So first a round-up from last night. On the Democratic side, Sanders beat Hillary in Michigan, which was festive. On the Republican side, there were four states in play. Trump won three of them, while Cruz took Idaho. More relevant to the immediate discussion was the fact that Cruz took second place in Michigan, which was next door to Ohio, supposedly Kasich country. He also took a strong second in Mississippi. In other words, when it comes to delegate counts, both Trump and Cruz had good nights. For Rubio, it was just good night.
Here is the math. The Republican nominee needs 1,237 delegates to be elected on the first ballot at the convention. After last night, Trump is 779 shy of that goal. Cruz is only 878 short. Trump has 458 delegates and Cruz has 359, just 99 behind him. That is a gap that Cruz can readily make up, provided we keep the following in mind.
1. Note that the Rubio and Kasich strategies are necessarily aiming for a brokered convention. This in effect makes them spoiler candidates, dog-in-the-manger candidates. If Rubio takes his home state of Florida next week, and Kasich takes Ohio, they are both still way behind. In other words, the best case scenario leaves both of them barely alive. And even if by doing this they were successful in keeping Trump from crossing the finish line, does Rubio honestly think that a brokered convention would give the nomination to the man who came in at a distant third?
2. In contrast, Cruz is aiming for a clean win in the primaries themselves. Last night I heard one commentator say that because Cruz was making a strong play for Florida, simply to deny Rubio a win in his winner-take-all home state, he was being “dastardly.” But as another commentator noted, “this ain’t beanbag,” and I would argue that since Rubio has not been willing to face up to his #NeverTrump duty, Cruz needs to make him face up to it. This needs to be a two-man race, asapronto. The sooner it is a Trump/Cruz race, the more likely it is that Trump will be denied by someone who is fighting him fair and square. If Trump loses fairly, he has no plausible ground for a spoiler third party run, and if his ego makes him attempt it anyway, he could conceivably be challenged and defeated on that ground. But if Trump is sneeveled out of something that was arguably his (e.g. he was leading the delegate count because of Rubio and Kasich), then a spoiler campaign from him would have that much more energy.
3. Apart from the 1,237, and apart from any attempted shenanigans at the convention, we have to face up to the need to do something about all the people who have joined up with Trump, along with their reasons for doing so. Where can they go? Could they conceivably go to Cruz? Yes, I believe so, because they would be moving from an inarticulate protest movement to an articulate protest movement. But I do not see any other reasonable place where they might land. People who are mad about X might join with those who are mad about XYZ. But they are not likely to join with those who are perpetrators of X. Put another way, add up all the Cruz votes and all the Trump votes and you have a “really angry with Washington” contingent. What this means is that Cruz is the only realistic unity candidate, not Rubio.
4. Rubio’s “Gang of 8” problem was not — for me at least — a problem with his actual position on immigration. Different approaches to the immigration problem are not foundational in the same way that views on abortion are. The difficulty with Rubio was the sense of being double-crossed that many of his early supporters had. Establishment Republicans specialize in thimble-rigging, and when Rubio and Cruz went to Washington as newcomers, it certainly looked as though Rubio was rather quickly starting to go native. He was blending in with the thimble-riggers, while at the same time it looked as though Cruz was making every last one of the thimble-riggers very, very angry.
And this year, that’s the selling point.
So, forgive my ignorance, but my primary (no pun intended) question is ‘Is there a logical reason(besides pride) why Rubio and Kasich haven’t dropped out yet?’ Do they still think they have a chance?
Think “vice-President!”
So please help me understand. I have been a Cruz supporter but now am finding more of his historical ties with the Bush family AND just recently hired Neil Bush as his Campaign finance director. There’s more too and it doesn’t help me think highly of him. True that not one of us is sinless, no not one. Doug, instead of doing the math, this time would you care to weigh in on the back story of Ted Cruz? Please do, I think it would be well worth all our time to discern carefully this man who claims to be… Read more »
Carson’s endorsement of Trump has done nothing to alter my view of Trump, but has done a great deal to alter my opinion of Carson
Re point 3: Could they conceivably go to Cruz? Yes, I believe so, because they would be moving from an inarticulate protest movement to an articulate protest movement. But I do not see any other reasonable place where they might land. This is true enough, if we’re dealing with hypotheticals. Hillary could make a full and complete confession, too. The only way I see Cruz winning the general is if a big enough chunk of Trump’s votes so far have been from Democrats in the open primaries. I think closed primary states are going more for Cruz. It MIGHT turn… Read more »
I suspect there are just as many (or more) Democrats that have crossed over to vote in the Republican primaries *against Trump*. I’m personally aware of several. There are even Democrats who volunteered to do last-minute telephone voter pledge drives for Rubio’s campaign, even though they had no intention of voting for either Trump or Rubio. They just didn’t want Trump.
https://newrepublic.com/article/128808/everybody-hates-ted At some point though Cruz will have to govern and frankly I don’t see how Cruz gets anything major done as president when LITERALLY almost not a single legislator wants to work with, trust him or like him. As Krauthammer has said “I think the short answer is because everybody who knows him in the Senate, hates him. And I think hate is not, is not an exaggeration.” Leaders that are almost unanimously hated don’t get jobs done. And so if he gets elected then he has to shift on his hard line stances to get stuff like a… Read more »
I’d love it if our government couldn’t do anything for 8 years.
Touche
I would be willing to double their salaries if they would take 2 to 6 year paid vacation.
For the life of me I can never understand why people think the government shutdowns are a bad thing. The Republicans are always upset that they get blamed for them – they should be OWNING them!
It’s a bad thing for those who have “nonessential” government jobs, which currently is quite a portion of our population. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, but have friends who face no income for the duration of the shutdown.
It’s a bad thing for those who have “nonessential” government jobs, which currently is quite a portion of our population. Yes, for a while, things would be bad for them, but just imagine how many more jobs would be created in the long term. And, meaning no disrespect (I know folks in the same situation), if their jobs are indeed nonessential, that almost certainly means their position either needs to be eliminated or could be done much better by a private sector employee. The best situation would be if something like a permanent “government shutdown” could be phased-in so folks… Read more »
I completely agree with your point. But how to argue that position with someone who didn’t think long term and got a college degree that for all intents and purposes is useless except for this specialized job, I just don’t know.
Just think how many interwoven problems we could solve by removing all the non-essential government jobs AND removing all the illegal aliens…it’s almost as if the two are somehow correlated.
I disagree. While America was just accepting the notion that Obama care was a debacle (highlighted by the website hilarity) here comes Teddy shutdown to act as the squirrel to “Up”‘s dog. Instead of momentum building against Obamacare, the media and country turned its focus to the ridiculous shut down that did absolutely nothing but polarize Cruz from his colleagues and further the notion held by undecided/low-information voters that Conservatives don’t give a rip about anyone (which is the main reason obama beat romney as evidenced in exit polls). What’s worse is that Cruz knew going in that there was… Read more »
I agree; if I were running, my campaign slogan would be something like: Apply the Brakes. Or maybe: Let’s Drop It Into Reverse.
Well, I once saw a bumper sticker that said, rather neatly: “Politics is like driving. To go forward, put it in D. To go backward, put it in R.”
Just shows, both sides are shifty.
Of course, to more accurately capture the situation, the bumper sticker needs to show that the car is at the edge of a cliff.
Yessir. Forward to atheistic communism or back to some semblance of a Christian nation. Trouble is cars are geared to go much faster forward than in reverse. I’d also note that often the “R” is mislabeled and is really neutral (at best) or even just low gear (a little slower but still going forward).
I wasn’t saying I agreed with the bumper sticker. Just sharing a joke.
And I suspected that – just wanted to build on the analogy – and I think its a good analogy, though I doubt the bearer of said sticker would find my analysis to their liking – but then again, maybe they would agree and still chose “D”.
Perhaps a new slogan: “Stop government growth – put it on Cruz control®!”*
*credit n8tdo66 above with automotive inspiration
Ding!
My view is that even if the winner of the election was celebrated and loved by both parties, and got down to business the first day of entering office, this would still not produce the solution to our nation’s cultural and fiscal problems. There comes a point when one’s situation is already bankrupt, and no amount of last ditch effort, or newly discovered work ethic, can change the outcome. If we have not already crossed that point, we are very near to crossing it. In that case, even our repentance in sackcloth and ashes won’t avoid a major default. Some… Read more »
As usual, you express the issue well and clearly. I suppose I continue responding and thinking in such ways as a means of pinching myself to a reality I don’t entirely like, for, there are hard times a-comin’, and many are likely to be hurt and/or killed (God forbid!). All I see in the US of A is a sham, probably more of a corpse, preserved in form, but in function resembling little the vision of ordered liberty of our founding. Too many of us persist in what I’d call genuine denial thinking this corpse can and even should be… Read more »
So by “shift on his hard line stances” you mean abandon Biblical principle?
Not necessarily more just the stuff that Doug and other hard far right people love about Cruz. I think Cuomo was right with his famous quote, “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” Ted likes to talk about Reegan-Tip O’Neil days, but from everything I am reading Cruz would have a hard time getting even GOP leadership to go to happy hour with him, let alone Democratic leadership.
It can’t just be his positions. There have been strong conservatives who were well liked in the Senate. I have heard about his unlikeability over and over gain, but does anyone give specifics about what makes Cruz so unpopular? Are there solid reasons why people don’t want to work with him? I have never heard anyone explain exactly what the problem is: arrogance? inability to compromise when compromise is called for? contempt for those less brilliant? Solid information would be helpful.
