Abortion-opposing senator squelches critics on his Facebook page
A screencap from Sen. Steve Martin's Facebook page
Note from Dan: This comes in from the regular poster known on this blog as Scott.
Dan,
Just wanted to run kind of an interesting tidbit your way … Don’t know if you want to run with it or not … but apparently it was enough to get a bunch of Leftist Roanokers in a tizzy.
——-
Today on State Senator Steve Martin’s Facebook page the Senator posted the following tidbit:
“Delegate Cathy[sic] Byron’s Informed Consent for abortion legislation, HB 462, passed the Senate on a vote of 21 to 19. As the Standing Committee Chairman, it was my responsibility to carry the bill on the Senate Floor.”
This topic fired a lot of people up, and a friend of mine was posting on his wall protesting. Because of the nature of Facebook, when anyone does anything that action sort of spreads to others looking at their friend feed. (Which is how I found out about this.) Apparently a number of Roanokers picked up on this thread and posted on it, only to have their posts censored and removed from Senator Martin’s staff, or by him himself. He claimed he was actually doing some of the posting on the thread.
I jumped on board, made a few posts and pointed out that while he was only elected by his district, his laws and actions affect all Virginians, and as such, he should listen to everyone. Sure his constituents can take preference, but to censor people from outside his district seems drastic.
“From Staff:
Due to the high number of responses from organized spamming efforts from primarily non-constituents, staff has decided (as is our full right) to delete the entire thread of comments.
We appreciate the honest feedback and communication from our constituents, who have used this Page for its intended purpose – as a means to stay informed on legislative matters pertinent to Virginians in the 11th District – and who have contacted us via email with their thoughts.
If you wish to send us questions or comments, we gladly welcome them at district11@senate.virginia.gov. Again, please, do not post them here. Please also note that due to the high volume of communications we receive during Session, responses are prioritized based on constituency.”
I responded and I received about 20 “Likes” in the next 30 minutes or so as my posts remained up. Senator Martin actually responded to me as well, but then proceeded to completely take the thread down this afternoon with the following explanation:
Attached are screenshots I took in anticipation he would attempt to censor critical commentary on his page. I have redacted my last name as well as any others except the Senator to protect their privacy, but I have original copies, as well as the rest of the screen from my computer. There are 4 pictures of the thread, and 2 where I expanded my comments which ultimately got the thread shut down.
I normally would let things blow over, but I believe that our representatives and senators may be elected by a certain population, but they exist to serve EVERYONE. I think they should also be held accountable for their actions. This man believes neither.
If you want more info, let me know. You know how to get a hold of me. I would prefer my last name not be attached to this if you do decide to go with it.
–Scott
March 1, 2012 - 8:00 AM
Even though I was respectful on Sen Martin’s FB page, no cursing, no name calling, I was blocked from commenting.
This comment of mine was removed, and was then followed-up with statements like the one above.
“I’m always interested in honest communication, and most definitely about the legislation in question. That’s why this conversation should be had with the person who represented its supporters at the session during which it passed. Actually, I’ve got a couple questions:
If this is something that the most well-known provider of abortions does without prompting from the government, why must we codify it as law in our state (which itself isn’t an abortion provider, or even a medical institution)?
And if we are creating a requirement for a medical procedure you assert is already standardized care for women, why then is there an exception in the cases of rape and/or incest? The only distinct difference between an exempted case and one that isn’t is the decision to have sex. If a woman decides to have sex, and her birth control fails (“There is no 100% effective birth control aside from abstinence” – thank you, bible camp!), she cannot exempt herself from the same trial, which you acknowledge this procedure is by allowing for exemptions.
What you have created, whether you choose to endorse my saying so or not, is a penalty system for the decision to have sex. This is why thousands of men and women are in an uproar. That is why our state, and the Republican party, is currently viewed as a backwards laughingstock to anyone who isn’t so high-minded to think you can keep people from fornicating. And that is why so many of us are looking forward to voting you and the people who agree with you out of office.”
I hope events like these, where our current politicians show exactly how disconnected they are from the people they serve, lead to people becoming more active and engaged in the political process, from running against them as candidates to voting them out as citizens.
I was one of MANY that got ridiculous replies to my posts and then was later blocked. Senator Martin’s staff member Jonathon…can’t remember his last name but it will be in some of the numerous screenshots that were taken posted all kinds of ridiculous comments to me which remained there after mine were taken down, which only added to the ridicule of the Senator’s staff. What they don’t seem to understand is that we, as women, are in charge of OUR BODIES. Not them. I also asked why they were so interested in our vaginas and uteruses but yet we weren’t asking any questions about their penises. I do plan on inviting some of them along to my next appointment for a pap smear.
What they’re doing to women in Richmond makes me almost embarassed to say I live in Virginia.
Something else they must have forgotten in Richmond-ultrasounds are performed before all abortions already. What they’ve just done was simply a waste of time and taxpayer money.
I got blocked as well, earlier on, despite being civil when asking questions and expressing my concerns. I was glad to see others posting after they stopped allowing me to do so. Scott, I don’t know you personally, but your posts were excellent and spot-on. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It’s worth noting that Senators Bryce Reeves and Tom Garrett are doing the same thing on their Facebook pages. They delete any negative comment and block people from posting, but leave any positive commentary up on their pages. Sad that these “representatives” will not engage citizens whom their legislation affects in a dialogue.
http://www.facebook.com/VoteTomVA22
http://www.facebook.com/ReevesForVAStateSenate?sk=wall
Our representatives ARE held accountable, we have elections.
