WaPo Heralds How 'Democrats Aim to Reconnect with Religious Voters'
A Baptist minister from Washington, D.C., who in a sermon once indirectly compared President Obama to Queen Esther -- the biblical figure whose intercession saved Jews from extermination -- has been tapped by the president to "bolster support for President Obama among black and religious voters."
Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein gave readers of the October 21 Metro section a positive 13-paragraph profile of Rev. Derrick Harkins, "a popular D.C. pastor with a shaved head and a remarkable resume." Nowhere in her article did Boorstein examine how Harkins will address conservative religious voters' concerns over Obama's stance on issues such as gay marriage, gays in the military, and abortion, particularly taxpayer-subsidized abortion possible through ObamaCare.
Boorstein also left out the Esther comparison, although her colleagues Nikita Stewart and Hamil Harris noted it in their January 19, 2009 Post article "19th St. Baptist's Glory: The Obamas," about the then-senator's visit to the historically-black congregation the Sunday before his inauguration.
"Harkins brings the assets of Obama's Chicago church but without the baggage," Boorstein quoted one Terry Lynch, the "executive director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations and a longtime activist in faith and politics in the District."
While Harkins is not the "God damn America" type, a quick Google search confirms his liberal political credentials. For example, he favors a liberalized immigration policy and defended ObamaCare even as other religious leaders were concerned about lack of protections for the unborn.
From EverydayChristian.com's September 8, 2009 profile of Harkins:
Harkins also sees a difficult set of faith-related policy hurdles for Obama. In the ongoing storm of the health care reform debate the prospect of abortions being funded through a government public option has been a point of contention.
“I think we’re all waiting with baited breath for (Wednesday) when he addresses the health care issue before Congress, but it is clear that there has been no mention of specifically providing any federal funding for abortions in any proposals. This also creates a real philosophical conundrum because you can’t disprove a negative.”
Harkins does feel, however, that driving down the number or abortions needs to be a public health goal.
“In a perfect paradigm I don’t think any church would condone abortion,” he said. “I think there needs to be a clear consensus that people from a pro-choice standpoint should coalesce around that abortion reduction should be strongly encouraged from a health care perspective.”
Even so, Boorstein attempted to pass off Harkins as a fence-straddling moderate who can appeal to even some conservative evangelicals:
Harkins works with some of the country’s most visible Christian groups on both the right and the left. He sits on the board of the center-right National Association of Evangelicals, the country’s biggest evangelical organization, as well as of the progressive advocacy group Faith in Public Life.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This guy will have a hard
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:31pm.
This guy will have a hard sell.. I would not be surprised if many Christians now assume Obama is godless.
Democrat a Christian?
Submitted by djm159 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:26pm.
It is not possible to be a democrat and be a Christian. Christians do not believe in selective killing of babies in the the womb. Christian would not elect a person to high office who held those ideas. Infanticide is not something Christians cling to. When you vote for someone because of party affiliation and their ideals are skewed, i.e., abortion you are not a Christian you are an enabler. You cannot hold a belief and follow Christian principles then vote for people who put infanticide laws in place and openly support them. You can't have it both ways. You are either a Christian or a democrat, you cannot be both. If people do not stand up for what they believe in, what's the point of anything. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything - obviously that has happened or B. Hussein Obama, et al would not be occupying the White House.
a friend posted that the miracle happens at 22 weeks....
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:02pm.
which is amazing because my now 5 year old daughter (who is eating chocolate pudding next to me) we have her on tape as a "fetus" dancing at her first ultrasound...
i was shocked at the movement, and i think a 30 second commercial of different levels of development would really help the cause.
kind of like www.180movie.com
This is just like in 2000
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:23pm.
This is just like in 2000 when Donna Brazile said the Democrats are going to take back God!!I
I guess they took Him back, but lost Him again.
But in 2004, it didn't matter all that much, because they had "devout Catholic" John Kerry on the ticket.
Now it's crunch-time again, because the Christian creds of their incumbent are looking a little shaky, so it's time to go get Him back (again).
'Democrats Aim to Reconnect with Religious Voters'
Submitted by Buck_1 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:16pm.
I don't think that christian are the ones that he needs to worry about.
I think he needs to look higher.
Esther-like or ethereal?
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:58pm.
Methinks someone who strives to favorably portray/compare Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac, A.K.A Narcissist-in-Chief, to Queen Esther is suffering from severe delusions (of Obama's grandeur!).
Queen Esther put her very own life on the line to protect her people (the Jews), risking an immediate execution for daring to enter the King's presence without an explicit invitation. (Of course, we already know whose "people" Obama's DOJ homie, Eric Holder, considers to be his own...)