From what I have read the inflexibility and arrogance (and related moral superiority complex) have big reasons to do it. There is also a lack of trust expressed by many people that they never know what he is going to vote, say or do when a bill is being voted on. As Andy said above, the government shutdown was just stupid. Cruz did it only to score points and get name recognition and even his own staff has since admitted that they knew what the outcome would be. Cruz has been about his own name far more than the good… Read more »
I suggest reading some of the tweets and quotes in the article I posted at the top. And also here
https://newrepublic.com/article/128808/everybody-hates-ted
The New Republic is a liberal magazine. And a lot of those tweets and quotes are from liberals. There are also a significant number of quotes from Princeton classmates, who may not be as liberal but are certainly elites.
I much in favor of getting somethings undone.
I know exactly one Trump supporter (at least who publicly admits it): my nephew. Yesterday I finally figured out why he was drawn that direction. My SIL commented to him on Facebook, “What is it that you like about him? He’s ignorant and rude and thinks yelling at people will make them do what he wants. He acts like a child, not a president.” Of course. She just described my late brother to a T. It’s all in the father hunger, man.
But how does childish bully-brat say father to those who hunger?
Perhaps it says strongman; one who does not take anything from anyone. This is perhaps what fatherhood means to some, and all that they can relate to in their hunger.
Are we talking about men who had very bad fathers or men who had no father around at all?
You get a distorted concept of strength when you haven’t seen the right kind. And when you’ve been given stones and serpents and scorpions long enough, you start to think they’re the right thing for you to get. You’d hardly know what to do with bread and fish and eggs. Watch Gordon Ramsay sometime — a bully-brat if there ever was one. The chefs on “Hell’s Kitchen” are so desperate for his slightest approval (he’s better behaved on “MasterChef”). Or look at how many daughters of abusive fathers grow up to marry men just like them. Or look at how… Read more »
Speaking of television, I wonder if the model is the stock sitcom father – childish, but good natured. Perhaps that’s some men’s concept of a father and being quite properly disgusted, but confused, they discard the wrong part, and we end up with childish and nasty.
“My dad can beat up your dad.”
Or, in San Francisco (and soon to be Des Moines and everywhere else):
“Say, why don’t your two dads come over tonight and beat up my two dads? Then my dads can beat up your dads! And then we’ll all go to Chuck E. Cheese! Yay!”
Or, in Hellay:
“No, he can’t. Because my dad had an operation and now he’s my mom, stupid.”
with a gap of only 99 delegates..Rubio having 150 and Kasich having 54…the horse trading begins…
Cruz on foreign policy (which is probably the most important and influential decision for a President) is even more disastrous than Trump, not to mention his horrible eschatological ideology. We do not need to fatten an already morbidly obese military expense. The military is already 54% of US spending. That is ridiculous.
Enlighten me. What is the eschatology?
eschatology = thoughts about final/end things.
It usually refers to ones beliefs about Revelation and biblical prophecy.
For example, if someone believes that Israel must rebuild the temple so God can destroy it (in fulfillment of Revelation), then one might be tempted to support Israel, politically, toward that end.
No, I meant, what is the eschatology that Cruz holds.
Oh. Sorry. Good question.
He is Southern Baptist. I looked it up, and the site said SB’s can be pre-, post-, or a-millennialists.
Thanks Jilly. The original poster of the comment above mentioned his horrible eschatology. So I’m just trying to find out what that horrible eschaology is.
I dug a little further, and although the articles were all pretty similar, I can’t say for certain that they are correct. The writers think that Cruz is a Seven Mountain Dominionist who wants to restore America to its Christian roots. The theory is that wealthy will be transferred from the sinful rich to true Christians, who will then be able to establish a theocracy. Once a Christian theocracy has been established and a revival has restored people’s Christian faith, the Lord Jesus will return in glory. Again, I have no idea how accurate this is. The writers may be… Read more »
Thanks. If it is a true opinion, it sounds more like the hope is to get the nations to bring their wealth in to the USA…. which I guess for many is the kingdom.
“The theory is that wealthy will be transferred from the sinful rich to true Christians, who will then be able to establish a theocracy.”
That would be consistant with his goldman-sachs cinnections.
Right, if there were any evidence that he actually believes that. So far no one’s come up with any.
It’s probable that his connections led people to surmise that’s what he believes.
Is he Pre-trib Dispy?
Analyst Chuck Todd said this morning that majority of early voting is already done in FL and that voting favors Rubio. If he dropped out before the election there and tried to throw his support behind Cruz, all those early voters would have their votes essentially not matter in stopping Drumpf. As a matter of fact, he said it may help Drumpf because it’s winner take all, so if he wins by 1 vote, he gets all the delegates. So as much as we may want Rubio out, according to Chuck, it would be unwise for him to get out… Read more »
There’s literally no path for Cruz to win Florida. The whole “Rubio must drop out by the 15th!” narrative doesn’t make any sense.
I’m not sure at this point if Rubio is hurting Cruz in Florida by staying in or if Rubio is irrelevant in Florida, and everywhere else.
“Cruz took second place in Michigan, which was next door to Ohio…” has Ohio moved?
Nope, still right there on the southeastern border of Michigan.
Excuse me, but Michigan is to the northwest of Ohio.
So it had moved. I knew it.
A few years ago, there was a small earth tremor in these parts, and we did move back and forth for a couple of seconds. But it was barely noticeable.
On account of the freeway no doubt. (to quote Mel Blank/Jack Benny)
… and Ohio is southeast of Michigan, soooo… the northwestern border of Ohio = the southwestern border of Michigan. 6th grade geography may not have been my strongest subject, but I really think I might have this right.
If you have to have it explained, it’s not worth the effort.
Wait. I think I have it now. Since the United States is to the north of Mexico, then on the southern border of the United States is …Canada? Oh, never mind…
https://www.google.com/maps/place/United+States/@31.7860603,-132.0853276,3z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x54eab584e432360b:0x1c3bb99243deb742
I thought that edging into second by 0.5% was “photo-finish second” in Pastor Wilson’s vernacular. But he seems to change his analysis of the actual facts of events based on what his favored candidate is doing.
Not sure what relevance Ohio has to Michigan’s results at all…it will certainly be Kaisch or Trump winning in Ohio, which is a lot of delegates.
Only concern I have with Cruz is that he’ll continue our present military disaster in the Middle East, as well as our foreign policy bent of intervening mindlessly everywhere & anywhere
That’s a valid concern, but, as Carlson stated, it would simply be a continuation of a long foreign policy tradition. With or without our meddling, the Middle East would probably still be a disaster at this point. The difference would be that we might have had a lot less debt and a smaller military industrial complex. So my greater concern is that crushing debt, and the imminent threat that we may wake up one day soon in the middle of a smouldering crater of government default, entitlement outrage, and violence. Unfortunately, I don’t think Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Hillary, or Bernie… Read more »
Only concern is not quite accurate. I think I have a whole truckload
Look up the % of weapons in the Middle East that originate in the US. Not to mention the % of their funding for armies, weapons, terrorism, etc. that has originated with our oil demand. Not to mention the hideous backlash that’s resulted from our trying to hand-pick rulers for them that they didn’t want.
I don’t know what the Middle East would look like without our involvement….but I can’t imagine how it would not be a more moderate and less deadly mess than it has been.
So when did Doug go from pastor to Cruz’s Campaign PR guy?
When Cruz said he’d pardon Daleiden and Merritt and give them the medal of freedom.
It would be really cool if he did that at the same ceremony where he pardoned Jonathan Pollard and gave him the Medal of Freedom. What a powerful testimony for the Gospel that would be!
Who are they?
Ah yes, the two people who committed crimes and edited videos…..yeah….I am 100% pro-life, but I am not for pro-lying or pro-character assassination to do it..l
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/CoalfireCMPvideosReport.pdf
And as far as crimes–at least they did kill any children!
And I am going to return to our other conversation.
Nice link. Thanks.
The ends don’t justify the means. We have no biblical right to use character assassination, especially when that assassination is questionable at best….. And I looked through the document you added. And yes, I was correct, the 10 minute videos were edited to give a different perspective of what was happening. The facts are: -abortion is legal in the states. -those in planned parenthood believe that the fetus, though living, does not have personhood. Though I disagree with that idea, I can understand it because science does not and can not tell us when a fetus becomes a conscious person… Read more »
“Wherever one believes personhood happens is a faith statement.”
You can argue about when a human becomes a person but what about when they become a human? If an entity is a human than it is entitled to human rights.
I actually agree with that statement. The point I was making was that the difficulty of this issue, the reason it is so debated , isbased on the issue of personhood. And that issue science can`t give a difinitive answer. The minute you say when that fetus becomes a person (or gets a soul) is the miute you are making a faith statemeny (on both sides). That ties in to the CMP ideos for this reason-when someone, like an abortion doctor, feels it is o.k. to perform an abortion, they are doing so based on a belief that the fetus… Read more »
“The point I was making was that the difficulty of this issue, the reason it is so debated , isbased on the issue of personhood.”
The problem with that is you can decide personhood on various criteria, for instance why not argue that illegal immigrants aren’t persons?
No doubt. The difference with your analogy is that those illegal immigrants definitely have consciousness, etc., while science can not definitively tell when a fetus achieves consciousness. I personally would rather play it on the safe side, but to outlaw abortion without doing anything else will not work.
“but to outlaw abortion without doing anything else will not work.”
That is definitely true.
“The difference with your analogy is that those illegal immigrants definitely have consciousness, etc., while science can not definitively tell when a fetus achieves consciousness.”
That would mean that human rights don’t apply to humans without consciousness. I think the abortion debate specifically should be phrased in terms of human rights because if humam rights are a thing than they apply to all humans even the unborn ones.
