What is the big deal?

When Barama spoke at Notre Dame Sunday, he thought he and his prompter could smooth the waters of controversy regarding his horrific stance on abortion. He failed the test of sounding statesman- like, instead coming off as an ambivalent slacker determined to have it both ways.
This is becoming more of a problem for him than he would like. While most young people in the crowd and elsewhere have been obliviopus to the fact that Skinny B and his posse regularly hose them because they can, most people who truly listened to the man could see and hear that he was speaking out of both sides of his teleprompter. 

This is a problem for this administration, because according to a Gallup poll, more people identify themselves with the pro- life movement than with the pro- choice.

For the first time since it began asking the question in 1995, Gallup reported Friday, a majority of adults questioned for its annual survey on values and beliefs — 51% — said that when it comes to abortion, they consider themselves “pro-life”; 42% consider themselves “pro-choice.” (The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)  LA Times

My personal take on the situation is that people are beginning to shy away from the personal attacks of ridicule that those who choose life are regularly subjected to by those liberals who favor abortion on demand. Ridicule is a tricky weapon- it can backfire on you if you use it too often, or against a sympathetic figure. 

Our country has always loved the underdog, and what could inspire more sympathy than a baby? How someone could favor an abortion over a live baby is beyond me- I attribute this attitude to the fact that we have become a throw- away society.  Everything is temporary- homes now have a one year warranty, and it is now expected that if a home lasts twenty years, it has had a full life. Our dishes are throw- away- witness Dixie cups and plates. Our cars- they are built with a “Planned obsolescence” factor built in. No more “Classic” cars for us- they are built to last a general average of ten years, so we will buy new ones.

But babies are different- they SHOULD BE different. To choose taking a life over saving a life at that innocent age is unreasonable, when there are so many people willing and able to adopt. If the reason that you choose to abort is that of convenience- you do not wish to take the time to see this act you chose to perform seen to it’s rightful conclusion, you are a murderer. There is no difference between what you chose to do, and shooting someone who was ahead of you in the line for a burger- he was inconvenient, and was keeping you from your burger. No difference- wait, there is one- the guy in line ahead of you might have been able to defend himself, the baby never will.

All people who wish to diminish the importance of life do so by referring to the baby as a “fetus”, and yes, that is the technical name for a baby still in the womb, but what do you raging Liberals call him when you have dragged his lifeless body from the protection of his mother’s womb? Do you then call him a baby, because now that he is out from the womb, that is what he is. Oh yes, he is one other thing- he is now dead.

I understand the choices teens and others have to make. My daughter had to make the same decision years ago, and she chose life with adoption, and I have never been prouder- it was her choice, and while we did not approve of abortion, we gave her the information and she made up her own mind. This was not easy for either my wife, or me, but I know the choices my daughter faced were even more difficult for her.

Today however, a couple now has a happy, healthy,  getting into everything boy that they would not have had without my daughter’s choice, and while, as I said before, I do not like Roe v. Wade, it is law- I just pray that abortion is the last choice people consider.

Our children deserve more than to be treated as if they were Dixie Cups.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

50 Responses to “What is the big deal?”

  1. Darrel says:

    BLAKE: “My personal take on the situation is that people are beginning to shy away from the personal attacks of ridicule that those who choose life…”

    DAR
    My personal take is that these cherry picked polls are “outliers” and don’t mean much. Fivethirtyeight has a good rebuttal to this here:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/abortion-poll-roundup.html

    BLK: “How someone could favor an abortion over a live baby is beyond me-…”

    DAR
    Well then if you ever have to make that decision you can decide to keep it. Others have different circumstances and will decide differently.

    BLK: “There is no difference between [abortion], and shooting someone who was ahead of you in the line for a burger”

    DAR
    There is a huge difference. One is a person with full human rights, the other is a fetus dependent upon the body of another person and without the status or rights of personhood.

    BLK: “what do you… call him when you have dragged his lifeless body from the protection of his mother’s womb?”