Lil' Barry, ever since childhood still pandering for some kind of adult approval and embrace (even juvenile is wholly acceptable), is more than willing to sacrifice the current nation of Israel and Jews everywhere on the altar of complete annihilation/genocide by their overwhelming Muslim enemies, all for his own personal aggrandizement and re-election. He's hardly willing to risk any personal "skin in the game" anywhere when there is plenty of other-folks' skin readily available.
Esther-like?
More ether-like, totally lacking in substance.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
browser hiccup-duplicate post...
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:54pm.
browser hiccup-duplicate post... please delete
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
browser hiccup?
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:33pm.
Tsk tsk! It's a bogus blogger that blames the browser.
Everybody knows it the keyboard that causes duplicates. Duh! ; )
Must be an election coming up
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:03pm.
It seems to me that the Democrats try to figure out how to connect with (scam, pull the wool over, trick, fool) Christian voters just before each election.
I believe Christiana are concerned about a lot more than abortion and the gay agenda. I think the lying, fascist tactics (crony capitalism), ignoring the law, and shredding the Constitution are more important issues. After all, abortion has been running rampant over 30 years before Obama was president. And the gay agenda is being driven primarily in the culture, there has been no measurable difference there between Bush's and Obama's presidencies.
Great Minds, and all that
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:47pm.
"It seems to me that the Democrats try to figure out how to connect with (scam, pull the wool over, trick, fool) Christian voters just before each election."
That's just what I was thinking. They do the best they can to promote their Christianity and, then, soon after the election, do the best they can to disconnect themselves from the, how do they put it, "Far Right Christian Fundamentalists" who are supposedly trying to turn America into a Christian theocracy. What's the latest term? Dominionism?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"Democrats now aim to
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:27pm.
"Democrats now aim to reconnect with religious voters"
Good luck with that one buddy!
What they mean is: Democrats now aim to reconnect with liberal 'christians' who will put their political beliefs above their biblical ones.
I would be thrilled beyond belief, if the democrats embraced the pro-life, pro traditional marriage, rebuked the effort of the ACLU to try to remove the ten commandments off of private citizens property, and would promote prayer in public places. But is that what they mean by reconnecting with religious voters?
All my newsbusters friends know the answer to that one.
Maybe they could....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:30pm.
get Maureen Dowd-y to help out with that reconnection.
I looked at the church and it
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:15pm.
I looked at the church and it seems to be Biblical in nature and there is no overt liberalism going on. It is not a part of the SBC which for me as a Southern Baptist is important not to be associated with this Derrick Harkins. I cant see how he can be corrupted to believe in Obama and believe what they say they believe.
"particularly
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:31pm.
"particularly taxpayer-subsidized abortion possible through ObamaCare." What abortions are possible through Obamacare? It only allows funding of those abortions that were already allowed under federal law. That is, Obamacare did not expand abortion coverage. Attributing existing abortion coverage for rape, incest, and the safety of the mother to Obamacare is not accurate.
Good evening eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:48pm.
I don't want a single penny of my taxes to be used to murder babies. When the democrats try to reconnect with me they will reach a disconnected number. Murder by any other name is still murder.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It's important to understand
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:28pm.
It's important to understand that 99.99% of the country does not want abortions to happen. Believing abortion should be legal and safe does not mean that you want abortions to take place. For the record, I'm still on the fence as to whether it should be legal. I only wanted to point out that Obamacare does not change existing policy with regards to abortion.
Incidentally, if abortion is an absolutely key issue for you, then not voting for candidates that don't hold your views is perfectly fine. I don't think you are the Democrats' target audience with this effort.
WHAT and legal?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:02pm.
"Believing abortion should be legal and safe does not mean that you want abortions to take place."
How can anyone believe that something that kills a living creature is "safe?" Abortion is about as far from "safe" as you can get! WAR is safer than abortion. An unborn child has a much greater chance of surviving a war than an abortion.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I meant that it should be
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:14pm.
I meant that it should be safe for the mother. I would think virtually everyone agrees that if one is to get an abortion, that it should be safe for the mother.
Again, whether or not abortion should be legal is not what I originally set out to debate today. If you insist, we can discuss it, though I've found in the past that it is not terribly productive to do so.
How can it be safe?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:43pm.
How can tearing an implanted fetus from the walls of the uterus EVER be "safe" for the mother? You do realize that a fetus is physically ATTACHED, that they share same blood supply and circulatory system, don't you? Well, let me reach in your mouth with a pair of forceps and rip out your tonsils, which is similar to how abortions are performed, and then you can decide if that is a "safe" thing to do.
