certainly not me.

      Delete
    32. William,

      "He refused to do something that his job requires him to do,..."

      Wrong. At the time no Marriage Commissioner was required to marry anyone.

      The truth of the matter is these people were originally assigned a different commissioner and rejected him. They requested Nichols as they knew he would refuse to perform the ceremony. They planned the situation to make an issue out of it. Their actions were both immature and despicable.

      "By your logic, a Jehovah's Witness emergency rook doctor should be allowed to refuse to give a transfusion because it is against his religion."

      It would be against his religion to receive a blood transfusion, not administer one. Someone else would merely do it and the doctor would simply lose his hospital privileges.

      "Please quote the verse that says that slavery is a sin."

      It is a little more complicated than that which is why you need to do the suggested homework.

      "as long as you are not inciting hatred in doing so."

      How is it inciting hatred to refuse to perform a wedding ceremony? It was not Orville Nichols who made the situation public so how could he be guilty inciting hatred towards these people?

      How is it inciting hatred when you refuse to make a wedding cake? Again, it was not the bakers who made the event public, so why are they held responsible for inciting hatred?

      You really need to think these things through a little more precisely. You also need to realize there is a homosexual lobby whose sole aim is to attack anyone who dares question their lifestyle.

      Delete
    33. "The truth of the matter is these people were originally assigned a different commissioner and rejected him. They requested Nichols as they knew he would refuse to perform the ceremony. They planned the situation to make an issue out of it. Their actions were both immature and despicable."

      I don't doubt that they intended to make a statement. This is often how issues are brought to the forefront. But by your argument Rosa Parks and the black teens at the Woolworths counter were immature and despicable. Are you sure that you want to go there?

      With regard to homosexuality, the only examples given of "oppression" of Christians who are claiming that they are only expressing their religious freedom are when people who provide public services refuse to do so on discriminatory grounds. Which is what Nichols did. He was denying to perform a service that he is obliged to provide, by law, if the couple meet the legal requirements. He didn't refuse because he had previous commitments that day; he refused because they were a same sex couple.

      Church weddings are a different thing. They may exclude people from church weddings for whatever reason, as they did for centuries for inter-racial and inter-faith couples. As much as I think these decisions are stupid and bigoted, the separation of church and state protects them.

      With regard to the Bible and slavery, calling it complicated doesn't excuse it. The fact is, the Bible does not prohibit one person from owning another person. If it did, why would it provide rules for doing so. By the way, just because a person is an atheist, don't assume that he has not read and understands the Bible.

      "You also need to realize there is a homosexual lobby whose sole aim is to attack anyone who dares question their lifestyle."

      Of course there are lobbying efforts. Who has suggested otherwise. But the last time I looked, Christians still comprise more than 50% of North America, and homosexuals are around 2%. Either the homosexuals are exponentially smarter and more politically aware than Christians, or the Christian message opposed to homosexuality is so flawed that it is doomed to fail

      Delete
    34. William

      "I don't doubt that they intended to make a statement."

      So you agree, they targeted the man?

      "But by your argument Rosa Parks and the black teens at the Woolworths counter were immature and despicable."

      William, you seem to have great difficulty in understanding the difference between particular instances. Homosexuality and racism are not analogous. Race is innate and immutable, homosexuality is not. As such, there absolutely no parallel between the two.

      "people who provide public services refuse to do so on discriminatory grounds."

      A business should have the right to decide who they will serve and who they will not. I ran a business for many years and turned away people for a variety of reasons and had every right to do so.

      "Which is what Nichols did. He was denying to perform a service that he is obliged to provide, by law, if the couple meet the legal requirements. He didn't refuse because he had previous commitments that day; he refused because they were a same sex couple."

      I already told you that at the time he was not obligated to perform any marriage. Commissioners could accept or reject any assignment they wished, the assignment would simply be passed on. Do you even read what I post or do you simply answer by rote?

      Yes, he refused because they were homosexual. something he has every right to do under freedom of conscience. They were not requiring medical attention or any such essential service. They could have simply accepted a replacement commissioner and demonstrated the maturity expected from adults in our society. But it was not about maturity or getting married, it was about getting this man who dared to stand up for his convictions. They were going to make sure he paid the price. There is no other way to describe their actions but spiteful and nasty.