Undertandable-however, we still have a massive divide in the US as to when personhood (or conciousness) happens in a fetus-pretty much a 50/50 split. however, the majority on BOTH sides want want abortion rates to be extreemly low at the very least. It is also true that the majority of women who choose abortions do so for economic reasons. Convincing the other side tht the fetus is a person or to enact a law takes away choice from a woman that half the county does not support will be almost impossible at this moment. The church and the government doing… Read more »
“Undertandable-however, we still have a massive divide in the US as to when personhood (or conciousness) happens in a fetus-pretty much a 50/50 split.”
Which is irrelevent when you are talking about humans.
“The church and the government doing things that will actually do something productive to help thos women WILL lower the abortion rate.”
Absolutely.
It`s actually incredibly relevant. Assuming the US could overturn roe v. wade (which is incredibly unlikely), there will still be abortions. That will not change the larger devaluation of all life in western world. You change the thoughts and attitudes, that will stop abortions in their tracks natually and effectively. Sure, that is a longer road and harder work. But I would perfer something that works as opposed to banning abortions but still having them around.
So we must permit thousands of abortions every year until we succeed in ending the devaluation of life in the western world?
Even if we overturned oe, there will still be abortions, just like there were abortions of some fashion way before Roe. just banning the practice in clinics and hospitals will not end it.
Nobody thinks that abortions would end. But there would not be thousands every year. Tony, do you remember when the Newfoundland baby seal harvest caught the attention of the world media? Do you remember news footage of people bashing out the brains of baby seals in front of their horrified mothers? Some people said, well, we can’t ask these people to give up clubbing baby seals until we can provide them with a dignified livelihood. Some people said, well, they’re only animals. But most people said, This is absolutely evil and it must stop now. Stop the slaughter first, and… Read more »
“Tony, do you remember when the Newfoundland baby seal harvest caught the attention of the world media? Do you remember news footage of people bashing out the brains of baby seals in front of their horrified mothers? Some people said, well, we can’t ask these people to give up clubbing baby seals until we can provide them with a dignified livelihood. Some people said, well, they’re only animals. But most people said, This is absolutely evil and it must stop now. Stop the slaughter first, and then figure out how we” Two points here-first, with the example of the seal… Read more »
“So, we can put our energies on forcing a law that will not end abortions, or we can work at giving options to moms who are contemplating abortions and creating a culture that embraces ALL life.” Or we could do both. “I have never once read Doug doing this. It would be natural to promote those things if you had the influence Doug has, yet he doesn`t.” What influence does Doug have? “And I say he is not pro-life because he reduces other humans-victems of pedophilia, any opponent of his, etc., as less than human.This is clear in what he… Read more »
“Or we could do both.” First, abortion becominh illegal any time soon is not happening.. Second, anti abortionists like Doug and CMP focus so much time on promoting other ways to reduce abortions, don`t they (sorry for the sarcasm) “What influence does Doug have?” One of the top 10 Christian blogs on the internet that thousands of people read, articles on many other websites like TGC, a publishing company, a christian ed curiculem company, and the ability to put out a movie……thats a pretty big influence there, isn`t it….. “It`s clear in what people write about him, not what he… Read more »
“First, abortion becominh illegal any time soon is not happening..” So we should give up on it ever happening? “Second, anti abortionists like Doug and CMP focus so much time on promoting other ways to reduce abortions, don`t they (sorry for the sarcasm)” While I would like to see more from Doug and others promoting adoption and actuall involvement with the women getting abortions being anti-anti-abortion is even less effective than being anti-abortion. “One of the top 10 Christian blogs on the internet that thousands of people read, articles on many other websites like TGC, a publishing company, a christian… Read more »
“So we should give up on it ever happening?” -no, we put energies on things that will work in lowering aborton rates “being anti-anti abortion is less effective than being anti-abortion.” I do appreciate that you would like to see more work in regards to promoting adoption, etc., I am not quite sure what you mean here… “And anyone can put out a movie these days. He may have a big influence compared to you but not compared to those with actual big influence.” -even if his influence was just 1%, which I doubt, that is still a few million-enough… Read more »
“I do appreciate that you would like to see more work in regards to promoting adoption, etc., I am not quite sure what you mean here…”
None of your posts here have done any of the things you say Doug et al aren’t doing and you have been arguing agsinst being anti-abortion.
Acutally I have many time…willfull blind ignorance on your part isn`t a lack of evidence on my part.
You’ve said that people shouldn’t work to make abortion illegal, and that people should do *something* to relive factors that lead to women seeking abortions. You haven’t said what that *something* would be.
Actually I have many times. The church can put money into crisis pregnancy centres that give women more options, create non prophets that help women and families who are in need, with food and nessesities, babysitting services for women who want to go back to school so they can provide for their families, etc.
The government can help financially women and families who are in need, raise the minimum wage , etc.
I have mentioned these things many times…
Why is it important to accept pro abortion presuposotions?
What do you mean?
Why is it important to attach rights to arbetrary things like personhood, whatever that is; or consciousness, with it’s multiple possible definotions, instead of status as a homo-sapien.
Simply because it helps in puting the focus on thigs that will acuall do something to reduce abortions. When anti-abortionists like Doug or CMP frame the debate as murder, abortion does not end. It simply divides and does nothing to practically reduce abortions. Those who are pro choice do no beieve abortion is murder because they believe the fetus, depending on its development, does not hae concisness and therefore does not have personhood. Calling pro choicers murders does not change their minds. It also does not make them horrible human beings because science can`t even determine when a fetus develops… Read more »
“Simply because it helps in puting the focus on thigs that will acuall do something to reduce abortions.” No it helps people say that abortion isn’t a problem. “When anti-abortionists like Doug or CMP frame the debate as murder, abortion does not end.” Neither does abortion end when you agree that it there is no valid argument against it. “Understanding this divide should help us look at other ways to reduce and hopefully one day end abortoins that will actually last. Anti-abortion tactics, while great at getting people angry and yelling slurs to people walking into an abortion clinic, doesn`t… Read more »
“No it helps people say that abortion isn’t a problem.” -nobody is saying it’s not a problem-the debate is about personhood and who should make the choice on abortions. “Neither does abortion end when you agree that it there is no valid argument against it.” -abortion rates have gone down signifigantly since the 90’s because of people providing more options to women who are contemplating abortions. Keep in this direction, the rates will get lowere and lower until it’s non-existant. Just pushing to ban abortion again will not end it, just like there were abortions before roe v. Wade. “What… Read more »
“-nobody is saying it’s not a problem-the debate is about personhood and who should make the choice on abortions.”
The argument is no person no problem.
“-abortion rates have gone down signifigantly since the 90’s because of people providing more options to women who are contemplating abortions. Keep in this direction, the rates will get lowere and lower until it’s non-existant.”
Why will the downward trend continue?
“-again, you are ascribing guilt based on a faith statement.”
So you disagree with the concept of sin?
“The argument is no person no problem.” -the debate has always been twofold-when does the fetus become a person (or gets a soul, or achieves conciness) and who`s choice should it be, the woman or the government (which is kinda funny, seeing that concervatives believe in freedom, liberty and the persons right to choose, except for abortions, and liberals are big on government overstepping freedoms when needed except for abortions). “Why will the downward trend continue?” -finish the rest of the paragraph, ou will get the answer-if we continue (either through the church and christian non-profits, the government or a… Read more »
“-the debate has always been twofold-when does the fetus become a person (or gets a soul, or achieves conciness) and who`s choice should it be, the woman or the government.” Mo person no problem, applies to both of those. “Now, if Doug and CMP get what they want-illegal abortions in all cases without dealing with the factors that lead to abortions and helping those in need…” You keep saying that’s what Doug wants, you haven’t supported that with anything except to claim it’s self evident. “-thats a big logical jump to say I disagree with sin.” But you object to… Read more »
“Mo person no problem, applies to both of those.”It would help if you had a real world understanding of the debate, and not just what’s spoon fed… “You keep saying that’s what Doug wants, you haven’t supported that with anything except to claim it’s self evident.” -I have, you have just ignored everything I have presented…. “But you object to any claim that abortion is in any way immorale.” -the only claim I have made on this post is that it’s a complex issue and the anti-abortion tactics either don’t work or are sinful……I am not sure how you can… Read more »
“It would help if you had a real world understanding of the debate, and not just what’s spoon fed…” I understand the debate, I simply want to frame it in terms of human rights instead of the the ambiguity of personhood. If people insist that only the humans that have rights are the ones they consider persons, they dont belive in human rights. This is not something I’ve been spoonfed, as far as I know I’m the only one who argues along these lines. Even Doug whom you falsely accuse of wanting to dehumanize women uses the ambiguois personhood terminology.… Read more »
“I understand the debate, I simply want to frame it in terms of human rights instead of the the ambiguity of personhood. If people insist that only the humans that have rights are the ones they consider persons, they dont belive in human rights.” -that’s part of the problem. You are trying to frame the debate on something that one side does not accept because there is no verifiable, concrete proof. You can not convince the other side that a fetus is the same level of personhood when there is no scientific evidence currently that proves consciousness in the fetus.… Read more »
There is absolutely verifiable, concrete proof that the human fetus is human. It cannot be anything else. It is made up entirely of human cells. It is a biologically distinct, growing being. Though we do not have the technology to do this, it is theoretically possible to remove it from one woman, and implant it in another, and it would still be a distinct entity. We do have the technology to create it entirely outside of a mother’s body, and place it inside another, completely genetically unrelated woman, to grow and thrive. It is human, and distinct from its mother,… Read more »
“There is absolutely verifiable, concrete proof that the human fetus is human. It cannot be anything else. It is made up entirely of human cells. It is a biologically distinct, growing being. ”
-NOBODY QUESTIONS WHETHER THE FETUS IS HUMAN!