Senator Martin serves his district first and foremost. Scott, you need to contact YOUR representative. If your rep’s vote doesn’t alter the result in your favor, oh well.
ALL Virginians have a say in this.
——
I applaud him for calling it like it is.
I wouldn’t allow Pro-Abortion activists who are distorting the truth to have any voice on my page either.
For what it’s worth, I only stumbled upon this second-hand. I am not part of any “coordinated effort”.
The whole reason it sticks out to me is that Politicians today are elected by their district, then ultimately make laws, rules and regulations that affect people who do not have the power to vote them out. Because of this, they feel that they are exempt from scrutiny outside of their district.
I HEAVILY Disagree with this sentiment, and I know that our war-friendly comrades on the right would have to agree since we scrutinize other nations and their leadership… Only we go in and blow dictators up and take them out of power when we disagree with their stances.
The evil, pro-life Jill Stanek is back!
Liberals…Darwinists…others afraid of, or offended by truth…I’m warning you.
Read something else.
LOL.
This is a first-hand account of Obama’s reasons for backing INFANTICIDE. HIS words on the matter. Let’s read and believe that he means what he says.
Here they are.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative.
7. Anyway, doctors don’t do that. (odd thing to say, isn’t it?)
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof. (If we could look at his college transcripts, we’d see that he is also a OBGYN Physician)
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
—–
Obama is either confused…or a liar.
But, one thing we do know, he is totally okay with INFANTICIDE.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45553/
His page. He can do what he wants. Plus he has his disclaimer:
“Please Note: This wall is monitored and maintained by Senator Martin’s staff. Content is removed at the discretion of the monitors, so please keep your interactions respectful and civil.”
It is just Facebook people and it’s his page. Tag him and maim his name, beliefs, children, what have you, on your own page. It’s his prerogative to do what he wants on his whether you like and or agree or not.
Whose page is it? Oh yeah, it’s HIS PAGE!
I’ve always wondered why people are anti-abortion, but pro death penalty. Isn’t the death penalty playing God as well?
Sorry Lake Claytor, if indeed he had courage, and was “calling it like it is” he would accept that some of his constituents and people in Virginia disagree with him. Free speech is OK but only when they agree with you? That is calling it as you believe it should be. Typical right winger. Dish it out and hide in the safety of anonymity or censorship.
There you go, you finally have the courage to admit the truth: “I wouldn’t allow Pro-Abortion activists who are distorting the truth to have any voice on my page either.” No you would not, but you damn sure think nothing of coming here distorting the truth and trashing the people in this blog community and thrashing everyone with your zealous judgment and right wing demagoguery. Thanks for the bit of honesty.
I got banned from WSLS’s Facebook page.
Senator Steve Martin led the push to pass this particular bill. I watched the bill be debated and passed live. As a senior senator, it was up to him to “urge” others to vote against amendments, etc. He urged his side to vote AGAINST amendments that would have disallowed women to be coerced into medical procedures, that would have allowed uninsured women to opt out of this costly/unnecessary procedure, that would have had the Commonwealth cover costs of a procedure they’re MANDATING.
He talks about personal responsibility, but takes none. HE led the push to get this bill passed. We want answers. HE decided that he is more capable than my doctor of saying what medical procedures are needed. Get an M.D. then, Senator! HE decided that state legislators have a place in the doctor-patient relationship. He and everyone else who voted yes better be showing up to all my future medical appointments to advise me!
It should be noted that that disclaimer was added after people began expressing concerns.
Also, no one is saying he “can’t” delete comments or block people. Clearly he can. But is this kind of cowardice what we want in our representatives?
If you cannot clearly articulate your views to someone who is asking questions or has concerns, what on EARTH are you doing in this position?
@Courtney: As someone who has followed Senator Martin’s Page – oh yea, it is HIS Page…important point – from its literal beginning, your statement about the disclaimer being added is absolutely false. It has been there since mid-December, unaltered.
It is now at the TOP of the page, due to the switch with Pages now having Timelines. And a good thing, too.
Sandi, aren’t you the one that wants all crazy lunatic fringe guano nut case right wingers to find another blog and this be blog be for the lefties and progressives?
Why do I get the feeling that LC and PP wouldn’t be as conciliatory if it were a Democrat removing all criticism?
“Whose page is it? Oh yeah, it’s HIS PAGE!”
REALLY? How old are we now???
He’s a politician. I was one of many whose posts were removed, being called “spam.” We were asking simple questions. He frontlined the bill, so he should be able to defend it. Again, he’s a POLITICIAN. He should be expected to answer questions and confront criticism with respect and maturity. Not only that, it’s NOT his page. Read your Facebook rights of use…. We do not own those pages, or the content we upload onto them. Facebook does.
Deleting these posts because he clearly doesn’t know how to handle the negative response this bill has stirred up is extremely unprofessional.
It’s called the FIRST AMENDMENT! Freedom of speech. I was not being disrespectful, profane, or aggressive in any of my posts. My posts were clearly thought out, professional trains of thought.
And Casey is right….. Roanokers are not in his district, but this law will affect ALL women in Virginia. So I have a right to have my thoughts heard, because they may shed some light on topics and ideas that Senator Martin and his colleagues are obviously attempting to shield from the people in his district.
He literally has the audacity to label this an “organized political effort.” Even if that was the case, IS THIS A BAD THING? Should we not be able to rally together in defense of our civil rights? What would our country be like today if people hadn’t stood together to support women’s right to vote or own property? To say that our schools should be integrated, and that interracial marriage is ok? To legalize contraception and promote sex education in schools?