    DAR
    A fetus who has passed away.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      Dar- once again you resort to semantics to assuage your conscience, and dehumanize that which is human. Your logic is that of the Nazi guard at Dachau, who said he was only doing his job, and besides, the jews weren’t human.
      Splitting hairs is not a moral position you should take.

    • Blake says:

      I might also add,” rights” are not rights, they are more correctly called privileges, as there are countries where our “rights” would be laughed at.
      In the end, humans have only two real rights- the right to be born, and the right to die. It is you who wishes to take away rights.
      And you want to play God and decide? That’s rather arrogant, D.

      • Darrel says:

        BLAKE: I might also add,” rights” are not rights,…”>>

        DAR
        Actually, “rights” are by definition, “rights.” Think about it.

        BLK: “they are more correctly called privileges, as there are countries where our “rights” would be laughed at.>>

        DAR
        And there are countries where people laugh at our lack of rights. Lots of specific examples provided upon request.

        BLK: In the end, humans have only two real rights- the right to be born, and the right to die.>>

        DAR
        Neither of those are “rights” in the normative sense of the word but maybe you’re being poetic. Due to long and difficult efforts at law creation, we actually do have certain rights. But they are man made. In almost all instances, a fetus doesn’t have any human rights kick in until they are born. That’s just the way it is.

        BLK
        It is you who wishes to take away rights.>>

        DAR
        No, I am for more rights, for persons.

        BLK
        And you want to play God and decide?>>

        DAR
        Because of circumstances beyond my control, I will never have the option of “playing God” on this issue.

        And if the God you mention is the God of Bible, God’s position on this is clear. A fetus has no rights of personhood. The Lord, is pro-choice, bigtime, no exceptions.

        As I’ve shared in another thread, my concise evidence for this claim can be found here:

        http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Darrel, you took Biblical references out of context and nowhere does it say that God is in favor of abortion.

          The definition of a person that you use is a legal one. The dictionary definition is that a person is a human. A fetus is a human. Remember the way it works. If a person is a human and a fetus is a human than a fetus is a person.

          Your evidence is incorrect and taken quite out of context. Kat spelled it out nicely and I addressed it as well.

        • a mother says:

          According to your logic, Dar, women also have no value. I would also like to take the time to correct you, and include complete texts from the bible:
          Exodus 21:22 – When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. (BTW, Ex ch 21 is the Laws About Slaves
          Numbers 5:11-31 – That would be A Test for Adultery and it is more about a man “thinking” his wife cheated on him so he (the husband) brings her before the priest who “And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain oddering of rememberance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.” (Num 5:18). The priest then goes on to make her take an oath that no man (besides her hubby) has lain with her. Thus we get to the part of whether or not she will be able to concieve. If she told the truth about not being unfaithful, she’ll be able to conceive.
          Numbers 27 is Laws About Vows
          27:1-2 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Isreal and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the Lord involving the valuation of persons”
          This is the taxing value, Dearest Dar, not the value of a life…
          Numbers 3:15 “List the sons of Levi, by fathers houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.”
          Do you think this could possibly be due to the infant mortality rate?
          While I would love to sit here and correct you the rest of the way, I have my own children to take care of. You need to talk to your own mother and see what she would say about the way you miss-quote the Bible. If you are going to use the best selling book of all time to get your resources for pro-death, you might want to make sure that you are quoting correctly and not to suit YOUR needs.
          *All quotes are from the English Standard Version, which I realize is not on your approved reading list, but it is the easiest to understand for the laymen such as yourself.

        • Darrel says:

          A MOTHER: According to your logic, Dar, women also have no value.>>

          DAR
          No, actually I think women have 100% of the value of a person. This is unlike the Bible. You can read all about the actual monetary value of males and females. In cash value, God’s word says females are worth about half. (Lev 27:2-7). I would have given them full value and not included that rule about them having to marry their rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

          A MOM: Exodus 21:22 – When men strive together…>>

          DAR
          Right, a very good example. My response:

          If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was “life for life” (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”

          This includes:

          * Revised Standard Version
          * The American Standard
          * New English Bible
          * Today’s English Version
          * The Douay-Rheims Bible
          * The Jerusalem Bible

          A small fine was levied because the woman, and fetus were the man’s property and someone had harmed his chattel. This verse shows a fetus had less than full human status otherwise it would have been “life for life” for the miscarriage. But it wasn’t. A small fine was levied as if an animal had been killed.