What is debated is the issue of personhood and consciousness. That science does not nor cannot currently answer. That is what makes this issue complex and that is why yell murderer and a girl going in for an abortion is ineffective to actually deal with the problem of abortion.
Precisely. Nobody questions whether the fetus is human. (Well, some poorly informed people do, but that’s beside the point.) “What is debated is the issue of personhood and consciousness.” Yes. Which is why we need to stop debating that, and focus on human rights. It’s not complex that humans shouldn’t be murdered. Personhood is simply a red herring. I agree, it’s pretty ineffective to yell murderer at a girl going in for an abortion. Fortunately, in all the pro-life discussions I’ve ever been part of over the decades, I’ve yet to ever see anyone advocate doing that. I know it… Read more »
“Yes. Which is why we need to stop debating that, and focus on human rights. It’s not complex that humans shouldn’t be murdered. Personhood is simply a red herring.” -unfortunately it isn’t a red herring argument, nor can you avoid that part of the discussion. If that fetus at a certian point of development does not have personhood or consciousness, then it is very difficult to grant that fetus just as many, if not more that the woman or other human beings. “I agree, it’s pretty ineffective to yell murderer at a girl going in for an abortion. Fortunately, in… Read more »
And of course we’re still unclear about why infanticide is not also a complex, murky subject. “Science” has yet to pronounce on the evidence for personhood in newborns. I wouldn’t have thought one could avoid that part of the discussion either, but Tony has shown otherwise.
Interesting…..you are comparing infantcide to abortion when the majority of women who have miscarages early on do not have anywhere near the same grief and sadness as if they lost a child at birth or or at three months old….
You had previously claimed personhood as the complex issue behind abortion, not the feelings of the mother. Thank you for clarifying.
You compared infantcide with abortion, and I was showing that comparison is completely without merit.
I do not have the same grief and sadness if someone of whose existence I am only somewhat aware of and only hoped to meet at some time in the future dies, as of someone I have met, even if only briefly.
It’s not about whether the person who dies is the same sort of person, but about my level of experience with that person.
So you are agreeing that a fetus is at some way is different than a newborn child.
“-that’s part of the problem. You are trying to frame the debate on something that one side does not accept because there is no verifiable, concrete proof. You can not convince the other side that a fetus is the same level of personhood when there is no scientific evidence currently that proves consciousness in the fetus.” Which is why I’m arguing for the humanity of the fetus. “While all this effort is going into trying to outlaw abortion there are abortions happening TODAY, being chosen by women who for many reasons, mostly financial, feel their only option is an abortion-issues… Read more »
“Which is why I’m arguing for the humanity of the fetus.” Which is a dead end argument “There is no reason why we can’t do both.” -tell that to Doug CMP and Ted-heck tell that to many who focus on making abortion illegal while doing nothing else to lower abortion rates. “Yes, which is why I’m argueing that all human lives have value.” Which is why I have supported helping women who feel they have no other choice but to get an abortion. That woman’s life is just as valuable. That abortion doctors life is just as valuable. It does… Read more »
“Which is a dead end argument” Is it a dead end argument to argue that humans are made in the immage of God and as such have inherent value? “-tell that to Doug CMP and Ted-heck tell that to many who focus on making abortion illegal while doing nothing else to lower abortion rates.” I will. “Which is why I have supported helping women who feel they have no other choice but to get an abortion. That woman’s life is just as valuable. That abortion doctors life is just as valuable. It does not promote life when we deamonize someone… Read more »
“Is it a dead end argument to argue that humans are made in the immage of God and as such have inherent value?” -no it’s a dead end argument to convince someone who is pro choice that consciousness or personhood has no relevance to this debate. “It also wont happen if we agree that pro-abortionists are msking unassilable arguments.” -do you agree that we shouldn’t lie , spread falsehoods or deamonize people to end abortions? “Fortuneatly for me that isn’t my sole focus.” Look t the majority of people speaking out about abortion, and all the different ministries and organizations,… Read more »
“-no it’s a dead end argument to convince someone who is pro choice that consciousness or personhood has no relevance to this debate.” Only if you assume they will never chamge their minds. “-do you agree that we shouldn’t lie , spread falsehoods or deamonize people to end abortions?” We shouldn’t lie or spread falsehoods, some people find the truth deamonizing. “Look t the majority of people speaking out about abortion, and all the different ministries and organizations, 90% of them spend the majority of their time and money on 1) trying to lobby and sue to make abortions illegal,… Read more »
“”Only if you assume they will never chamge their minds.” -the pro-life cause have been trying that since roe v wade. How well did that work? “We shouldn’t lie or spread falsehoods, some people find the truth deamonizing.” -unfortunately, what CMP did was not the truth…it was a smear… “I understand the debate, I simply want to frame it in terms of human rights instead of the the ambiguity of personhood. If people insist that only the humans that have rights are the ones they consider persons, they dont belive in human rights. This is not something I’ve been spoonfed,… Read more »
“PS disregard the post below unless you want 15 repeats of our conversation….. “Only if you assume they will never chamge their minds.” -the pro-life cause have been trying that since roe v wade. How well did that work? We shouldn’t lie or spread falsehoods, some people find the truth deamonizing.” -unfortunately, what CMP did was not the truth…it was a smear… Look t the majority of people speaking out about abortion, and all the different ministries and organizations, 90% of them spend the majority of their time and money on 1) trying to lobby and sue to make abortions… Read more »
“-the pro-life cause have been trying that since roe v wade. How well did that work?”
The pro life movememt has been argueing about the personhood of fetus’ not their humanity.
“-unfortunately, what CMP did was not the truth…it was a smear…”
Unfortunately they had a political agenda, documemting and showing facts about planned parenthood and abortion is sufficiant for any productive dialog.
“-so it seems we agree that CMP is absolutely useless.”
Or only usefull on accident.
“-thanks for your condor…….there is no time like the present to start.”
Amen to that.
“The pro life movememt has been argueing about the personhood of fetus’ not their humanity.”
-no, the pro life movement has continually stated that the fetus is a life. The pro choice focus on personhood…..
“Unfortunately they had a political agenda, documemting and showing facts about planned parenthood and abortion is sufficiant for any productive dialog.”
– you’re right, they did have a political agenda, unfortunately, what CMP , by twisting and lying, did not aid in any meaningful dialogue.
“-no, the pro life movement has continually stated that the fetus is a life. The pro choice focus on personhood…..”
Most if not all of the pro-life rhetoric I’ve hreard accepts the focus on personhood.
“- you’re right, they did have a political agenda, unfortunately, what CMP , by twisting and lying, did not aid in any meaningful dialogue.”
People have had dialog about the videos, some of it may have been meaningfull.
I don’t know who you listen to, but I listen and read a wide array of pro life and pro choice literature, speakers, etc. rarely if ever are the pro lifers arguing the issue of personhood, but of life.
When the dialogue is based on lies or misinformation, it is not helpful. It’s like having a frank dialogue on HIV when one side claims HIV is a gay disease.
” rarely if ever are the pro lifers arguing the issue of personhood, but of life.”
Life is too broad to be usefull, mold is ‘alive’. Human rights puts things where they can be discussed rationaly.
But even then, when one side focuses on personhood, and there nothing that currently can tell us when personhood or conciousness begins, then addressinh human rights does not answer the oppositions arguments.
The pro choice/pro life debate resembles two men dueling with pistols, where both are facing eachother, but off-centered by 5 feet. They can shoot as many rounds as they want straight ahead, bot because the other person is off to the left, their shot straight ahead is always going to miss. In the same way, each sides arguments do not address the concerns or points of the other.
“The pro choice/pro life debate resembles two men dueling with pistols, where both are facing eachother, but off-centered by 5 feet. They can shoot as many rounds as they want straight ahead, bot because the other person is off to the left, their shot straight ahead is always going to miss. In the same way, each sides arguments do not address the concerns or points of the other.”
This would not be the case if both sides agreed that all humans have human rights.
Human rights is tied to the life argument. You are still not hitting the target with that line of argument.
What target should I be hitting?
You said that you “want to see abortion end. I just want to do it in a way that will actually work and is not rooted in selfishness..” Because there will always be women who don’t want to be pregnant, I don’t understand how your plan to end abortion through free babysitting and higher welfare payments will ever work. In the meantime, there are 1.2 million abortions in this nation every year. I understand counseling patience. But you are counseling inertia. In various posts about ways to limit abortion, you have opposed Christians using legislation, protests, undercover journalism, and any… Read more »
Incidentally, Dr. Mengele became an abortion doctor in South America after the war…
“Because there will always be women who don’t want to be pregnant, I don’t understand how your plan to end abortion through free babysitting and higher welfare payments will ever work. In the meantime, there are 1.2 million abortions in this nation every year. I understand counseling patience. But you are counseling inertia. In various posts about ways to limit abortion, you have opposed Christians using legislation, protests, undercover journalism, and any criticism of abortion doctors and patients. I cannot believe that you are serious about ending abortion any time in the next millennium.” -first, I am not talking about… Read more »
Tony, do you think it is wrong for journalists to go undercover in puppy mills or “farm factories” that give chickens miserable lives and gruesome deaths? Does it matter whether they are funded by people on the right or left? Suppose the journalist makes a technical mistake, calling something illegal when it isn’t. If the cameras reveal to the outside world the misery endured by the puppies (or chickens), does this technical error invalidate the rest of the report? I really don’t care about the motives of anyone whose videocameras make us aware of what happens behind closed doors at… Read more »
“Tony, do you think it is wrong for journalists to go undercover in puppy mills or “farm factories” that give chickens miserable lives and gruesome deaths? Does it matter whether they are funded by people on the right or left? Suppose the journalist makes a technical mistake, calling something illegal when it isn’t. If the cameras reveal to the outside world the misery endured by the puppies (or chickens), does this technical error invalida” -the CMP were not journalist, they deliberately twisted some 500 hrs of footage to insinuate that PP was involved in criminal activity, which, though disturbing and… Read more »
And BTW, that is not pro-abortion presupositions, but scientific realities….