Since when did standing up for what we believe in and educating ourselves on politics become a sin?
@gdad EXACTLY! The freaking GOP would have a field day with this if a Democrat was doing the same. And, @Sarah it’s NOT his page. It’s Facebook’s page. He has the rights to upload his content onto it, and, yes, delete and add comments as he pleases. But if your comments were being deleted off of a Democrat’s page, you would be in just as much of a tizzy. And the disclaimer was added in mid-December; that’s also when comments began to get deleted.
There is also a disclaimer on the back of dump trucks that says they will not be held responsible for any damages done to your vehicle as a result of heavy objects flying off their truck.
And, you know what….. That’s a flat out lie.
Caity said…
“So I have a right to have my thoughts heard”
No…you don’t.
And they accuse us of PC language? Opposition is now “organized spamming efforts”. Do they think that his votes and legislation ONLY affect his constituents? Where do you get the clowns? People who hate government, being responsible to their citizens and the First Amendment should not be re-elected. “Fool you once, shame on them, fool you twice, shame on you.”
Uptheriver: “wants all crazy lunatic fringe guano nut case right wingers to find another blog” Yes “and this be blog be for the lefties and progressives” No. I enjoy a good conversation with someone who challenges me and makes me think, I despise a shouting match with idiots hurling insults, too lazy to get off the talking points and quit lying. There is a difference even if you cannot see it.
The best line came from Senator Steve himself:
“For the honest brokers on line here, notice the unusually high commentators out of Roanoke, even those who have already been removed. The same people are doing the same thing on my colleagues pages, as well. They are intentionally ignoring the reality of the legislation for political purposes. It is an organized political effort that we will gradually bring to a halt here.”
Hilarious, isn’t it? Considering the legislators are ignoring the reality of their own legislation to achieve a social agenda. They are hiding behind the term “informed consent” instead of pushing what they want, which is the state-sponsored abolition of abortion. Victoria Cobb worked on the legislature to get new architectural and construction regulations put in that would increase the costs of planned parenthood, and this new “informed consent” Psychological Guilt Trip is no different.
IT is the same thing as that Bojangling chicken man did to try and prevent Chick Fil A from coming to Salem.
These Cowards don’t want to stand up and proclaim to all they are anti-choice, and are just nickel and diming everyone to death with bureaucracy and meddling. And then when this issue dies down they will sit with their Tea Party comrades and scream “LESS GOVERNMENT”
Hypocrites and Cowards.
(I hope my bolding works… i am trying HTML within a post, sometimes these things don’t work like they should.)
His page? isn’t he public servant? I often disagreed with John Warner, but he would state his position and was respectful to me. I was never blocked from making comments. I believe many of these lawmakers have forgotten how to be statesmen.
Lake Claytor…what world are you living in? All that Infanticide stuff…I’m not even going there.
When Senator Martin has an MD after his name, maybe then I’ll consider his thoughts on women’s reproduction and “informed consent”.
One to ponder now, and it’s also on my car-”Pro life and Pro War? I’m anti-hypocrite, thanks.”
Also,
LC, tell me why I don’t have a right to be critical of a legislator who’s not in my district? Do you think these legislators only take funding and lobbying perks from companies and constituents from only within their district? That’s not how our broken political system works, dude.
And while we’re at it…. Were you and your comrades not screaming for the Heads of Pelosi and Frank for the past few years?
Hello! Wake up! You don’t get the Double Standard on this one.
23.”And they accuse us of PC language? Opposition is now “organized spamming efforts”.”
I agree. So long as the language was appropriate, civil and polite, the comments should stay regardless of how the poster felt about the issue.
PC = BS
When does a fetus become a person?
@21 – “He has the rights to upload his content onto it, and, yes, delete and add comments as he pleases.” So you’re just crying to cry then.
The democrats do it, businesses do it, individuals do it. It’s freaking facebook, get a grip.
Another win for the GOP, Uptheriver. You’ve selectively picked something from my argument to suit your needs. Hows that for “refusing to face reality.”
Katrina…do you think a woman has the right to have the baby killed after they are delivered?
Obama does, do you agree with him?
—–
28
Dude…I never said you didn’t have the right to be critical. Go for it.
But, you LOST the elections that led to this. Stomping your feet won’t change it.
See Gov. Walker in Wisconsin for an example.
—–
30
It isn’t a matter of “when” so much as it is WHO gets to decide that it is a “person”.
The “mother” decides when and IF a fetus becomes a person. It’s totally up to her.
I hope one or more of the people who had comments removed from the Senator’s fb page will create a new Facebook page or pages for posting the removed comments.
I got thrown out of a bar once.
Sandi, Jane and Courtney
Can I get a link to your facebook page so I can comment anything and everything I can think of?
Since it is Freedom of Speech, you won’t mind anything that I say on your site? I will try to make sure I bombard your pages with Right Wing craziness too.
Also, Facebook and Twitter are for “followers” right? If you don’t like the guy, dont follow!
@Lake Claytor-like I said, I’m not even going there because that article was so completely rediculous.
@PeterJ-IMO, fetus becomes a person when it can breathe on it’s own outside of the womb/survive outside of the womb, so around 24 weeks, but the statistics I’ve found (ONE quick search) are this-
According to the University of North Carolina Center for Maternal and Infant Health, babies born at about 23 weeks gestation have between a 10 and 20 percent chance of survival , while babies born between 26 and 29 weeks gestation have a 90 percent chance of survival.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221450-how-premature-can-a-baby-be-still-survive/#ixzz1nsvT6aJ0
And before any name slinging starts, I’m just one of many PRO CHOICE women. Let’s make that clear. Abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control, but if a woman chooses to have one, THAT IS HER RIGHT.