          A MOM: This is the taxing value, Dearest Dar, not the value of a life…>>

          DAR
          If they are a person, why don’t you count them as a person and tax them? Because they were not considered a person.

          A MOM: Numbers 3:15 “…from a month old and upward you shall list.”
          Do you think this could possibly be due to the infant mortality rate?>>

          DAR
          I think so yes and have already quoted scholars who agree. But the reason hardly matters. If it is a person, why wouldn’t you count them as a person? Because they did not give them the value of a person.

          This is standard scholarly and historical information anyone can discover with a library card. I wish ministers would stop lying to their flocks about these things.

          See this for a standard respected Christian reference on this topic:

          “The Oxford Companion to the Bible”; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4

          http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&start=140#p18651

          D.
          —————-
          “For census purposes in Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons to be counted.
          Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day.”
          Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law.” –Steve Kangas

        • a mother says:

          Exodus 21:22-25
          When men strive together and hit a woman pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm done, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
          ie, if they hit a pregnant woman, her baby comes out but is still alive, daddy dearest and the judges get to choose their punishment; but, if harm is done, God has already declared that they shall die (or pay similar recompense – eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc). I don’t think God was referring only to the mother. While we women are obvious not good enough, the child was still the man’s “chattle”.

          Here’s one for you to contemplate:
          Isaiah 49:1-5
          Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar.
          The Lord called me from the WOMB, from the BODY OF MY MOTHER HE NAMED MY NAME.
          He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me;he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away.
          And he said to me, “You are my servant, Isreal, in whom I will be glorified.”
          But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God.”
          And now the Lord says, he who FORMED ME FROM THE WOMB TO BE HIS SERVANT, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Isreal might be gathered to him –
          for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength.

          Having been in a situation where I was told that my child only had a 25% chance of being “normal” and a 30% chance of me making it out of the birht alive or I could just “end it” and start over again, I chose to keep said “fetus” and now I have a healthy child. I trusted in God to do as he knew best and I thank Him every day that she is perfect and that blood transfusions are live saving. But on the same note, had there been ANYTHING wrong with her, I would still thank Him every day for giving her to me and letting me stick around to see her grow thus far.

        • Darrel says:

          A MOM: “I chose to keep said “fetus” and now I have a healthy child.”>>

          DAR
          I am glad you made a decision that you are pleased with and it turned out well for you. Others will decide differently.

          A MOM: “Exodus 21:22-25
          When men strive together and hit a woman pregnant woman, so that her children come out…”

          DAR
          Here is the history of that verse and how it applies to this issue:

          ***
          Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:
          “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”

          The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant’s life with the stillborn’s life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

          This was the traditional interpretation — until recently, that is, when pro-life Christians became alarmed by the pro-choice side’s successful use of it in the debate on abortion. They took a close second look at the passage, and discovered a second possible interpretation. The text actually turns out to be ambiguous. It does not say who exactly suffers the “mischief” or harm; it could be the fetus as well as the mother. In that case, a miscarriage resulting in a live birth was punishable by a monetary fine, but a miscarriage resulting in fetal injury or death would call for the same from the assailant.

          This new interpretation suffers from three drawbacks. First, the Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation. Second, the laws of surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hammurapi and Eshnunna) were similar to Israel’s, due to widespread copying of laws. There is no ambiguity in their laws; any harm caused clearly refers to the mother. Finally, miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths; saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science.”

          regards,

          Darrel
          ——————
          “Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). “…a baby…becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a ‘partial life.’ ” 5 In the case of a “feet-first” delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother’s body.”

          –http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

    • Blake says:

      If the baby “passed away” then he was alive, and it becomes murder- you wouldn’t say a paramecium “passed away”, would you? If so, you are truly strange.

      • Darrel says:

        DAR
        You can’t go from “alive” to “passed away” = “murder.” That just begs the question.