While you're considering how "safe" that is, consider that I'll do just what the abortion providers do, or, more importantly, don't do after the extraction. Just like them, I won''t bother sealing off any of the now torn and leaking blood vessels the extraction caused, nor will I repair any of the torn tissue the extraction caused, which, by the way, is guaranteed to cause sever scarring. I'll just write you a prescription for some tranquilizers and send you on your merry way.
Still think abortion can ever be safe?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Tonsil removal is generally
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:45pm.
Tonsil removal is generally considered to be a pretty safe procedure. As is removing an appendix. As is liposuction or various tucks. Lots of things are physically attached to us, share our blood supply, or more. And we remove them for health or lifestyle reasons. Again, I don't see the controversy in wanting all medical procedures to be as safe as possible. And once again, like 99.99% of the country, I do not want abortions to happen. I would prefer abortions, plastic surgery, and quite a few other medical procedures and/or medications to not be used. I don't think I have a right to keep others from getting those procedures, with the exception of abortion, about which I am still undecided.
It's the procedure that's safe
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:55pm.
It's the procedures that's safe. It is a full medical procedure that takes place in a sterilized operating room with complete life support equipment, something you will NOT find in an abortion clinic. And, unlike an abortion provider, the doctors who remove your appendix, or your tonsils, takes extra care to repair damaged tissue or blood vessels. Why do they do this? To minimize the substantial risks that are inherently involved in any medical procedure!
As for liposuction, well, YOU may consider shoving a sharp metal tube under your skin, blindly sliding that tube around to cut away tissue, and then sucking that tissue out through a hose a "safe" procedure, but I do not!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Abortion clinics are heavily
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:57pm.
Abortion clinics are heavily regulated for safety and cleanliness. However, we don't seem to have a disagreement here. Abortion should be as safe as possible, as with any other medical procedure.
BS eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:00pm.
BS eis
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Yes, we disagree.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:13pm.
Yes, we disagree. We TOTALLY disagree!
First of all, abortion clinics are the least regulated medical providers in the country. They are NOT regularly inspected as to cleanliness and safeness. They are loosely regulated with "standards" that are far lower than, say, an orthodontist. There are several states TRYING to match the regulations of abortion clinics to that all of other medical clinics, but those regulations are being fought by the abortion clinics themselves.
Also, abortion leads directly to the death of a Human Being. That's is as far from "safe" as any medical procedure can possibly get. There's no way you'll ever convince me that Abortion is, will, or ever can be, considered "safe."
Look at it this way, if the removal of your appendix lead directly to the death of your child, would you consider that to be a "safe" procedure? Well, that's just what abortion leads to, the DEATH of your child! How can that ever be considered safe?
You seem to be looking at this from one perceptive only, that of the mother. WHY is that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, I know we disagree. It
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:40pm.
Yes, I know we disagree. It was a poor attempt at humor.
We do agree that abortion is not safe for the child - it is not meant to be. You have not yet said that abortion, if it is to be preformed at all, should be safe for the mother. I haven't ever heard anyone say they want mothers to die. I'm sure there are some out there, but you haven't sounded like you want abortion to be unsafe for the mother. You seem very concerned that it is not.
I will go ahead and admit that I am not all that knowledgeable when it comes to health services regulations. In Kansas, laws were passed (and are currently being contested) that went far beyond the regulations of hospitals and other medical facilities. I'm afraid I assumed there were regulations already in place. I don't have the time to read through the regulations of all 50 states, so I will take your word for it that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
That doesn't change my belief that abortion SHOULD be safe for the mother. And even with being as unregulated as they are, the data does not show conclusively that abortion is riskier than childbirth. Again, for the mother.
As for why I am focused on the health of the mother.... Because it is a given that the fetus will die as an intended result of the abortion. In this discussion, I am operating under the assumption that abortion is legal, and then taking the position that the procedure should be safe for the mother. I honestly think very, very few people actually want abortions. No one I've talked to about it has wanted abortions to happen, though they were split on whether it should be legal. The one person I know that has gotten an abortion did not want an abortion emotionally, but still considers it to be the correct decision for her. So, I am focused on the health of the mother because I think the health of the child is a completely different discussion. That discussion, whether it should be legal to begin with, is not one that we are yet having. As I've said, I am willing to have that discussion, but it's not likely to be productive. Chances are excellent that I've heard all your arguments before, and chances are even better that my reasons for being undecided will not shake your conviction. Nor do I feel compelled to shake that conviction.
Abortion should be illegal.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:58pm.
"You have not yet said that abortion, if it is to be preformed at all, should be safe for the mother."