How is it not pro abortion to nessessitate that fetus’ have no rights?
You have answered your own question…
So you have no problem with abortion at all, got it.
No, my repeated point is the bienay sides we have do nothing to actually reduce abortions……
But morale/ethical ambiguity does?
So you are framing the choice as either fight to make abortion illegal (which is not happening any time soon) , creating misleading videos to deamonize those who disagree with you (and yelling murderer at women going to an abortion clinic which does nothing to deal with the main reasons women choose to get an abortion or your morally ambiguous………
I am framing the debate in trems of humam rights thus giving human rights to the unborn. There may be a legitimate conflict of rights between the unborn and the mother in some cases, but I am not going to agree that human rights don’t apply to an arbitrary subset of humans.
Personhood does need to be established. (Human) sperm and eggs are Homo sapiens. Dead men are Homo sapiens.
Sperm and eggs are things that homo sapiens have, not homo sapiens themselves. Some biologists may duspute this but currently I believe bilogical classification makes this an accurate statement.
I admit I have not fully considered the implications of human rights for dead humans. The first problem I think would be property rights. I will have to consider this more.
Or we could ban abortions and continue to work on changing “the larger devaluation of all life in the western world.” Continuing to present this as an either/or scenario is disingenuous.
Are you seriously suggesting that making aborions illegal will end abortions when we have had abortions for thousands of years? Do you really believe that making abortions illegal will magically solve all the other issues that leads women to choose abortons n the first place. Seriously, get a better argument/insult friend…..
No, I am not suggesting that at all. In a previous comment, if you recall, I mentioned there would be fewer abortions if abortion were illegal, which is not the same thing as saying there would be no abortions, obviously. My suggestion that we continue to offer charity and hope to those who need it is not a magical solution. It’s the long, hard road you mentioned elsewhere. I’m not sure where you thought I was insulting you.
I did not take anything you said as an insult. Now that assumes quite a bit-that there will be less abortions if it were illegal. That is pie-in-the-sky dreaming. Compare that to abortions today. Since the 90`s, abortions have gone down signifigantly. Not because of protestes or tactics like the ones used by CMP (because hose have been used since roe v. wade and the aborton rate skyrocketed for that point to the early 90`s). what has changes is more acces to birth control, more recources (both government and nonprofit org.s), etc. That has done something to reduce abortion rates,… Read more »
“Get a better insult” was an unnecessary instruction if you did not take anything I said as an insult. Ross Douthat has pointed out that US red states, which tend to have more pro-life laws, have lower abortion rates than blue states. In Europe, Catholic and Catholic-influenced countries tend to have more restrictions on abortion and lower abortion rates than Scandinavian nations, for instance. There were over 700,000 legal abortions performed in the US in 1973 – some estimates show that the rate of illegal abortions before Roe was in the range of 60,000 to 200,000 per year (Dr Bernard… Read more »
“Ross Douthat has pointed out that US red states, which tend to have more pro-life laws, have lower abortion rates than blue states.” -I have read that, but it’s not entirely true. As well, I have no objection to restrictions, they work. For example late term abortions, etc. restrictions are reasonable and many states, even blue states, have restrictions. The debate is not (especially when we talk about guys like Doug, Ted and CMP, they are not fighting for restrictions, but ending it without dealing with the contributing factors that lead to abortions, which, even if their end goal is… Read more »
My alarm bells went off at “a law that takes away choice from a woman.” Would it be fair to say that you are pro-choice more than you are anti-abortion? If a particular woman’s sole reason for wanting an abortion was that she dislikes being pregnant, would you say that we must respect her choice? Do you see the unborn child as possessing any rights that might compete with the mother’s? Is there any point in the pregnancy at which you believe the child’s right to life exceeds the mother’s right to terminate life?
You are making a false dichotimy here. Its not “this woman dislikes being pregnat” is not the only (or even most common) reasonfor women choosing abortions. The majority of the time its financial. When we start getting into the rguments of “when does the fetus rights superseed the mothers right to life” is the moment we fall into the trap of a faith assuption being used as fact. As I have said before, Scienec does not or can not at this moment tell us when that fetus becomes a person. That is a faith assumpton , whether yu believe personhood… Read more »
This is also a false dichotomy: that one cannot both fight for the abolition of abortion while also helping single mothers, etc.
But the fight as yu, Doug and the CMP see it doesn`t do anything to end abbortions…..
If we’re talking about reducing abortions, I believe there were fewer abortions when obtaining one was illegal, wouldn’t you agree? And the charity of Christians reaching out to the lost and suffering would still extend to those women in desperate need of it.
That is unveifiable, because when its illegal, there is no concrete way of tracking the number.
When you talk about charity exteding to those in desperate need, first, I believe that, I hope you believe that, but Doug does not believe that. As well, many anti-abortionists who claim that don`t show evedence of actualy doing that. I am not sure you are exteding grace and charity when you are calling women who pass by a protest at a PP clinic a murderer and a whore…..
“but Doug does not believe that”
I’ve seen nothing to corroborate that statememt.
Maybe read more of his stuff critiqually
I’m going to assume that “you” is a generic you and is not addressed to me personally.
I realize that many women have much more serious reasons to seek an abortion. I wanted to push it to the limit to see whether you believe any restriction on abortion is valid. Are you saying that because science cannot assert the day during pregnancy on which the fetus becomes a person, it is legitimate to kill fetuses at every stage of development? This may be a valid argument, but it is not the argument of someone who sees abortion as a moral evil.
No, I am arguing that since science can`t definitively tell us when personhood begins, we shouldn`t call abortion doctors murderers because they are acting on a faith statement jut as pro-lifers are. As well, I am arguing that the issue is not as ssimplistic as Doug and other anti-abortionists make it.
That also means political smear campaigns like CMP don`t help the problem, but exasperate it.
Murder involves an intent and a person. The intent needs to be there and it matters what the person thinks they are doing. The person needs to be there but it is irrelevant whether the killer thinks the person is a person or not. So a man who swings an axe and the wedge comes off the shaft has no intent. The man who shoots a deer which turns out to be some kids dressed up doing some college prank has no intent. But the shooter who sees eyes in the night, is not certain it is a deer or… Read more »
It’s difficult to believe that Tony would rather play on the safe side when he continues to ignore the point of consciousness in his defense of the continued legalization of abortion.
It doesn’t help to ignore that point either…..
I imagine that serial killers are able to convince themselves that their victim are not persons. When Kermit Gosnell said about a late-term abortion he was performing “This kid is big enough to walk to the bus stop,” do you seriously believe he was making a good faith determination that the baby was not a person? So the word “arrogant” doesn’t apply to a doctor who kills a child capable of living outside the uterus; arrogant only applies to anyone who tries to shine a light on what happens inside an abortion mill?
We are talking apples and oranges here. Gosnell comitted crimes. Late term abortions are illegal. And I think you are misrepresenting my comment. One of the reason abortion is legal in many industrialized nations is because there is debate scientifically as to when personhood or conciousness happens in the development of the fetus. Now, it is entirely fair to disagree with aborton in all it`s forms. It`s fine to believe that personhood happens at the moment of conception. But we need to understand that specific belief is a faith statement. I disagree with abortion, but I also understand that there… Read more »
Tony, I don’t think we are talking apples and oranges. You derive comfort from the facts that abortion is mostly legal and that there is no consensus on when a fetus achieved personhood. Those facts give me no comfort at all because, on that reasoning, there is nothing to stop the continued destruction of the unborn. As I see it, your objections to making abortion illegal are as follows: (1) Some pregnant women can’t afford to have a baby. (2) We can’t tell scientifically the point at which the fetus becomes a person (or conscious or human) (3) No one… Read more »
Actually, to clarify, my objection have not been about making abortion illegal, per se but with wanting to make it illegal and doing nothing to actually eal with the colatiral damage (and with the tactics used by anti-abortionists). But I am against making it illegal now, for these reasons: 1) It won`t actually happen 2) Even if it did, without dealing with other issues, such as the reason many choose abortons is ecconomic reasons, you have a ton of colateral damage that would be just as harmful and wrong as abortion 3) abortion rates have gone down signifigantly since the… Read more »
Africans enslaved in previous centuries were considered less than human. Your argument would require you defend that opinion as a matter of faith – slavers traffic in African lives only because they believe the African is not a person – not a human who matters. It was legal. To call slavers murderers would be wrong, because they sincerely believed the lives lost were only property.
No, not at all because Africans could communicate, articulate thoughts, feelings, knew the reality around them, etc. that is demonstrable. The consciousness of a fetus is not demonstrable. That is what makes this issue complex……..
Have you seen an unborn child in the womb? Have you seen him move independently? React to stimuli around him? I’ve watched my 18-week-old unborn son play with himself (it really does start that early!). Nothing about our abortion laws has anything to do with personhood. It’s about the “well-being”of the mother.
What you are giving examples of is not concisness per se but beurological reaction to stimuli.
And the abortion debate is no just well being of the mother (though there are elements of that) but of personhood.
Just out of curiosity, does a newborn child demonstrate “consciousness” to you?