BTW, great video here for all you on here who actually VALUE human life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2cEhP0bYQ
37
I think Obama stance on Infanticide is beyond ridiculous. It’s HEINOUS.
But, let’s move on to your other point.
So…the babies that are born prematurely (prior to 24 weeks) and put into incubators…YOU say they aren’t a person yet?
Is that what you are saying Katrina?
So, if somebody unplugged one of those machines, intentionally, and the 22 week baby died, would they be charged with anything?
Toddlers NEED their parents to survive…are they not a “person”?
#36 Nah, PP, I already have some friends who do that.
38
I am not going to call you names.
I am only one of many Pro-Life men and women. I speak for myself.
Abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control, BUT it is, by some.
I do not believe anyone has a “right” to kill a baby, anywhere.
We don’t have to get on some huge abortion debate. I don’t care if you think abortion is a sin. I personally don’t agree, but that’s not where the concern came from in the first place.
The concern is legislation that puts a senator in the middle of a doctor-patient relationship. Doctors, the ones with professional knowledge and experience, are the ones to advise on this, NOT a politician. Ever. This is a dangerous precedent.
It’s shameful political maneuvering, using a polarizing issue to garner votes and backing, blinding people to the fact that the state has no business making medical decisions for anyone.
Note the headline doesn’t say “FETUS born at 22 weeks…”
“Baby born at 22 weeks doing well”
http://www.health24.com/news/Pregnancy/1-940,66371.asp
So…this baby, Allegra…NOT a person.
That’s the argument of President Obama and the Pro-Abortion crowd.
oh, Lake Claytor…jeez, if a baby can survive in NICU at 22, 24 weeks, whatever,that little baby sure is a person, BUT, go look at statistical rates-the ones I posted for instance.
I guess the VERY potential abnormalities that PERSON will suffer from is your god’s will too?
http://pro-lifetube.com/videos/246/live-action-media
Still no answer from pro – abortion advocates, except Sandi who responded the other day by saying abstinence does not work as birth control. Really?
Politics and religion aside watch the video and tell me what is right about this happening over 1 million times a year in America. Most of the murders on the video are first tri mester abortions.
If you are pro-abortion at least admit that you believe a woman’s right to choose extends to ripping these little bodies limb from limb.
Will, what was “right” about bombing civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Baghdad? What was/is “right” about letting babies be born to suffer and die as long as you kept women from knowing about birth control? What was “right” about women having child after child until she died of it? What was “right” about the sanctimonious Catholic Church withholding information and help, then refusing consecrated ground for these “babies”? What is “right” about the obscene wealth of the Vatican as children die of hunger and disease? What was “right” about selling the children of slaves? What is “right” about something as simple as a condom preventing AIDS being refused to women? There is a whole lot of “not right” in the world, always has been, and adding more unwanted babies is not going to fix it. Maybe you need to look to God for your own healing and leave desperate women alone.
Will, you’re missing one huge detail:
Abstinence works as birth control 99% of the time. (Unless you’re raped or the Virgin Mary). I don’t think anyone with logic disagrees.
Abstinence education to teenagers as a method of birth control is what does not work.
I’ve got nothing else here other than when the Senators have an MD attached to their names, then they’re qualified to make decisions about me and MY BODY.
Will, never seen that..don’t want to see it again, but glad I did.
I cannot understand how some can look at that and still be pro-choice. Unreal!
According to Courtney, choice should be between a doctor and patient.
“Hey Doc, I need you to help me commit suicide. It will be a choice that I have and you carry out for me.”
Sounds logical to me Courtney
Abstinence-only sex education is the equivalent of “Just hold it” potty training.
Your spurious “morals” do not apply to everyone, despite your insistence. Where is this outrage when it comes to the PEOPLE in our state who are starving, jobless, abused? Once born, you stop caring? I know the argument: “These are innocent babies. The people suffering are sinners; it’s God’s will” and so on.
News flash: Not everyone believes in your God, some don’t believe in any God, and there are plenty of people out there who view the concept of sin as a great method used by the church to control people, and not as something that befalls all of us the moment we take a breath.
Religious freedom is NOT inflicting however you interpret what your holy book says or imaginary friend tells you to do on EVERYONE. That would be called a theocracy. See: Iran. We don’t live in one of those, and thank mythical sky bully for that.
With regard to the video Pistol Pete posted, I applaud a preacher for having some scientific knowledge (which the church tried to stifle for hundreds of years), but the arrogance in his presentation is truly astounding. DNA coming together from 2 parents is not new or special. It happens in tons of species. Why do we think we are so amazing? We are but a tiny part of nature, and nature has been doing this for a long time before we came around.
45
Does “survivability” decide personhood?
As I said before, toddlers WILL NOT survive by themselves.
How about the elderly?
—–
will,
The gruesome reality of abortion is too much for them. Hence, the ABSURD arguments that they make to justify it.
“Its not a baby!”
Whatever.
The Left has done the same thing to justify abortion that the proponents of slavery did to justify owning slaves.
They have campaigned non-stop to convince the masses that babies in the womb are NOT human.
Abortion is murder
All this bull about murder and infanticide. LC posts daily the same old distortions, along with Pistol Pete…same sanctimonious nonsensical proselytizing 24/7.
No need to respond since they will ignore, redirect and misinform and continue their drum beat.
