Sunday, January 17, 2016



More Leftist superficiality

It's not talk about abortion that conservatives object to.  It the reality of it.  You can say what you like about it but it's still killing babies.  If it's hate speech to object to the killing of babies, let's have more hate speech

Public discourse around abortion rights has for too long shrouded the common medical procedure in euphemisms and shame. That's the message of a new ad campaign from the nascent direct action group Reproaction.

With ads in the Hill-focused news site Politico, the organization aims to counter a tide of hate speech vilifying a procedure that the Guttmacher Institute has said about one in three U.S. women undergo.

"For so long, folks have talked about abortion . with shame or with euphemisms or as if there's something wrong with it," Erin Matson, co-director of Reproaction, told RH Reality Check. "We're excited to have a campaign that is affirmative and focuses on the positive value in people's lives."

Ads intended to destigmatize abortion care could roll out as soon as Thursday and are expected to run throughout the month, Matson said. Timed to coincide with the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the digital-only ads follow a December campaign by the group that sought to hold anti-choice leaders accountable for hate speech and violence surrounding reproductive health.

SOURCE 



16 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is supposedly wrong to kill black criminals who are shooting at police, but it is acceptable by the politically correct crowd to kill defenseless unborn babies because they are not convenient. Perhaps a lot of females should stop participating in activities that can lead to undesirable pregnancies.

Anonymous said...

The anti-abortion lobby is undermined by having within it extreme sub-lobbies where even a zygote cell is called a "baby". It's like the vegan end of vegetarianism or the Jainism end of Asian religions.

Use the Name, Luke said...

"even a zygote cell"

Are you claiming it's not human with its own distinct DNA? That certainly seems to be what you're implying.

Anonymous said...

So Luke equates one cell with a "baby". Nearly every cell of your body has the potential to grow into your clone like a twin, so if you have your appendix taken out, are you killing numerous potential babies? You'd have a better case to limit abortions at the point before an embryo could develop a heart-beat or nervous system.

Anonymous said...

A high proportion of fetuses at all stages from a few cells to actual still-births are rejected naturally, so it seems Nature or God are indifferent to human births, so why moralize about women who feel they cannot cope with a pregnancy either physically, psychologically or socially.

Use the Name, Luke said...

6:20's comment is an obvious straw man fallacy. First of all, he didn't answer my questions. Then he pretended I made a claim which I did not make that every single cell in a mature human's body has the attribute of "pluripotency", an obviously false position.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the everyday blatant dishonesty of our resident troll.

Use the Name, Luke said...

7:21,

There is a distinct difference between being near someone when they die of natural causes and killing them. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand?

Bird of Paradise said...

You know your a liberal when you have a bumper sticking reading SAVE THE REDWOODS and a window stick KEEP ABORTION LEGAL

Anonymous said...

Both the abortion debate and the euthanasia debate are, in their essence, debates about the meaning and purpose of life. Many people will not discuss the meaning or purpose of life because the subject is too airy-fairy or too close to religious beliefs. But dress the subject in the euthanasia or abortion debates and such people will readily discuss it, and even have opinions on it. May these contentious debates roll on, and one day find the truth, whatever the truth may be.

Alpha Skua said...

Some people aciualy beleive this Population Bomb poppycock from Paul Ehrlich even though none of his rediculous predictions ever came true his Population Bomb was a dud

Anonymous said...

Luke is off again on the "resident troll" fixation/paranoia.

Anonymous said...

Luke again is being a "drama queen". It is obvious that the zygote in question would have a DNA combination of its human parents, and that the said clone cells would have the same human DNA as the original zygote. But a ball of cells do not = "a baby" just because they have the same DNA. As was pointed out elsewhere, a mother's body frequently rejects embryoes and fetuses naturally. If that is done naturally or artificially what is the material difference? Just because Luke has his own "mystícal" view of birth, means nothing in reality (like much of his theological musings).

But clearly a fetus that has developed the capacity to feel pain should not be subjected to pain unnecessarily, and so there are grounds for the Law to restrict abortions to a very early stage of development except where the mother's life is otherwise endangered (whereas Catholic dogma says the fetus's life trumps the mother's - regardless of the mother's health or her existing family responsibilities that require her to live!)

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe some of the comments here are genuine.
No pro-life person I know of is opposed to any embryo ever dying of any cause - you correctly note that substantial numbers of embryos are spontaneously aborted without any outside intervention and for a multitude of reasons (including perhaps, none).
That is clearly not the same a someone actively intervening to ensure it occurs, and it is not the same as being the person who causes it to occur.
I am anti-hunting, but I am not against a Lion eating.
If you cannot understand the difference between acknowledging that nature sometimes allows things to die, and being the proximate cause of something dying, then we have no hope of a rational discussion on the topic.

Anonymous said...

7:55 Humans are part of Nature - like lions, and both have their "rationale" for what they do. Sometimes it proves a general benefit to the social group to which they belong, and sometimes it doesn't (natural selection).

Deciding a few clumps of embryonic cells that were superfluous to artificial fertilization should not be used for stem-cell research for reasons some decided were because of their religious ideas, and so inhibited the development of treatments for serious diseases, is a form of "natural selection" at work.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Announcer 1: "Uh oh, John. It looks like there's a flag on the play."

Announcer 2: "That's right, Charlie. Let's go to the field for the call."

Ref: "Excessive goalpost dancing, player 5:29. The ball will be placed on the 1 yard line. First down."

Announcer 2: "Ouch. What a rough call. The coach might just banish him to the locker room for the rest of the game for hurting the team so badly."

Anonymous said...

Looks like Luke has run out of arguments so complains the discussion is evolving beyond his ability to keep up. (Luke's "goal posts" only have enough room between them for dictionary definitions).