Abortion can NEVER be "safe" for the mother, or anyone else for that matter! It's obviously not safe for the child. It is a gross, barbaric, unnecessary procedure that does no one any good and creates far more problems, both medically and socially, than it "cures." You can never be "safe" by murdering your own children! Society itself can never be "safe" by murdering our own children. Abortion can NEVER be "safe," for ANYONE, EVER! It shouldn't be allowed at all! Does that clear up your confusion as to what I believe?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
wrong again eis*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:00pm.
You are discussing abortion with an ideology and opinions firmly in place but you have nothing of substance to back up your claims.
Only 23 states regulate abortion clinics properly
Here in La and recently in Philly, and other large metro areas, have closed dozens of abortion clinics. Three of 5 abortion clinics recently closed in La, had not been properly inspected for over 15 years. Finally, doctors filed complaints with the media about patients severely damaged, ill, or having died because of poor care at these abortion clinics. The state was left with no choice but to inspect the clinics. Some had old rusted equipment. Rotting fetuses stored in a closet, no anesthetist on staff. The "nurse" or assistant at one of the clinics was a 17 yr old boy.
Think about the kind of Dr that chooses to do abortions in contradiction to his oath? If he doesnt care about the life of a child, why should he care about the mother? One in three women suffer severe depression, other mental disorders, and resort to drug and alcohol addiction to deal with the aftermath of abortion. These women are NOT prepared for the emotional impact of abortion because they did not receive the proper counseling to prepare them for the decision of "choice". Abortionists fight every day in courts in almost every state to fight against, counseling, ultra sounds, or sonograms , for the mother before she has the abortion. It's because first, its a money making scheme, secondly, the clinics are all located in poor neighborhoods, and third, the medical staff are often unskilled or totally uncaring about the life of the child or the mother.
If you wish to argue the issue of abortion, please feel free to do so but you better have more accurate information to support your opinions.
What IS your argument, anyways?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:08pm.
What, exactly, IS your argument, anyways? Is it that, well, if abortions are going to happen wether we, personally, want them to or not, we may as well make it safe for the women? That's one of the biggest strawman arguments I've ever heard! It's no different than saying, well, since some people kill other people, even though most people believe that killing is wrong, we may as well make it safe for the killers because they're going to do it anyways. That is the argument you are making, is it not? Tell me, does that make any sense to you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Good catch Cobra*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:23pm.
Liberals have argued in this manner before. As we speak, the APA is having a conference to decide whether to remove pedophilia as a mental illness from the DSM. Men and women who have sex with children happens everyday, may as well make it "normal",, right?
Our conversation has
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:53pm.
Our conversation has fluctuated. As for the safety of the mother, yes that argument is assuming abortions will happen. And there is strong evidence that abortions will happen anyway. Which is one argument for keeping abortion legal. I don't think it's a particularly good argument by itself, but it becomes relevant depending on your other justifications for legal abortion. The difference between your murderer argument and abortion is that everyone is agreed the murderer is taking another human life, whereas there is debate as to whether or not an abortion is taking another human life, or merely preventing it from coming into being.
eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:24pm.
The only way that life inside the woman is not a human life is if she had relations with an animal instead of a human. Life begins at conception whether you call it a fetus, a baby or any other name. Inside the woman the baby feels pain and also reacts to stimuli of any kind. It is a live human being.
Edit;
look at an ultrasound of a baby in the womb and then tell me that it is not a miniature human being.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
The fetus starts to feel pain
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:54pm.
The fetus starts to feel pain at around 8 weeks, and not at conception. But feeling pain is not equated with humanity. Humans feel pain, but so do cows, chickens, fish, and other things we regularly kill.
Biologically, yes, a fetus in a human woman is generally going to have human genetic material. Is that necessary and sufficient to being human? I am not convinced on the necessary part. I think there is something very human in other primates, and even cats and dogs. I may be reading more into their facial expressions than is there, though. I read a lot of science fiction and am a computer scientist. I think if we ever create a machine capable of thinking and reasoning as a person does, there is something fundamentally human there, even without any biology involved. Is human genetic material sufficient? That's a tougher one, but my initial thinking is no. The more we learn about embryo's, stem cells, and genetics in general, the more it is clear that our biology is basically the same as every other complex form of life on earth. We're also learning how to change ordinary cells back into their embryonic state. That's very cool for a lot of reasons, but also reduces the specialness of the fertilized egg somewhat.