I posted this before to you “all-up-in-a-woman’s-uterus” types on another thread. Did you look at it? Did you see the “baby”? Doubtfully – and this pregnancy at the 7th week mark – more than 61% of terminations occur before the 9th week.
Stop telling everyone to look at your video if you are unwilling to look at the ultra sound pics of a 7 week old FETUS – not a baby, not a child…Hypocrites all..
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/pregnancycalendar/ig/7-Weeks-Pregnant.-ThA/
Lake Claytor, if my birth control method fails, will you help me take care of my baby? or one of your buddies? My husband and I have one child and definitely can’t afford another one.
In complete agreement with Courtney-where IS the outrage about homelessness, hunger, poverty, unemployment, and all the other things that are WRONG in this world? Why aren’t you worried about the people that are already here instead of the potential population? Do you visit downtown Roanoke and see all the homeless people? Do you visit Martinsville where they have such a high unemployment rate? Do you see the crappy housing in poor neighborhoods that the slumlords won’t keep up to code? Try living in one of those situations, then come preach to us about women’s rights, personhood, ultrasounds, and abortion.
Should we show Hillary a picture of a baby the age 0bama thinks it’s OK to kill them after a botched abortion? Would she say ‘that doesn’t resemble a person’?
I think Mr. 0bama is reserving a special place in hell for votes like that.
I will agree that a zygote is a person, if you agree an acorn is an oak tree….
“Will agree that a zygote is a person, if you agree an acorn is an oak tree….”
. . . and a fertilized egg is a chicken.
No Katrina these judgmental types only care about the baby until you carry it to term, then you damn well better be on your own or you will be called a “leech” and a “taker”, “moocher”, “loser” and all sorts of really flattering epithets for moms who actually choose life but cannot afford the child. I see hypocrites!
No they do not care about any other people who are struggling because they fight every program that helps people. No they do not care about babies once they are born. They fight birth control, sex education, and pretend women just go about murdering babies, so they do not really care about abortion either. They ignore the law, and their own hypocrisy to condemn desperate women. They want in your womb yet will tell you to stay out of their business and out of their gun holster. I see hypocrites.
will:
Even though you are a one note Johnny, you are NOT being scientifically honest. Abortion such as those in your dubiously provenanced video are a distinct minority. Since you might not understand: First tri-mester means up to 12 weeks. But nearly 2/3 of all abortions are done by 9 weeks, with the majority of those even earlier. So, you can either adjust the inflated numbers in your rhetoric to be accurate, or be ignorant in public and lose credibilty for your position by your willful distortion of the facts.
NOW, Mr. Life Issues, respond to the following ideas if you expect to be taken seriously:
No one finds later term abortion to be a pleasant thing, and links like yours that seek to sensationalize the debate (particularly for those impressionable folks without a background in viewing surgical procedures of any kind, apparently this includes you, “will”) do a disservice to calm, informed debate. Obviously you believe the debate should not remain calm, but as for being informed, you cannot distort the truth and prevail.
And you still face the proven fact that ALL life is derived from the same organic materials, be it man, mule or HIV, and carbon dating science is absolutely valid. So it is most accurate to say that we did not derive from monkeys; both monkeys and ourselves share a common ancestry with poison ivy, pond slime, cockroaches, dungflies and Eric Cantor.
But, while those like yourself are stuck on the single issue of abortion, much bigger life issues already loom. Biological science is making astounding achievements. 30,000 year old DNA has been reconstituted into a living plant. Stem cells are being found to transmute into virtually any tissue type, and there may be cells in the post-menopausal uterus that can still create life. We know for sure now that there is water on the moon and likely elsewhere in space. And probably planets in habitable zones.
So, beyond abortion, there is much reason to calmly debate our scientific directions, but only with accurate facts. You want to talk about existential danger? Nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence could eventually threaten the very idea of organic life. Most profoundly, and most threatening to any religious scheme that depends on a reality where “humans” are the favored life form of “God”, we now know that Neils Bohrs’ idea that quantom particles have entanglement that does not require proximity (locality) is actually true. We can’t explain why at this time, but we must already accomodate the truth of the science.
So, sorry, will, but your preference for emotional reflex over calmly stating a case loses you more people than it gains, and the quality of those you do gain will be lesser by having ignoring our whole body of knowledge. So be more honest in your claims. Or do you want to be known as a fact aborter?
I know you guys won’t read this, so I am sharing with LC, Will, uptheriver, and Suzie. But really its for you Hillary.
http://creation.com/abortion-argument-unravels
I EMPHASIZE paragraphs 5, 6, and 7
#62 Oh good lord, PP, that proves nothing at all. The guy simply tries to make his unscientific opinion sound scientific by citing a medical paper that doesn’t even address the conclusion he’s trying to make. That was really, really weak.
And from a creation group no less. Talk about REALLY unscientific.
So Sandi, the problem is not really addressed is it? The real problem is dead beat dads and women who sleep around. Instead of taking an INNOCENT life, why don’t we get on a movement of treating the real problem and that is parenting, sex before marriage, and etc.
If you make a choice that could change your life, you better be able to deal with the consequences instead of DISPOSING of the result of your actions.
62.
Great article, Pistol Pete. Thanks for the link. It should be obvious the fetus is a separate being from the mother, but it still needs it explained for some. This article does it beautifully.
Should we show Suzie a picture of the hundreds of babies dying each day a slow torturous death thanks to the Catholic Church’s “teachings” on contraception and reproductive choice? Would she say ‘that life is so sacred it should include such needless suffering to be faithful’?
I think Popes, the Catholic Church and catholics like Suzie are the ones with reservations to a special place in hell for supporting that. Especially while condemning women who are already suffering.