      "As much as I think these decisions are stupid and bigoted, the separation of church and state protects them."

      You watch too much American TV, William. First, Canada does not have a separation of church and state clause, in fact neither does the US. The US Constitution simply states the government shall not establish any religion.

      Second, the intent was to prevent the government from interfering with religious practice, it was never intended to prevent religious influence over government decisions.

      This, William, is where atheists do one of their very frequent face plants, they don't know the facts, they don't know history, and they refuse to learn because it might upset their perfect little world.

      "With regard to the Bible and slavery, calling it complicated doesn't excuse it."

      Thank you very much, William for so aptly demonstrating my previous point regards atheists and history. Very well done. I knew you would not bother to do any research into the question simply because it would wind up destroying one of your favourite arguments. However, I thought I would at least give you the chance to practice some intellectual honesty.

      "By the way, just because a person is an atheist, don't assume that he has not read and understands the Bible."

      Oh, I know the old atheist line, 'I've read the Bible more than most Christians' or some variation thereof.
      Perhaps you have read the Bible, that would be positive. But have you ever bothered to study it historically?

      "Either the homosexuals are exponentially smarter and more politically aware than Christians,..."

      Homosexuals are simply people so no, they are not exponentially smarter than Christians. Some are very brilliant, some are as dumb as fence posts, just like Christians, so that is a completely moot point.

      What the homosexual lobby does have that Christians do not is a very large, very persuasive, very liberal, very politically correct, very biased and for the most part atheistic mass media to promote their cause. Obviously they have been very successful with you. You've probably presented every one of their talking points over the last couple of days.

      Delete
  18. seems the new video shows them negotiating. It's going to be hard for them to claim these are just external costs if they claim it costs them almost nothing but they want to see what other clinics are getting. And that after being offered more than they asked for. That's pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      IBD is running Charles Krauthammer's article about Planned Parenthood. Apparently they circumvent the law by covering the costs in shipping and receiving.

      http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/072315-763103-charles-krauthammer-planned-parenthood-shows-why-we-need-to-ban-late-term-abortions.htm

      Delete
    2. I should have typed 'handling' instead of 'receiving'.

      Delete
  19. "I expect in time (as has happened in history) the church will eventually change its stance on the matter"

    Not sure what significance this has if true. The "church" can chime in with pop culture all it wants. But that does not change what "the Word of God" says.

    Christ asked those who were anxious to stone the adulteress, that let the one who is without sin cast the first stone. They all walked away. He was left with her and remarked that no one had stoned her. He said neither did he condemn her for her adultery and fornication, but that she should go and SIN NO MORE. The theological concept here is clear. Christ is willing to forgive the sins of sinners. But they must REPENT. Meaning turn away from their sins and do their best to sin no more.

    Jesus quoted the Torah and the prophets throughout his ministry, according to the books of the New Testament.
    Gives some the impression that even though silent on individuals having sex with others of the same sex, it seems likely he would condemn the practice if confronted with the question, based on what God his Father had to say about it in the earlier writings.

    But for those who seem sure that the Bible is fiction, and there is no biblical authority to be accountable to, then why bother discussing it with people who have those beliefs?

    God, thank you for your mercy. Continue to have mercy on us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me see if I have this straight.

      1) God is infallible.

      2) God said that homosexuals are to be stoned.

      3) Jesus said that they shouldn't be stoned but that they should repent and sin no more.

      4) Jesus is god.

      If god is infallible, why did he have to change his mind?

      Delete
    2. William,

      "Let me see if I have this straight."

      Nope, not even in the ball park.

      How about another chance to do some research? Do a little study to learn about the law and grace and how it applies to man and his relationship with God.

      Delete
    3. bpragmatic,

      "But for those who seem sure that the Bible is fiction, and there is no biblical authority to be accountable to, then why bother discussing it with people who have those beliefs?"

      They do it because they need too. If they are not asserting their 'superior intellect' they feel empty. Many have very little in their lives intellectually outside their atheism.Their whole identity depends on it. Plus, they need to continually re-assure themselves they are right and the only way to do that is take on those who believe the Bible to be true.

      In addition, there are some who are just plain belligerent and like to pick fights so they can showcase what they believe is their superior knowledge.

      Personally I don't really mind as it proves very entertaining at times.

      Delete