So, your response to my posts trying to explain why this issue is not as clear-cut as Doug and other anti-bortionists make it, how both sides talk over each other resulting in nothing productive being done, how just making abortion illegal will not end abortions and how the tactics of groups like CMP does nothing to help the problem of abortions is to ask me if a nnnewborn demonstrates concisness? Stuff like this is the PRECISE reason why the US has a abortion problem-The extreems on either side (who get the most media coverage and have the loudest voices) yell… Read more »
I take it that’s a no.
You should take it as amusement over ignoring the fact that I have not even tried to make a case either way, but to show how it is a devisive, complex issue and that tactics like CMP and Doug use do not do anything helpful just to spew anti-abortion propaganda.
You should also probably take it as frustration over selfishness and rhetoric that does nothing productive to actually help the problem…..again, very sad….I am not sure what is sadder-that many of these anti-abortionists don’t realize they are hurting the pro life movement or or that they don’t care…..
You claimed “the consciousness of a fetus is not demonstrable.” I asked if you thought the consciousness of a newborn were demonstrable, in an effort to understand your position. This sparked your sadness, amusement, and frustration. I’ll let you go now.
The consciousness of a newborn has no relevance to the debate on abortion or anything that I have argued….that is the point, you should know that…
You were the one who insisted the debate on abortion centers on personhood, or “consciousness.” The “consciousness” of a newborn is very clearly relevant.
And when referencing the issue of consciousness, in the fetus, I have always mentioned that specific issue is what makes the abortion a complex issue. I have also always pointed out when mentioning the issue of personhood that is half the population believes the fetus does not have personhood, trying to depict an abortion doctor as a murderer or yelling murderer to a woman going to a PP clinic is probably not helpful and does nothing to reduce abortions because they don’t believe that fetus is a person. So, we have to choice to do things that actually help reduce… Read more »
From his comment about neurological reaction to stimuli, it is clear that Tony doesn’t realize (just like Eric the Red) that he cannot confirm the presence of consciousness in adults either. This is because consciousness is internally and subjectively experienced. It is not a measurable property of matter. The Chinese Room thought experiment shows that you can’t confirm awareness or consciousness by observing response to stimuli. In other words, all Tony has access to measure is reaction to stimuli, whether he is talking about other adults or unborn babies. So he can’t use consciousness as a criteria when it is… Read more »
You can determine conciousness in adults. In first aid, you do different things depending on whether they are concious or unconscious. Not being able to determine conciousness in a child in Utero is just a factual statement.
Tony seems to enjoy repeating his assertions without adding any new information, and without addressing the counterarguments. Tony suggested that neurological response to stimuli was insufficient to protect the life of the unborn, yet what does Tony offer in order to detect consciousness in adults? Tony offers neurological response to stimuli. Go figure. I tried to explain to Tony that consciousness and awareness are not measurable properties of matter and biochemistry. I suggest that he go read about the Chinese Room thought experiment. He will hopefully learn why no amount of complex external material behaviors can confirm whether awareness or… Read more »
“Tony suggested that neurological response to stimuli was insufficient to protect the life of the unborn, yet what does Tony offer in order to detect consciousness in adults? Tony offers neurological response to stimuli. Go figure.” -Conciousness inolves awareness and awareness of others, surroundings, etc. That is demonstrable outside the fetus, but science can not determine in the fetus. “”I tried to explain to Tony that consciousness and awareness are not measurable properties of matter and biochemistry. I suggest that he go read about the Chinese Room thought experiment. He will hopefully learn why no amount of complex external material… Read more »
Tony wrote: -Conciousness inolves awareness and awareness of others, surroundings, etc. That is demonstrable outside the fetus, but science can not determine in the fetus. Apparently Tony didn’t understand the Chinese Room or he wouldn’t keep repeating the same error. Consciousness and awareness cannot be confirmed by externally observing material responses. The man inside the Chinese Room has no awareness of Chinese meaning at all. The thing inside the room could even be an automated machine. It is impossible to confirm from the outside. This is also the case with unborn or adults alike. We cannot confirm awareness in either… Read more »
“Apparently Tony didn’t understand the Chinese Room or he wouldn’t keep repeating the same error. Consciousness and awareness cannot be confirmed by externally observing material responses. The man inside the Chinese Room has no awareness of Chinese meaning at all. The thing inside the room could even be an automated machine. It is impossible to confirm from the outside. This is also the case with unborn or adults alike. We cannot confirm awareness in either one. We can only observe response to stimuli, which is what Tony already said wasn’t good enough to spare the lives of the unborn.” -again,… Read more »
Right, Africans fit YOUR definition of “persons,” but fetuses do not. But Africans did not fit somebody else’s definition of persons, and so it was easy to treat them as unpersons. Can you show me where it is objective fact that your definition of person should rule, and someone else’s should not, apart from consequences that you do or do not prefer?
Christopher keeps trying to direct you to human rights for all humans, and you keep arguing about which humans are persons. Why are you ignoring the point?
I am not ignoreing ny point. Scientifically, there is no way presently to determine when a fetus achieves conciosness or personhod. Caling an abortion doctor a murderer, or an abortion a murder when scientifically there is no way to determine when the ftus achieves personhood is simply judgeing based on a faith statement. It also does nothing to actually reduce abortions or change the culture of death in all its forms in the west. Anti-abortionist rhetoric like Doug`s and CMP does not help the pro-life cause, but hurts it.
“The consciousness of a fetus is not demonstrable. ”
So until the fetus is fully born can it reall be conscious?
“No, not at all because Africans could communicate, articulate thoughts, feelings, knew the reality around them, etc. that is demonstrable.”
People say the same about apes dolphins and dogs. are you going to argue that these animals due to their superior consciousness deserve more rights than an unborn human?
Well, if you have read all that I have posted on this article, you would now that I have not made a claim at all about when I believe a fetus gets personhood, conciousness, a soul, etc. What I have repeatedly stated is that science does not and cannot tell us at this time when personhood happens in thee development of the fetus, which makes the ethics and egality of the abortion issue much more complex than some want to admit. Which should in turn lead us to a bit of grace in howw we advocate for the unborn, disagree… Read more »
“Well, if you have read all that I have posted on this article, you would now that I have not made a claim at all about when I believe a fetus gets personhood, conciousness, a soul, etc.” So we could not grant personhood til the fetus graduates highschool? “What I have repeatedly stated is that science does not and cannot tell us at this time when personhood happens in thee development of the fetus, which makes the ethics and egality of the abortion issue much more complex than some want to admit. Which should in turn lead us to a… Read more »
In responding to the question of consciousness in an unborn baby, Tony wrote: I don`t know specifically when, Science does not know, and you don`t either. In his defense of the continued legalization of abortion, Tony errors on the side of allowing babies to be killed if we don’t know whether they have consciousness. One who has any care for the life of another, and the image of God in them, would error on the side of protecting that life until they were positive there was no consciousness. Tony’s immoral reasoning is like a man on a shooting range who… Read more »
Well, it seems you use alinsky’s rules for radicals very well. The whole playbook is there, misrepresentation on your opponents argument, character assassination, sticking to the information that supports you while ignoring and dismissing anything else……impressive….
We have the biblical right to do a King Herod act on the unborn. But heaven forbid that we engage in character assassination on the King Herods. That would be unbiblical.
That`s not what I said at all. Two wrong`s don`t make a right. NOWHERE in the Bible do we have a command or an allowance to sin if it is to deal with what is deemed an even worse sin. It`s this kind of language and idealoogy that actually prevents any signifigant progress on abortion.
In what sense is Tony qualified to instruct us about lying and character assassination? Speaking of character assassination, didn’t Tony just try to reduce Wilson to a “campaign PR guy”? I detect a strong odor of hypocrisy. As for the Center for Medical Progress, they released the full, unedited videos as well as the edited versions. Tony shouldn’t misrepresent the facts. In regard to lying, undercover investigative journalism has an established precedent among those who now try to vilify CMP. Furthermore, we see that the Hebrew midwives disobeyed and lied to Pharaoh in order to protect infants, and were blessed… Read more »
“In what sense is Tony qualified to instruct us about lying and character assassination? Speaking of character assassination, didn’t Tony just try to reduce Wilson to a “campaign PR guy”? I detect a strong odor of hypocrisy.” -Well, i am not sure how my “”PR guy” comment is a character assasination, because he has repeatedly has endorced Cruz, sung the praises of Cruz without presenting any negatives, but has urged people to vote for him. That sounds like a PR guy to me. But it is interesting yo mentioned hypocracy, because a uy like Cruz and Doug himself are incredibly… Read more »
“The edited videos were made so to falsely incrimnate and deamonize.”
You are talking to people who largly think the unedited videos are incriminating and demonizing.