Pistol Pete you have no clue what the problem or the solution is; that is obvious. For the record, could you tell us who has said the fetus is not a separate entity? Has anyone said it was merely a clone or a spare part? I missed that.
You are grasping at straws because the slippery, judgmental slope you are on requires that to break your fall. We have made the decision about what we “value” and no, it is not children no one wants, babies dying in pain and fetus’ before they are born. You cannot bomb babies and claim they are sacred. You cannot kick it the moment it gets here and then claim it is sacred life. It does not work that way. You are fooling no one with your “care”.
I will agree that a zygote is a person, if you agree an acorn is an oak tree….
This threadbare analogy is wrong. More accurately it would read, “I’ll agree a zygote is an adult, if you agree an acorn is a tree”. Neither of course is true. If you wanted to make the analogy true, you would say “I will agree a zygote is a person, if you agree an acorn is of the genus Quercus (just like the acorn’s adult form, the oak tree).
Sorry for getting scientific on you, Hillary. Reminds you of the 10th-grade biology course you had in your last year of schooling, doesn’t it?
“Never argue logic with a mathematician’ –Bernoulli
Sandi, thank you for being sane
Yes, I know what the solution is. Abortion is murder and should be illegal. Who is bombing babies? President Obama and Bush.., Children are sacred to me so don’t say I do any kicking,
The kicking is done by the OWS and GOVERNMENT LEECHES who take welfare from the government to pay for their drugs, then get high and kick their baby.
A social conservative who believes that children are a gift from GOD, and are a blessing…does not kick around a child. That belongs to the Left crowd of moochers and OWS crackheads pooping on the sidewalk
Mr. Scientist GDAD,
Explain how it is “unscientific”?????????
All you ever do on here is tell Conservatives we are wrong with nothing strong and factual to point out. No substance.
56
You are assuming A LOT, Katrina. But, that’s certainly fair, especially in a forum like this. We don’t really know each other.
But, Katrina, I WOULD absolutely help you, NO DOUBT.
But, have you ever considered NOT having sex? Seems like that might be the most responsible thing to do. It’s definitely preferred over killing an innocent life.
You mention homelessness, hunger and poverty. I’m not going to discuss what I do personally in those regards, it would be in poor taste. But, I will say that my Church (like most churches) is heavily focused on these issues.
You raise some VERY legitimate points, Katrina.
But, let’s be crystal clear on this.
Rebuking a group of people for “not doing enough” to help the needy is no justification for killing an innocent life, simply because nobody is willing or able to take care of it.
The solution to indifference and selfishness cannot be MORE of the same.
Would you agree with that?
#65 Notice how poor suzie feels she has to try to come to the rescue every time I destroy or refute some right winger’s deluded contention about something or other. In every case suzie shows up a few posts after mine to assert that the right-wing post that I’ve already stomped into the dirt was a “great article” or an incredible link. And of course it’s nothing of the kind.
From now on know that if you embarrass a right winger over some bone-headed post they’ve made, you know you’ve hit a home run if suzie comes in behind in a vain attempt to prop up the original post.
Warren,
You say,
“Abortion such as those in your dubiously provenanced video are a distinct minority.”
So what? So, they should be allowed? The point is this WHO decides when a baby is a baby? And are YOU willing to be that guy?
You call reality “sensational”. I’m simply asking you to look at what YOU are defending.
The fact is, you don’t like people seeing what is done, albeit less often.
Late term abortions are nothing less than horrific and barbaric. But, you can’t acknowledge that because it weakens your everything else you apparently believe in.
You say.
“And you still face the proven fact that ALL life is derived from the same organic materials, be it man, mule or HIV, and carbon dating science is absolutely valid. So it is most accurate to say that we did not derive from monkeys; both monkeys and ourselves share a common ancestry with poison ivy, pond slime, cockroaches, dungflies and Eric Cantor.”
That paragraph requires a lot of FAITH, Warren.
Not a lot of “fact” there.
I would say, however, that we all share the same Creator.
Warren, why don’t you tell me how it ALL began. Please explain in detail. That will give us all an insight into your thinking on this.
The Origin of the Universe and Life, how did it occur?
#68 the more most ill-informed posts the more ignorant and ridiculous it looks…still haven’t gotten that help, I see…
LC: PLEASE READ THIS WHOLE MESSAGE CAREFULLY. OTHERS WELCOME AS WELL.
First, I note that so far, “will” has not responded in defense of his posted gore porn’s utility in furthering calm debate. He seems, like you, to only want to have an extremely emotional discussion, not just on this topic, but on virtually all the topics you have joined on this blog. I now wonder if this is a sign of one who’s not very interested in proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than emotion. The rest of your post reinforces this impression, LC.
For while you’re erupting with emotion driven responses, you do a combination of things unhelpful to reasoned dialogue. For example, you wrote:
“Late term abortions are nothing less than horrific and barbaric. But, you can’t acknowledge that”
…whereas I had written:
“No one finds later term abortion to be a pleasant thing”.
My use of less inflammatory language than the rhetoric you insist on does not alter the idea in my statement. That you would respond as if I had not acknowledged the visceral unpleasantness of many surgical procedures (especially for those without a surgical background) could only be due to one of three reasons. A)You overlooked it in your emotional haste and preconceived position, or B)you willfully ignored it, or C)you willfully lied.
Here, the most forgiving explanation is the one I’ll go with, that you simply overlooked my unambiguous statement.
Then, you proceed to an enormous generalization:
“you can’t acknowledge that because it weakens your everything else (sic) you apparently believe in.”