        People speak of their pets passing away too, and even if someone killed them, it’s not by definition murder.

        Like it or not, the laws of our land allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy and kill her fetus, so our society does not consider it murder even though I understand you think it is.

        D.

  2. Adam says:

    I think everybody’s pal Barney Frank said it best: “For Republicans, life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

  3. Darrel says:

    BIG: Darrel, you took Biblical references out of context…>>

    DAR
    You say this but you provide no evidence or example of how context changes anything I’ve said. Add all the context you like.

    BIG: and nowhere does it say that God is in favor of abortion.>>

    DAR
    I never said anyone “is in favor” of abortion. But the God of the Bible, and the Jews who wrote it, clearly did not consider a fetus to have the status of a person. That’s why they weren’t counted in a census (until 30 days old in fact). If they are persons, you count them as persons. But by law, they were not counted. Why do you think?

    BIG: The definition of a person that you use is a legal one.>>

    DAR
    When speaking about the status, or non status of an entity within in society, of course you would use a legal one and not a biological one.

    BIG: The dictionary definition is that a person is a human.>>

    DAR
    This is a word game. All persons are human. Whether all humans are persons, is of course the very question at hand. Don’t beg the question.

    BIG: A fetus is a human.>>

    DAR
    If the mother is a human, then yes, the fetus is put in the scientific biological category of Homo sapien. And your pointing this out is useful how?

    BIG: Remember the way it works. If a person is a human and a fetus is a human than a fetus is a person.>>

    DAR
    If a chicken is a bird and an egg is a chicken then an egg is a chicken!
    You don’t know the difference between an egg and chicken? I assure you, there is a difference!

    BIG: Your evidence is incorrect and taken quite out of context.>>

    DAR
    You like to say this but you don’t show how. I would really like to see it.

    D.
    ****
    God speaks of abortion twice in the Bible.

    1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
    woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
    the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
    punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).

    2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had intercourse with another man–and possibly has become pregnant–he shall take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the dust off the floor–where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice–and force the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
    uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers 5:11-21).

    In neither case does God say that the fetus had a so-called “right to
    life.” A legitimate fetus has only a monetary value, but an illegitimate
    fetus has no value at all.

    • Blake says:

      One can easily see from Darrel’s bible rant, just how religious wars are begun- All it takes is some twisted interpretation, and *bingo* – you have a David Koresh.
      Darrel, do you have a compound yet?

  4. Barbara says:

    One day I have to stand before the Lord and give account of my life; therefore, I will never meet Obama halfway on the abortion issue. They are now killing 9 month viable babies. At 7 months the baby is birthed and alive. They then take scissors and stab them in the skull and suck their brains out. I wonder if Adam and Dar would be willing to go through such horrific pain? I do think they should go and watch an abortion before opening their mouths.

    • Darrel says:

      DAR
      I was there for my son’s cesarean birth in 1990. The doctor was against it but my wife insisted. I grew up on a dairy farm and saw a lot of graphic surgical things. Abortion is not nice. No one wants to have an abortion, but some need to. It’s not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body.

      If you have any arguments besides distorted made up appeals to emotion I would be pleased to consider them.

      Regarding the abortion issue in the US, it’s established law and that genie will not be going back in the bottle. I just wish people would stop making up stuff about the Bible.

      D.
      ——————
      Oxford Companion to the Bible, a standard Christian reference work, article on ‘Abortion’ page 4:

      “Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.”

      • Blake says:

        I have always believed in an exception to women’s health, D- and yes, it is law- how established is the debatable point- that is like saying “Global Warming” is settled science. No, it is not, and to say that would be the height of ignorance. The best we could truthfully say is that man does have an effect on our environment.
        As to abortion, it is not a distortion to say that abortion should never be considered because of a “convenience” issue- and fobbing the problem off by saying the disingenuous ” I would never tell a woman what to do with her body” is a lame attempt to disengage yourself from any responsibility for the death of a child.
        You would not have any trouble telling some woman not to smoke, would you? Same thing. It’s a true judgement call.