On the other hand, I don't think adult-level reasoning is necessary for something to be human. I think the developmentally disabled and those with brain injuries are fully human. Which again is why I'm on the fence. I haven't nailed down exactly what it means to be human, and so I cannot say for certain whether destroying an embryo is murder, and if not, at what point destroying a fetus becomes murder. One thing for medical science - I think it will be relatively soon when we can safely transplant fetuses from one person into another. Then we won't have a question of unwanted pregnancies, viability, etc. (And no, CobraMan, I'm not avoiding anything with that statement. I just look forward to the day when all babies can be wanted and loved from the beginning, or as close to it as possible.)
eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:23pm.
You can slice your lame explanations anyway you like, but It's a human being that gets sliced up during that murder called an abortion.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Let me give you my take on it, eis
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 7:40pm.
Since you seem to be stuck in your (liberal) position. And my conservative view of the issue is slightly different than many others' here.
I am totally, 100% against any form of abortion on demand. The only exceptions thereto, would be in the instance of rape (where I'd hope the morning after pill could be used in a hospital setting, if desired), or where the mother's life was medically, provably, in danger later on during gestation.
Having said that, I also believe the "morning after" pill should be legal, and over-the-counter for all women of legal majority.
After that first 24 hours or so after sex, biology takes hold, and the "possibility" of a human being IS A FACT. Conception has occurred. To apply any sort of chemical or physical abortion, after the 24 hour window, IMO, is MURDER.
I don't believe abortion should "be safe". I don't believe abortion should be performed AT ALL, except in very, very rare circumstances, and if then, it is the parents' choice. I can't imagine a sane woman, with a wanted baby, who would give up her baby's life for her own. But to me, life is sacrosanct.....so the choice between mine and another's is on MY conscience. Not a choice I would ever want to make. But not one I am willing to make for another human being, either. As I said, this particular scenario would be so narrowly defined that everyone who is not in the middle of the decision ought to fairly BUTT THE HELL OUT.
I despise liberals who attempt to confuse the issue of "choice", with the killing of babies. The choice is to be had before or immediately after having sex. In MY ideal society....that would occur only within the confines of marriage, BTW. Having said that, I am not constrained by the Catholic Church. We live in an age of multiple, wonderful "choices"....it is not a difficult thing to prevent unwanted pregnancies, nor even to prevent an "oops", in my world. There is no need for abortion. That is, IF PEOPLE WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBLITY FOR THEIR OWN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES.
I don't often get into my own specific views regarding the Morning After pill, but you've at least tried to approach this discussion with a degree of honesty on your part (but you are still not getting the basic disagreement). No one who is a conservative agrees with abortion on demand. And we certainly will not agree to pay for it, in any way, shape, or form. If one is responsible enough to have sex, one should be responsible enough to think about (AND PREPARE) for it, and the consequences.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thank you for not attacking
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:21pm.
Thank you for not attacking me. =)
You and I agree on a lot of things here. People should indeed take responsibility for their behavior. And I also want a society in which there is no need for abortion. "Oops" still happens, though. Even with perfect usage, condoms break, the pill sometimes just doesn't work for whatever reason, etc. Depending on the method and reason for failure, it's also not always apparent within 24 hours that failure has occurred. I think that "oops" should be embraced and welcomed into the world, but as I have stated, I have no sound secular basis for imposing that decision on others through law.
It's also worth noting that some people simply cannot afford all of food, housing, and birth control. This is why poor people are more likely to get an abortion - because it's their only semi-affordable form of birth control. And that is why I fully support the requirement for insurance plans to fully cover birth control. Coupled with the individual mandate, that should do a lot to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and thus reduce abortions. Responsibility is a lot easier when you have the necessary resources.
EIS
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:53pm.
Please explain to me how abortion is cheaper than birth control. That is truly a non-starter, and is, I believe, at the root of most of the nonsensical abortion argument. Abortion IS NOT birth control. It is murder.
And "oops" is apparent 30 seconds after the act is done....one either has or has not taken precautions.
As far as "responsibility"...it's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund someone else's sex life. If one desires a health insurance policy with birth control options, that should be a free market decision (most employers have a menu of plans....well, until O'Care kicks in). It's not something everyone needs. Certain religions prohibit birth control, so why would a practitioner of that religion be required to participate in premiums for that benefit?
I hope you try to wrap your head around some of what we are saying here. It is rare, indeed, that a liberal comes here and reasonably tries to discuss such a difficult topic as abortion. As I said, earlier, I very rarely get into it. But you seemed sincere, so I thought I might try to talk you out of the dark side and into the light on this subject.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
EIS*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:16pm.