You presume to know everything else I apparently believe, from my position on Sunday hunting to whether I believe Oswald acted alone, and that’s a VERY BIG presumption from even those who do know me, unlike yourself.
Those who do know me best understand that on many topics, I realize that my beliefs may be subject to amendment as new information is confirmed. But such a sweeping presumption as you made is consistent with the tone of certainty you display throughout all your posts, and that gets at the reason you not only seem unable to understand my outlook, but also seem unwilling to accomodate many scientific truths that are problematic for your supposed certainties. We must have different relative comfort levels with the unknown; I try to accept the ongoing but incomplete state of our knowledge, while you seem to require a hand-me-down certainty to feel at equilibrium. That’s reflected in your demand “tell me how it ALL began. Please explain in detail..”. This seems to be your all-or-nothing requirement for every topic, rather than cultivating an ability to cope with uncertainites.
And I’ll address your seeming anti-intellectual bias and scientific denial more in a bit, but I won’t ignore your questions about late term pregnancy termination; I’m just grappling with the characteristically absolutist framing you used. You asked:
“So, they should be allowed? The point is this WHO decides when a baby is a baby? And are YOU willing to be that guy?”
Given the nuances and lack of absolutism in my thinking about this, my answers may be unsatisfying to an audience that depends on rigid solutions. But here’s what I think. These decisions are inseparable from many other life issues, which should be decided by the most intimately involved custodian of the life. In most of these cases, that means the woman whose womb has created the life. But you said “be allowed”, so I take it you meant legal in the U.S.; yes, I think their current legal and regulated status is appropriate, within a framework in which late term (21 weeks on) termination needs medical justification, such as generally prevails currently. And in all earlier cases, the choice to deliver must be bolstered by a strong commitment to life’s importance throughout life by the entire society, greater than we now see from many exploiters of the emotions surrounding life issues.
Your question “…WHO decides when a baby is a baby?” is unhelpfully framed by use of the general term “baby”. Colloquially, most think of “baby” as a post delivery infant. And right now you’re probably thinking “Oh you know what I meant”, but in fact because of your imprecision I don’t. If a pre-morula zygote is what you meant, then I don’t think it is a “baby”, because we know that beyond its’ naturally precarious viability, it is also too undifferentiated to determine that it will be a “baby” rather than a cell mass that might be naturally expelled, as many are every day. I otherwise see development in utero progressing to fetal recognition throughout the first 20 weeks, with custodial rights, up to and including viability cessation, remaining invested in the mother.
Since at a point unique for each individual, cell regeneration and cell death proceed simultaneously in the ongoing equation that is life’s viability, no single moment defines “life”, and rights to life are exactly matched by responsibilities to life in an inseparable way that too many zealots ignore.
But LC, besides your demonstrated need for absolutist answers, the question about “when is it a baby” serves you poorly in another way. It highlights your lack of awareness (or denial) of the truths that life sciences have uncovered.
You responded to my saying this:
“ALL life is derived from the same organic materials, be it man, mule or HIV, and carbon dating science is absolutely valid. So it is most accurate to say that we did not derive from monkeys; both monkeys and ourselves share a common ancestry with poison ivy, pond slime, cockroaches, dungflies and Eric Cantor.”
…by saying this:
“That paragraph requires a lot of FAITH, Warren…Not a lot of “fact” there.”
LC, There is nothing but scientific fact in what I said. The only modifier would be that I should have said “known life”, since we are rapidly discovering life forms that confound the requirements we had thought necessary for life. The irony seems lost on you that you are insisting on an adherence to faith, a faith that you (or those you received it from) define for yourself. The “science is a faith too” response that you might be tempted to respond with is a specious misunderstanding of what true science is.
It does indicate that your grasp of the proven role of DNA, RNA and proteins in creating known life is limited. Same for your grasp of carbon dating science. And there are numerous other far more astounding discoveries that we must accomodate, even before we can understand them fully.
Thus, I would love to hear how your faith is accomodating (or as seems likely, denying) such realities as I mentioned:
“30,000 year old DNA has been reconstituted into a living plant. Stem cells are being found to transmute into virtually any tissue type, and there may be cells in the post-menopausal uterus that can still create life. We know for sure now that there is water on the moon and likely elsewhere in space. And probably planets in habitable zones….Nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence could eventually threaten the very idea of organic life. Most profoundly, and most threatening to any religious scheme that depends on a reality where “humans” are the favored life form of “God”, we now know that Neils Bohrs’ idea that quantom particles have entanglement that does not require proximity (locality) is actually true.”
I’m sorry, there’s no nicer way to put it, LC, but than to say that you are ignoring proven facts, and the term for those who ignore hasn’t changed, and from the positions you take here, it applies to you.
Pistol Pete, if your brain could process “strong and factual”, you would not be a right winger.
You even said the words and they still did not register Lake Claytor! That is beyond pathetic. Katrina has you figured out IMO.
You SAY: “The solution to indifference and selfishness cannot be MORE of the same.” And yet all you want to do to “fix” the problem is make it harder for a woman to get an abortion instead of helping her not need one. Your judgmental right wing mind cannot even comprehend your hypocrisy apparently. Neither can Pistol Pete and Suzie. Definite pattern there. You can want it both ways, you just can’t have it both ways.
Warren,
Ever heard the saying “Quality over quantity”?
wow, you like to hear yourself type.
Anyhow, let me respond, although once again I had to be picky, I dont feel like writing all night long.