        • Darrel says:

          ADAM
          I have always believed in an exception to women’s health, D-

          DAR
          That’s good. I have met people who believe the child should be saved in preference to the woman. How about rape and incest?

          BLK: “…and yes, it is law- how established is the debatable point- that is like saying “Global Warming” is settled science. No, it is not,>>

          DAR
          Actually, it is. If you would like to tango on this, post your best arguments in the science section of our freethinker forum (or here) and I’ll roast them to a crisp.

          Link: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=4

          BLK: and to say that would be the height of ignorance.>>

          DAR
          Post it and I’ll roast it. We’ll see how high the ignorance goes.

          BLK: The best we could truthfully say is that man does have an effect on our environment.>>

          DAR
          That’s a rather vacuous claim.

          BLK “…the disingenuous ” I would never tell a woman what to do with her body” is a lame attempt to disengage yourself from any responsibility for the death of a child.

          DAR
          a) it’s a fetus, not a child
          b) I take full responsibility for my position. I believe a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion.

          BLK: You would not have any trouble telling some woman not to smoke, would you?>>

          DAR
          If she’s not blowing it in my face, why would I tell her that?

          D.

    • Adam says:

      “I usually am a pretty good judge of people- but you I got all wrong.”

      You can say that again. You make more assumptions about people than anyone I’ve ever met online. You don’t know me, you apparently don’t know where I come from, you don’t know my stance on abortion for instance, yet you’re always making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions. If that’s the kind of charm you think you have then you’re better off without it.

      You’re from Texas? I wish that state would go ahead and succeed from the union already so I don’t have to be ashamed to say we live in the same country.

      • Blake says:

        Adam, for a raging liberal, you surely are intolerant, but then that is what I have come to expect from you “enlightened” folks. The way I got you all wrong was that I thought you were intelligent- boy was I wrong. So yes, I will say that again- you I got all wrong.
        I can speak, or write in easier to understand words, if that will help you.

      • Darrel says:

        DAR
        Adam, if you haven’t seen it yet, check out Olbermann’s examination of what would happen if Texas left. Good stuff:

        http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/countdown-wtf-texas-still-wants-leave-union

        D.

        • Blake says:

          I saw that wingnut Olberman- he wouldn’t last ten minutes in Texas.
          The truth is that Perry never said anything about secession- that is just O wishing, but if Texas were to secede, the rest of the U.S. has about a two week supply of gas, so that would never be allowed. By the way, talking about secession is not treason- we have the right by treaty we signed when we entered the union in 1845.
          I wouldn’t want to secede however- I’m having too much fun bedeviling D and Adam, who apparently can heither understand nor tolerate my thinking. Pity.

  5. Adam says:

    You’re right. I cannot tolerate the kind of fact free, logic lacking nonsense you splash up here these days. I need to go watch an abortion before I open my mouth? I mean come on, how can you say stuff like that and then question my intelligence?

    What is my stance on abortion? What state do I live in? Where did I grow up? How am I a raging liberal? You obviously don’t know the answers to any of these questions yet you keep on going with your judgment calling me the unintelligent one? Get real.

    Don’t bother addressing those things, it’s much easier to just assume you know me. Instead let’s talk some more about how you don’t need facts or sources to back up your arguments because, hey you’re just giving your opinion and it’s all common sense anyway, right? Let’s talk more about how many Americans have jobs you don’t think are real jobs, they don’t work the way you do, do they? Let’s talk some more about how folks who aren’t from rural America like you aren’t real, trustworthy Americans. Let’s crack some more lame jokes about gay people while we’re at it.

    It’s fun and all to jab and joke back and forth but for me it’s a real hoot just watching you continue to reveal how big of a judgmental buffoon you really are.

    • Blake says:

      You are obviously intolerant- are you a rural- hating liberal? And I say liberal, because it is the positions you take that identify you as such.
      Actuallly that wasn’t a joke about Gays, just a factual statement- Gays do not reproduce, not if they stay faithfully gay, anyway.
      I am glad to provide entertainment- its not hard to entertain someone as illogical as you- a good game of peek-a-boo will doubtless keep you in stitches. Or maybe a picture puzzle called “Where’s the Money?” -kind of a” Wheres Waldo” Homage- we can use Skinny B and his posse as characters.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “Gays do not reproduce, not if they stay faithfully gay, anyway.”