If you "search" every states health care programs, you will see FREE birth control and maternity care, is available to everyone in every state regardless of income in some states.. Why do the poor not utilize this service? As Blonde says, its all about taking responsibility for ones actions and planning ahead. Insurance is not required for birth control, but abortion costs much more than other birth control methods. Not everyone can afford insurance so they use Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics which are known to be poorly run, poorly staffed, and often refuse counseling services to their patients.
This issue of abortion is not Christian/non Christian, its not conservative/liberal. It is about humanity and the value of human life at all stages. Yes I am an animal lover as well. But dogs, cats, bears, rabbits,birds, have all been known to kill their young. They are excused because they have no ability to reason, only instinct. So how can you compare "humanity" with animals? It is more than genetics, it is more than morality, it is about respect for life. When does life start? is a valid question for some, for others, it is easier to find that answer if you believe in anything greater than oneself.
I agree that abortion should
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:52pm.
I agree that abortion should not be used as birth control. It's a stupid way of handling the situation. And it's not more affordable than birth control. Perhaps I should have said pseudo-affordable. Regular birth control methods are the responsible way, which requires an out-of-pocket expense ahead of time. For those without money, it's not always an expense they think they can afford. When they get pregnant, they find a way to afford the abortion, however. And sometimes they even make an effort to set aside money for birth control after that.
I still maintain "oops" is only sometimes readily apparent. If you are taking birth control pills and they fail for whatever reason, it is not readily apparent. If your condom doesn't burst but only has a small hole, it's not readily apparent. A friend of a friend had a vasectomy a few years ago, and is the proud father of a 1-month-old. It was not apparent to him that there was an "oops" on the way.
Some religions prohibit modern medicine in general, and some families are being prosecuted for child endangerment/neglect as a result. Religion is not a blanket waiver from operating in society. Also, every taxpayer pays for programs that they don't agree with at some point.
Well, EIS
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:57pm.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the "oops" scenarios.
I am one for never managing anything by the exception....one ends up making a lot of stupid rules that impact everyone.
As cajun pointed out, "free" clinics and so forth are widely available for birth control, screening, etc. BTW, she's one of the good guys around here, she'll pick up where I left off, and I'm happy to have her do so.
I don't think it's useful to expand upon religion in this conversation...my point was that some (religions) do not condone any form of birth control whatsoever. I don't think it serves any purpose to widen our discussion as you're seeming to get to, above, regarding medical treatment (or lack thereof) of children, etc.
I agree with you that as taxpayers, there are a multitude of things which we pay for, and for which we don't agree. Wars, art (urine Jesus comes to mind), NPR, the TSA morons who grope children, & lavish taxpayer funded safaris for politicians, are but a few that immediately pop into my head. But the topic we were discussing here is abortion. And the conservative right's position on it. So I would like to think that you may have a bit more insight after our back and forth as to why conservatives, and others who identify as "social conservatives" (I don't self-identify as such, I am less ideological about many things than some of the posters here) are so opposed to federal funding of abortion.
I am vehemently opposed to abortion. It offends my sense of right and wrong, at the most very basic level, the respect for ALL human life. Whether planned or not planned, (adoption is always an option), defective or not...human life is the most precious thing we have, and can give, to one another. Abortion is murder, once you quit rationalizing it as you've been taught to do, you'll understand that fact. (As I'm sure you've figured out, at one point as a young woman I was pro-choice, theoretically, but once faced with the reality of the thing, I came to the conclusion that abortion is an affront to humanity).
Have a good rest of the evening. You're the rare poster from the other side of the aisle on these boards. I've enjoyed our discussion.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
EIS*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:25am.
Please don't confuse class warfare with religion. There are many cultures in our society but we must all follow the law. There are some cultural groups that have tried for decades to be treated as "special" groups separate rules for them. Be they Amish, Native Americans, blacks, or homosexuals, these different cultures sometimes live in isolation, some "in your face". To distinguish culture from society is important. Native Americans live in isolation and are basically dependent on entitlements. The Amish live in isolation but are known to be totally self sufficient. It is not about religion, it is about culture.
When we have distinctions between cultures in our society used as a matter of conflict, it is generally brought about by political agendas rather than cultural or religious beliefs. Try to listen to those who promote abortion. They talk about poverty, entitlements, racial disparity, but behind their arguments is the premise of eugenics. Their purpose is to make abortion the FIRST choice and rid our society of the "poor". If you look at census statistics and predictions of population, since Roe Vs Wade, there has been a 25% decline in the black population thanks to Planned Parenthood. Rather than a religious argument, it then appears to be a matter of racism. When you encourage a society and particular chosen cultures with an agenda that requires no individual responsibility, redefines "birth control", encourages individual self importance, then you realize the changes in the discussion of abortion.