#1
You said…
“Late term abortions are nothing less than horrific and barbaric. But, you can’t acknowledge that”
…whereas I had written:
“No one finds later term abortion to be a pleasant thing”.
Sorry, Warren, but your statement about late term abortions “not being pleasant” is a bit of an understatement. I was hoping for more.
Are they “tolerable” to you?
They aren’t to me.
#2
“but also seem unwilling to accomodate many scientific truths that are problematic for your supposed certainties. We must have different relative comfort levels with the unknown; I try to accept the ongoing but incomplete state of our knowledge,”
Warren, please explain what you mean by “scientific truths”.
I’d specifically like to hear you explain how humans “share a common ancestry with poison ivy, pond slime, cockroaches, dungflies”.
#3
“you are insisting on an adherence to faith”
When? Where?
Warren, you say…”It does indicate that your grasp of the proven role of DNA, RNA and proteins in creating known life is limited.”
I have to admit, at this point I really lost interest, but your insults crack me up, Warren.
In the end…you did exactly what you accused me of.
You have ignored my most obvious questions. I know why you ignored them. You have no answer…Science has no answer, and THAT’s FINE. Just admit it.
Explain the origin of the universe/life.
Go for it.
—-
Are you a fan of Malthus, Warren? Just curious.
78
Sandi,
Your obviously very confused.
I don’t have ANY problem with a woman using contraceptives.
I just don’t think that someone who DOES have a problem should have to PAY for them.
“I just don’t think that someone who DOES have a problem should have to PAY for them.”
(clarifying)
I don’t think someone who has a problem with contraceptives should be forced to pay for somebody else’s contraceptives.
“I don’t think someone who has a problem with contraceptives should be forced to pay for somebody else’s contraceptives.”
LC, if somebody on here wrote: “I don’t think someone who has a problem with pregnancy should be forced to pay for somebody else’s pregnancy,” you and some others on this board would justifiably hit the roof. Note: Not one of the pro-contraceptive coverage crowd has uttered a line like that. The only place it’s coming from (re: birth control) are the RWers.
Anyway, allow me to rephrase your statement in order that it is factual and logical:
“I don’t think someone who has a problem with contraceptives should be forced to pay less for their health insurance because someone in the same insurance pool has elected for contraceptive coverage.”
There! Now it actually makes sense.
I am not the one who is “confused”. I do not call witnesses to Congress “sluts” and I do not defend those who do. I do not decry abortion out of one side of my mouth and decry contraceptive medication being covered by insurance out of the other. You don’t want abortions, but you also want contraceptives to harder to get, that is precisely “MORE of the same” and one will cause the other. That the Catholic Church and you cannot come to grips with the reality of life is not our problem. Women need, use and deserve to use contraceptives and like almost all medications, they deserve to have have insurance coverage for contraceptives. You want to discriminate in the name of the church for EMPLOYEES not religious devotees. A woman’s life has value and sanctity too, you should think about supporting them once in a while. Someday your daughter might need it.
Nope, Lake, that didn’t take all that long to type, but I figured you’d struggle to get through it. As proof, see that I actually posted several other times during the same period today, such as several paragraphs to John Wilburn on another thread. Not to worry, as time goes on I’ll break it down into digestible segments for any tv kids who need that, because there’s enough there of substance to do so. And this post has taken me about 90 seconds to write, FWIW.
Good to know what your attention limits are though. I wonder if that’s a heritable claytor trait, and if so, if it’s evolving into a longer attention span in your daughter. Here’s hoping so…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html
“63 percent of Americans said they supported the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control“
LC again demanded:
“Explain the origin of the universe/life. Science has no answer, and THAT’s FINE. Just admit it”.
Lake, start with this excerpt:
(I wrote) “(Lake)…you seem to require a hand-me-down certainty to feel at equilibrium. That’s reflected in your demand “tell me how it ALL began.
Please explain in detail..”. This seems to be your all-or-nothing requirement for every topic, rather than cultivating an ability to cope with uncertainites”.
(As Galileo said: “And yet it moves…”)
LC, PP, and the rest of the knuckledraggers seem to have a difficult time with the concept that contraceptive coverage in their group health insurance policies saves them money by REDUCING their premiums. Without the coverage the increased expense of more pregnancies with the prenatal care and hospital and labor and delivery costs would cause their premiums to increase. That is, unless they want to go back to the days of babies being born at home withj the accompanying higher rate of infant and maternal mortality. Common sense is not their strong point. It ain’t rocket science fellas. Just simple math. Ask your insurance agent.
LC, PP, and the rest of the knuckledraggers seem to have a difficult time with the concept that contraceptive coverage in their group health insurance policies saves them money by REDUCING their premiums. Without the coverage the increased expense of more pregnancies with the prenatal care and hospital and labor and delivery costs would cause their premiums to increase. That is, unless they want to go back to the days of babies being born at home withj the accompanying higher rate of infant and maternal mortality. Common sense is not their strong point. It ain’t rocket science fellas. Just simple math. Ask your insurance agent.
Dave thinks if we don’t buy Sandra Fluke and her fellow sluts birth control, then insurance rates will skyrocket. There is such a things as keeping your zipper zipped until marriage. Perhaps Dave didn’t teach those kinds of values to his kids during their “Christian” upbringing.
Warren,
My request is pertinent.
And you have no answer?
It’s okay, you can’t give one.
—–
Dan,
I get where you are going, but I think a better MORAL argument (because thats what this is) would be people that oppose using taxpayer’s money to fund Wars.
I GET that.
I don’t think affordability or lower premiums, “fairness” have ANYthing to do with it. IMO.