        DAR
        Not so. The first successful artificial insemination occurred in 1784. So the technology goes way back. Gays have children all the time and it doesn’t involve being “unfaithful.”

        http://www.asas.org/symposia/esupp2/Footehist.pdf

        Heterosexual couples also regularly “reproduce” this way too, for a variety of reasons.

        D.

      • a mother says:

        Blake, I think you should have said “Gays do not reproduce ‘naturally’ in the sense that they do not have sex in order to conceive.” We have to be very specific with Darrel, who only addresses issues and comments he can attempt to reword to his needs.

    • Blake says:

      Aah- I see where you got your rural prejudice- you are from Arkansas, but then moved to Cal. This explains a lot- also why you are touchy (no pun intended) about gay people.
      And, since you are uncommon, common sense can’t live there. I see.

    • Big Dog says:

      You grew up in Arkansas, went to UALR, you do not agree with abortion but think it is a woman’s right to decide it.

      How did I do?

    • Blake says:

      Its real hypocritical to criticize me, all while watching crazy people like Keith Olberman and agreeing with everything they say, but then birds of a feather, right?

  6. Adam says:

    Whatever you say, Blake. You’re a real piece of work.

  7. Adam says:

    It’s been more time since I moved out of CA than I ever lived in CA. I have no rural prejudice. That’s just something else you made up about me so that when I question the lack of logic or evidence behind and arguments you make on this site you can talk about using small words and playing peek-a-boo and all that other stuff you use to dodge the fact that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about at any given moment when you’re writing online.

  8. Blake says:

    Adam- you are all about the sourcing, much like a lawyer, you love to cite other’s writings, but let me know this- how much sourcing is in The Constitution? The Federalist Papers, or many of the books and treatises we now consider to be the bedrock of law, or even morality? They wrote their convictions, and so do I . To be perfectly frank, I am not a computer person, and it is still new to me to “source” things through RSS.
    Perhaps one day I can source your socks off, but for now, gee, you’ll just have to put up with me.
    You may disagree with my convictions, but if you look at your writings, you will see that you use ridicule even more than me. I may call you a liberal. but you have called me worse.

  9. Adam says:

    Now you’ve got to be pulling my leg. The men who wrote those things had studied philosophy, history, war, law, you name it. If you think they had no sources, no basis for their ideas, no foundation whatsoever, but just arrived at arguably the greatest form of government in history on their own convictions then maybe you should study up on some history yourself and stop deluding yourself about our founders.

    Perhaps if someday you can “source my socks off” then maybe I won’t ridicule you so much for not admitting you cannot back up what you say and instead simply mocking my apparent lawyer like need to argue based on evidence and logic. I just realized why that bothers you: You look down on lawyers. Funny…

    • Blake says:

      You know what is said- all lawyers are bad except my lawyer- I understand that our forefathers were educated people, but this problem you have with your need to source everything is an insecurity on your part- you can’t just argue on the logic of the issue itself, you have to bring backups.
      I tell you what- I’ll just keep on keeping on, you do the same.
      After all, we are never going to agree, that much seems certain.

    • Blake says:

      And yes- there is a certain amount of distain I hold for lawyers and doctors- two professions that expect payment for no results. Doc can’t cure you? you still must pay- lawyer can’t free you? you still must pay.
      Both professions can make a C- on their finals and still hold your life in their hands- I feel the need for a higher threshold of competence.

    • Big Dog says:

      Lawyers do not necessarily argue with logic, they argue with whatever point of law will make their case.

  10. Adam says:

    Right, I’m so insecure that I need to back up my ideas with facts and quotes from sources that are actual authorities on the subject I’m arguing about because I can’t just let my gut instinct determine how I feel about things. You crack me up. But let’s not lose hope. Even Big Dog and I agree once in a great while. Maybe someday…