Groups that are pro abortion are basically narcissistic elitist and they are all important. Yes, that is generally the view of those who are not Christians. By redefining abortion as a "birth control", it has devalued the life of a human child. Notice the terms used to describe the unborn child. The horror of a doctor using scissors to kill a baby born alive after a late term abortion. Devalue human life, redefine humanity, remove morality from the discussion, then it becomes an argument of "legal" issues. The benign language used is intended to devalue a human life.
I have posted numerous times at this site about the redefinition of societal issues for political agendas. There is currently a strong push for certain organizations trying to remove pedophilia as a dysfunctional behavior. If the sexual abuse of children by an adult is no longer classified as "abnormal" think of the consequences. Besides making Sharia Law acceptable, which by the way, is religion based, you also will have a trickle down affect on counseling for the victims, parole and probation massive changes for the "accused", and sexual assault of children will become "normalized". This is basically what has happened already with abortion. Killing of a human child is now a "choice" or a "right" instead of the horror of such emotional detachment that it is acceptable to murder a human child.
Destruction of an orderly society is done in incremental steps. Abortion is just one of those steps.
It is unusual to have a liberal posting at NB with an open mind and willing to accept information and different points of view for study. Thank you for your honesty. I am not trying to change your mind on the subject. Only reason I have replied is to show differing views and the basis for those views. The issue of abortion is not just about ending a pregnancy for the convenience of the mother. It is a much more complex and I believe, a more nefarious purpose behind it. Just something else for you to digest....Welcome to NB...;-)
I, too, enjoyed our
Submitted by eis271828 on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 1:45am.
I, too, enjoyed our discussion. I would be happy to talk with you further on absolutely any topic, any time. =)
Agreed to disagree, then. Though I'm still curious.
I only brought up religion in the context of this conversation, and the same for disagreeable programs. Agreed once again that we don't need to go there.
I've always understood why people are opposed to federal funding of abortion. And I've always understood why people are opposed to abortion being legal. Understanding and agreeing are two different things, obviously. ;) Not that I disagree emotionally.
Is abortion safe eis?
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:11pm.
Go ask the many women that have died having an abortion if it was safe for them. I mean what I said, GO WHERE THEY ARE AND ASK THEM.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It's certainly not safe for
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:15pm.
It's certainly not safe for the babies!!
Good evening MB
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:27pm.
It was fatal for over 50 million babies. The democrats can brag that they saved 50 million americans from being unemployed.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Are you suggesting I visit
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:30pm.
Are you suggesting I visit some graves, or suggesting that I die? Just curious....
There is conflicting data on whether or not abortion is safer than childbirth. That doesn't change my belief that abortion *should* be safe. And legal abortions are much safer than illegal abortions. Until you outlaw abortion, I would think you would also want the procedure to be as safe as possible for the mother. Out of respect for life, I assume.
eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:42pm.
I said go where they are meaning heaven or hell where you can speak to them. Since death is so good for babies it couldn.t be bad for you now could it?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I have no plans on dying. I
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:48pm.
I have no plans on dying. I also have no plans to kill anyone. So far, you are the only one to advocate for death. Do you have a preferred cause of my death? Would you like to take care of that personally? I have said repeatedly that I do not want abortions to happen.
eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:53pm.
You are advocating death by advocating abortion. You said it was safe for the women and I say go ask them. You say you want abortions to be legal, that's the same as wanting them to happen.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I said that I was still
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:18pm.
I said that I was still undecided on whether or not abortion should be legal. I said there is conflicting data as to whether or not abortion is safer than childbirth. I've advocated for abortion being as safe as possible as long as it is legal. The closest I've come to calling for abortion to be legal is stating that legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions. That is true. It is not true that wanting abortions legal is also wanting them to happen. I think abortion is a cultural battle that will ultimately be won or lost based on how our society views the value of potential. Personally, I value the potential present in an embryo and would not want my spouse or significant other to have an abortion. I don't think the legal system is how you win cultural battles, though. Just look at the war on drugs. There's also the issue of when human life begins. Most arguments I've heard for humanity absolutely beginning at conception are based on religion. Most other arguments are about potential, viability, consciousness, etc. There is potential for a full human life in an embryo, given the right circumstances. There is also potential for a full human life in an unfertilized egg - all it needs is a sperm, with its accompanying potential. There's less of a dividing line. I have trouble with laws based on religion, and I am not yet convinced outside of religion that humanity begins at the moment of conception. Thus, I am undecided currently.
That's just a cop-out
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:33pm.
"It is not true that wanting abortions legal is also wanting them to happen."