That is part of the problem. Those who demonize the church bother me greatly. I don`t like it one bit because I love the church, the body of Christ. However , I understand why it happens and work to change that mindset. In the same way, the issue of abortion is so devisive, and so many reuce this issue to rhetoric, that the fact that the majority on BOTH sides of the issue want the abortion rate to go WAY down. This kind of deviciveness ignores all the practical things that can be done, whether by the government and the… Read more »
Tony wrote: Cruz has not passed or even sponcered any legelation to help women who are poor care for their children, nor has supported mandatory maternaty leave-both of these things would help reduce abortion rates because the majority of women who choose abortons choose them for financial reasons. Guys like Cruz and Doug will do nothing to help actually fix the problem, but use the issue for political purposes. How does Tony know that “Doug will do nothing to help actually fix the problem”? What if the reason that Cruz doesn’t pass legislation to help poor women care for their… Read more »
“How does Tony know that “Doug will do nothing to help actually fix the problem”? What if the reason that Cruz doesn’t pass legislation to help poor women care for their children is precisely because he doesn’t want to use the issue for political purposes? Does it occur to Tony that there are more godly and lasting ways of helping the truly needy than by passing legislation? What if Cruz doesn’t want to see the out-of-control State further its invasion into the rightful role of Church charity? It seems that Tony is jumping to conclusions.” -Passing legeslation does not just… Read more »
Tony wrote: -Passing legeslation does not just involve giving people free Money. And then Tony followed it up with this jewel: How about raising the minimum wage-not to $15/hr like Bernie wants, but to a more livable wage. Mandating that all jobs must pay a “living wage” assumes that every job must be intended to support a family. That is simply not the case (for example, summer jobs for teens) and will destroy jobs through unintended consequences. Tony might be surprised to learn that not even $15/hour is considered a living wage for two working parents with two kids in… Read more »
“Mandating that all jobs must pay a “living wage” assumes that every job must be intended to support a family. That is simply not the case (for example, summer jobs for teens) and will destroy jobs through unintended consequences. ” -many industrialized nations have higher minimum wages and the have not hurt the economy or businesses. As well, many who have these minimum way jobs are those with kids. As well, the states that have raised minimum wage have seen a growth in their economies….. “He has no clue as to what charities Wilson gives his time and money, and… Read more »
In complete ignorance of Wilson’s private efforts, Tony, the social justice warrior, wants to denounce Wilson for not publicly doing enough to promote living wages, adoption, or help for single moms. He says he can’t find Wilson using his platform to speak up for these causes. Just for fun, let’s see if Tony can quote Jesus promoting living wages, or adoption. Jesus must be a failure too, in Tony’s squinting eyes. Jesus spent most of his time rebuking Pharisees, challenging abusive rulers, and talking about repentance and Hell. That’s apparently not good enough for Tony, the internet judge, jury, and… Read more »
“Just for fun, let’s see if Tony can quote Jesus promoting living wages, or adoption. Jesus must be a failure too, in Tony’s squinting eyes. Jesus spent most of his time rebuking Pharisees, challenging abusive rulers, and talking about repentance and Hell. That’s apparently not good enough for Tony, the internet judge, jury, and executioner.” -First, I expected more from you than a challenge about living wages, adoption, etc. considering those are modern ideas. By that logic, you must see Jesus as soft because he never mentioned anti-abortion rhetoric in the sermon on the mount. But let`s play that game,… Read more »
Tony, it is inconceivable to me that a prolife person could watch the unedited tapes and then come down on the side of Planned Parenthood. The unedited tapes showed people drinking wine, joking about fancy cars, and haggling over the price of baby parts. Whether or not this is illegal, whether or not PP charges less than the hospital down the block, is completely irrelevant to the horror that is unveiled in those conversations. Planned Parenthood is to be given an ethical pass because Doug Wilson does not disclose the amount of help he gives unwed mothers? These are tired… Read more »
I agree that not every believer cares only for the unborn and not for the chid out of the womb. I also agree that those at PP talked lightly about the fetuses. I in no way praise PP. My issue is with CMP twisting the truth, editing videos and smearing a group for political reasons. I am also against those who focus on defunding PP and overturning roe v. wade while dismissing the fact that we can do so many things either through the government and even the church that would lower abortion rates. A uy like Doug isn`t concerned… Read more »
Tony wrote:
Citation needed. What nations? Nations of the EU, whose debt load and economy is in nearly as bad a shape as ours, and whose youth unemployment is skyrocketing?
Canada for one….
Canada does indeed have a higher minimum wage, but they also have a youth unemployment problem to go along with it. Their youth unemployment hasn’t returned to pre-recession levels, while the U.S.’s has. To try to get this under control, Canada has had to counteract their unfunded minimum wage increases with special … wait for it … government funding. In Ontario alone, the government plans to spend almost $300 million in two years, in order to make hiring young workers attractive again. From the internet: “Ontario is investing $295 million over two years in the Youth Jobs Strategy to help… Read more »
You do realize that Canada is more than ontaio, right? We have more than one province here….lol
And yu do realize that this program was designed to hep build entrepenurs (which would be contributing to society through taxes nd such). This is not basic fast food/entry level jobs. Plenty of teens in Canada have those jobs.
I am canadian. The canadian economy is stronger now than the US or countries in the EU, even with all our “socialism”.
Before you comment on Canada, you should probably get your facts straight………
Tony wrote: -PP sets a price that is lower than what fertility clinics and hospitals charge. Perhaps Tony is referring to StemExpress? PP’s bloodmoney rates for aborted child parts are lower than those of their one-time partner/reseller, StemExpress. StemExpress’s “product listing” website offers fresh fetal liver cells for rates up to $36,675 (see http://stemexpress.com/product-category/fetal-liver/ ). Perhaps Tony can explain how StemExpress can do $36,675 of processing on a “donated” fetal liver? Do tell. Tony wrote: Many research companies try to get lower prices so they have more money for research, while PP quotes prices that are lower that the cost… Read more »
First off, the specific site page you linked doesn`t exist- Many of the videos contain errors. But to sum up, If this is such a cear case of a crime, why has every state AND the federal government who has investigated (which includes very conservative republicans who hate PP) found NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING? The conveluded explaination is that “Its all a conspiracy perpetrated by PP, OBAMA,liberals and slutty girls”. The common sense explaination is “Maybe they did not break the law and CMP is attempting a smear campaign”. Occam`s razor suggests that the simplist answer is probably the correct… Read more »
The link does exist, but DISQUS autoformated it together with the trailing parenthesis, so I edited my text to add a space to make DISQUS behave. Tony wrote: Many of the videos contain errors. Citation needed. Is he referring to the content of video footage spoken directly by representatives of Planned Parenthood and their resellers of baby parts? Is Tony suggesting they didn’t say what they said? Tony wrote: But to sum up, If this is such a cear case of a crime, why has every state AND the federal government who has investigated (which includes very conservative republicans who… Read more »
“Citation needed. Is he referring to the content of video footage spoken directly by representatives of Planned Parenthood and their resellers of baby parts? Is Tony suggesting they didn’t say what they said?” -first, when understood in the context of PP accepting money for the fetuses, which is below what hospitals or fertility clinics charge, “haggeling” so that PP does not loose tons of money for the transfer, and the fetuses going for medical research companies, the narrative that CMP is conveying (PP is seling baby parts, making a profit as an illegial and underground illicit activity) is misleading. Disagree… Read more »
“The fact is every inestigation has shown NO ILLEGAL activity.”
But they were willing to discuss illegal activity, and would have commited illegal activity if the offers had been genuine.
Discussing an illegal activity world have been enough to lay charges. Since there were no charges filed, it is safe to assume that PP has done nothing illegal.
Tony appears to be a graduate of the school that says, “since Hillary Clinton hasn’t been indicted, it’s safe to assume that she has done nothing illegal”.
so you believe in pronouncing guilt before someone’s been proven guilty just because you don’t like them…….that’s pretty petty
Tony’s accusations fall to the ground again. Note that I never pronounced Hillary Clinton guilty. My point was that her lack of indictment (as in the case of Planned Parenthood) in no way means that she has done nothing illegal. Rather it is Tony who has already pronounced Wilson guilty while he remains completely ignorant of Wilson’s personal and private giving. Tony is the one rushing to be Wilson’s judge, jury and executioner, without evidence, and rushing to declare Planned Parenthood innocent, in spite of the evidence. The hypocrisy coming from Tony is just shameful.
In both Hillary and pp’s cases, when there have been multiple investigation involving some who desperately want to find a smoking gun, and they STILL can not convict, just maybe they did not commit a crime, which means continuing to suggest crime or illegal activity is wrong
With Hillary and PP, the smoking guns are everywhere, and the report is still ringing in the air. However, Tony doesn’t seem to understand the legal process. The reason for the lack of any conviction is not attributed to lack of evidence, rather it is because there has been no indictment in the first place. We’ve been over this before, and yet Tony keeps dismissing the evidence by pointing to the lack of conviction. I take this as his admission that he simply can’t address the evidence of PP’s offers to modify abortion procedures in their baby organ harvesting (which… Read more »
You can only have an inditement if there is sufficient evidence TO indite. I understand the legal process….it doesn’t seem that you do though….
Failure to indict may be because of lack of sufficient evidence, but it may also be because of failure to pursue justice. We can’t point to a failure to indict, and a failure to convict, as if they constitute evidence in the case.
What Tony continues to do is sidestep the actual evidence presented in the video. His inability to interact with that evidence is quite telling.
The point is that the supposed evidence that the PP presented (or more correctly, falsified) was not sufficient for a conviction. Just because you hate PP and want them closed does not give the right to lie and mislead.