That's just a cop-out, a way for you to avoid responsibility. It's obvious that, if you think something should be legal, you also think they should be allowed to happen. Conversely, if you DON'T want them to happen, as you claim, then why would you want them to be legal?
It is obvious, to me, anyways, that you don't want to make any decisions as to what you really believe and what you really want. All your comments about whether the procedure is "safe" or not, whether life begins at conception or not, whether abortion is safer than child birth or not are, nothing more than attempts by you to ignore your own beliefs and place the burden of these type of moral decision onto someone else and, in doing so, assuage yourself of any possibly guilt based upon your own personal decisions. In other words, you're copping out.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Merging my response to this
Submitted by eis271828 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:40pm.
Merging my response to this comment above with the one below.
Thinking something should be allowed to happen is also different than wanting it to happen. As I said previously, I don't want plastic surgery to happen. I don't like the idea of it. I still don't think it should be illegal. I also don't think drugs should be used. Call me Ron Paul, but once again, I don't think they should be illegal. I think drugs being illegal is actually counterproductive. Drugs are more dangerous when unregulated, we are throwing nonviolent drug offenders in prison, which has a way of turning them into violent offenders. Illegal drugs also lead to organized crime, similar to prohibition.
I love making decisions. I spend more time than I should researching various issues and topics in order to make better decisions. I make active attempts to NOT ignore my own beliefs. And my beliefs are constantly changing as I learn more. I fully admit to not knowing everything there is to know about being or becoming human. This is relevant because I don't think religious morality should be the basis for government laws. In order for me to support making something illegal, I have to have a secular rationale for that support. In the case of abortion, that involves establishing the fetus as a human being. And since I have not firmly established what it means to be fully human, I have admitted to being on the fence.
"Time to get of that fence." It would not be productive for me to hop off the fence. It wouldn't be a fully informed decision.
"You're not being honest." I can honestly say I don't want abortions to happen. I don't yet have a sound, secular moral argument for imposing that desire on others.
You're not being honest
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:20pm.
"I have said repeatedly that I do not want abortions to happen."
You're not being honest.
"For the record, I'm still on the fence as to whether it should be legal."
So, do you or do you not think that abortion should be legal? Do you or do you not think they should be allowed? Time to get of that fence.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Here's a suggestion.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:55pm.
"Are you suggesting I visit some graves, or suggesting that I die?"
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you visit the thousands and thousands of women who have suffered long term physiological damage because they underwent an abortion? Ask THEM if they feel that abortion is, or can ever be, "safe?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
eis
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:34pm.
This has nothing to do with politics. Abortion is totally immoral. It is one of the most evil and vile acts that a human being can commit. Your argument about it being legal doesn't mean you want it to take place is rediculous. Murder by any name will always be murder.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
99.99% don't want abortions to happen? You can't be that dense.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 5:15pm.
I don't what country you are referring to, but it certainly is NOT the USA.
The Dems are the party of
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:38pm.
The Dems are the party of Satan.
They've embraced Communist, Islam, abortion, atheism, dictatorships, Socialism, Fascism, and who knows what else. I don't see many religious people "connecting" with them, especially since the left is constantly at war with Christian values, beliefs, and their financial support of Christian genocides in other countries doesn't give any religious person warm and fuzzies...
Was just thinking of that!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:48pm.
I was about to write something similar that dealing with the dems is basically dealing with the devil.
What concerns me at this point is will the religious people try to embrace them when the dems start their facade of pretending to do the right things or will they shun the dems entirely(as they should and are within their rights to do so)?
Time and time again, the dems of today have made deals with the devils(especially the bogus potus) and show no signs of backing away from their nature which you described above, no matter how hard they try to appear to be "middle of the road."
-Jon
Reconnect
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:43pm.
We should be asking why “reconnecting” is needed.
First, we must acknowledge that a disconnection has occurred. Why? (rhetorical given the often contradictory stance of liberals versus religious positions)
Secondly, why is reconnecting required? (also rhetorical given the upcoming election)
the only religion the osamabinobamster
Submitted by RD King on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:06pm.
has is muslimism, radical muslimism. Christianity is a reality not a religion. Love it live it or else.
The howler of the piece....
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:30pm.
compared President Obama to Queen Esther -- the biblical figure whose intercession saved Jews from extermination
I don't think that simile is going to fly; not with Obama's attitude toward Israel.
BTW, I'm still trying to start a pool on when Obama's phony "concern" about causing "disruption" goes out the window, and they start attending church every Sunday in DC.
My guess is Christmas.
Good one Motherbelt*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 6:11pm.
Do you think it will be a Coptic Christian Church?
Too little, too late.
Submitted by jessieH on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:42pm.
Too little, too late.