Tony has not explained how Gatter’s own words, recorded on video, could have been falsified. The full context of the videos has been provided by the CMP for Tony, if he thinks he has a case to offer us. There are two lines of evidence that Tony is covering his eyes to not see: 1) Tony has failed to explain how Gatter’s words do not constitute haggling over prices that are supposed to be fixed costs. Did CMP somehow falsify Gatter saying, “I want a lamborghini”? 2) Tony has failed to explain how Gatter’s words do not represent a modification… Read more »
1) discussing what the reimbursement fee will be, considering that PP acceptts less than what it actually costs to ship, process, etc. the fetuses. Disagree with it all you want. I do, but it`s not illegal. Also, with her “dark humor”, that is not illegal. I find it cold to talk about life like that. But it`s not illegal. 2) The transcript released by CMP shows that the organization was discussing reimbursement for costs associated with the consensual procurement of fetal tissue, which federal law allows. “If Tony simply points to the current lack of conviction as if that was… Read more »
You’ve mentioned reimbursement fees before. In many cases, specifically with StemExpress and ABR, there are absolutely no costs incurred to Planned Parenthood. StemExpress and ABR employees come to the clinic, are handed the pie plates of human remains (which may or may not still have beating hearts), they pick through them for parts, they leave the building with them. This is from eyewitness testimony. And Planned Parenthood is being reimbursed for the costly step of transporting a plate from one room to another, to the tune of $30-$100 per specimen (i.e. per body part, not per body)? I know you… Read more »
That is not entirely true. CMP have made those claims, but they have not been verified. For the eyewitness testimony, the only eyewitness testimony I know of comes from the CMP. Now, they have been proven to been dishonest in their accumulation of “evidence”. Now, if they have fudged the truth to imply something in other areas, why should I trust that “eyewitness testimony. I am not sure if you remember him, but during the Reagan administration the surgeon general was a man by the name of C. Everett Koop. He was asked by Reagan to put out a report… Read more »
Another eyewitness is Abby Johnson, a former PP clinic director who has testified that her clinic alone, based on their pricing of specimens and average number of abortions per month, was making several hundred thousand dollars a MONTH on selling fetal tissue. Dishonesty has not been “proven” except in Tony’s court, where he is not only prosecutor, but judge and jury. CMP did not make those claims – they filmed others, from both those companies, making those claims. If, in your view, the video testimony of PP’s own directors and doctors demonstrates less credibility than the official rhetoric of an… Read more »
And I totally pulled a katecho there without even realizing it.
As I said earlier, an “eyewitness” testimony from a former PP official is questionable, especially when the CMP has done questionable things and has twisted videos to imply something that was not there. As for the claim that a specific clinic alone “made several hundred thousands of dollars a month”, well that would be very easy to verify by checking their financial records (as I assume the many investigations had access to). If there were really a profit there would be at least one conviction out of all the investigations. Well, considering two members of CMP have been indicted in… Read more »
I’m curious – are you saying that CMP twisted the complete recordings of the videos that they released at the same time as the edited ones?
What I am saying is that the edited videos tell a different story than the full, unedited videos.
Do you believe that CMP believed that? If so, why release the full videos? I think it makes more sense to believe that CMP believes that the edited videos are merely quicker ways of digesting the material, and they believe that the unedited videos support the claim. If they believed they were altering the meaning of the videos, I think it would make more sense for them not to have released the unedited videos.
First, the edited videos and unedited videos give different pictures or what was happening (for example, the edited videos suggest a sale, when the unedited videos, the PP reps continually state that they are not selling and that selling is illegal.). Second, if the unedited videos were as clear as claimed, they could have just released the unedited videos. CMP released the edited videos first to give an impression first.
Tony wrote:
Tony seems to like the taste of the propaganda that Planned Parenthood is serving. The dishonesty engaged in by CMP was the kind which every undercover journalist employs when doing an exposé of criminal activity. Tony’s claim that the videos themselves were falsified seems to have expired from abandonment and lack of support.
CMP are not journalists. An investigative journalist is not allowed to falsify government records.
And I have stated many times how these videos were twisted and edited by CMP…..if one will not be objective and accept the evidence, that is not proof of abandoning the evidence…
Tony wrote: 1) discussing what the reimbursement fee will be, considering that PP acceptts less than what it actually costs to ship, process, etc. the fetuses. Disagree with it all you want. I do, but it`s not illegal. Also, with her “dark humor”, that is not illegal. I find it cold to talk about life like that. But it`s not illegal. The legal issue is not the seared conscience of Gatter, but that her negotiation represents a clear expectation of profit. Tony seems to have a really short memory, so I’ll repeat the evidence for him. The PP rep, Mary… Read more »
“The legal issue is not the seared conscience of Gatter, but that her negotiation represents a clear expectation of profit” -when my parents moved, they asked a neighbour who had a truck to help move some of the large appliances to their new place a couple towns over. When they were done, my father offered $50 for his time. The neighbour said no. My dad insisted and they haggled until the neighbour accepted $20 and the old swing that was at the house for their grandkids. There was no profit there, seeing the gas and time was more than $20… Read more »
“Haggeling does not mean profit.”
That is true, haggeling is coming to an arrangement both parties are happy with.
For clarification, I have not said that haggling means profit. What I have said is that if Planned Parenthood intended to simply charge for their fixed processing costs, there would be no room for haggling, or Lamborghinis, or lowballing, or anything else that Gatter was on about.
That is exactly what you implied..
“The legal issue is not the seared conscience of Gatter, but that her negotiation represents a clear expectation of profit. ”
and
“Notice there is a clear expectation of profit here, or there would be no room for any haggling.”
Your proof that they were profiting from this transaction was haggling…..
I said that the haggling and negotiation implies an expectation of profit (which it clearly does in Gatter’s remarks). I have not said that haggling means profit.
I don’t know Planned Parenthood’s costs, and Tony does not know Planned Parenthood’s costs. How about we take the video as evidence that Gatter was expecting a profit (“I want a Lamborghini.”) and, you know, have an indictment and an investigation? Katie mentions below that StemExpress collected their own parts directly in the Planned Parenthood facility. Meaning there was no processing cost to Planned Parenthood, let alone $100 per specimen.
First, I pointed out many ways in which that is not the case.
Second, Your argument was that PP made a profit, and tried to prove that by ponting out haggeling.
Third, processing involves more than shipping.
Fourth, I can not believe you actually think she was asking for a lamborghini in the context of that video. Any reasonable person would conclude she was making a joke, albeit a joke in poor taste.
“Any reasonable person would conclude she was making a joke, albeit a joke in poor taste.”
Which would be enough for an indictment if there were any intrest in one.
A joke is not illegal…..
Why assume she was joking though?
First off, it`s an assumption to claim she actually wanted a lambourghini. In the unedited video, she goes into detail on how they do not sell fetuses, etc. to assume she went through all that then ask for enough money to buy a fancy car is highly unlikely.
Second, it is pretty common for those in sciences, social word, education, etc. to use dark humor when talking with peers. Occams razor would state the simplist explination is probably the right one.
Here Tony is simply ignoring the direct evidence that Gatter wanted to negotiate prices upward, rather than cite her actual costs. One doesn’t negotiate in this fashion (for Lamborghinis or otherwise) when costs are fixed. One doesn’t ask what the buyer is “used to paying”. That is irrelevant if costs are fixed. One is not concerned with being “lowballed” if costs are fixed (again the expectation of profit). One is not concerned about who “throws out the figure first” if costs are fixed. In other words, Gatter was caught on video behaving and negotiating as if her costs were not… Read more »
Again, you are using your interpretation of those words as proof that your interpretation is correct. Any objective person who not see what you are seeing, especially with the unedited videos. And the fact that over 11 investigations have not led to a single inditement suggests that no crime was comitted. Is it morally wrong…yes. Did they break the law…no. It is easy to win in a court of public opinion, especially when the public opinion wants to destroy PP by any means nessesary. But that’s not justice…
“StemExpress collected their own parts directly in the Planned Parenthood facility. Meaning there was no processing cost to Planned Parenthood, let alone $100 per specimen.”
Stem express could be charging a collection fee.
StemExpress charges up to $36000 for a fetal liver on their “product” website. However, I don’t think that federal law allows charging “collection” or bounty fees. Those would be completely arbitrary and subjective. In terms of federal law, and in light of the evidence of the videos, what needs to happen is an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s pricing. $100 per specimen needs to be justified, and not just by waving numbers and hands in the air. They need some serious oversight to make sure there are no Lamborghinis being driven in the trafficking of unborn baby parts.
I absolutely agree that investigation is warrented.
which is not a crime…
Tony wrote: -when my parents moved, they asked a neighbour who had a truck to help move some of the large appliances to their new place a couple towns over. When they were done, my father offered $50 for his time. The neighbour said no. My dad insisted and they haggled until the neighbour accepted $20 and the old swing that was at the house for their grandkids. There was no profit there, seeing the gas and time was more than $20 and an old swing that was probably worth $5 at most. Haggeling does not mean profit. Tony appears… Read more »
“Tony appears to be desperate to defend Planned Parenthood at this point. I don’t know how else to explain his attempt to misrepresent what Gatter said. Gatter’s expectations were going up and up, not down.” -I am in no way defending PP. I believe abortion is wrong. the question is not the mrality of the practice. The question is legality and the CMP`s attempt to imply criminal activity when there was none there. However, i am willing and honest enought to admit, however much I dislike it, PP did not comit a crime. I do wish there were actual evidence… Read more »
In his tiresome defenses of Planned Parenthood, Tony has repeatedly asserted that CMP has twisted the videos. Apparently Tony is unable to come to terms with the fact that I simply quoted Gatter’s remarks directly. I didn’t include any CMP commentary at all. Tony seems to think that CMP altered Gatter’s words, or edited the context, but the full context is available in the unedited video. So Tony has been unable to support his accusations of “twisting”. Who knows why he would repeatedly make up accusations in this way. Tony wrote: And for haggeling, when the ammount they accept is… Read more »
“So Tony has been unable to support his accusations of “twisting”. Who knows why he would repeatedly make up accusations in this way.”
This seems consistant with his accusations against Doug, Tony aparently thinks any reasonable person will agree with him that his opinion is self evidently the truth.
I have….accepting the evidence is a different thing…
What?
Try useing more nouns.
I will clarify…I have been able to support the fact that the CMP was twisting the truth to convey something that wasn’t there…….accepting the evidence is a different issue altogether. It requires one to be objective
The question is do you think the unedited videos justify any investigation into planned parenthood?
Well, that is a moot point simply because there have been 11-12 state and federal investigations that cleared PP of criminal action. If you asked me before any of these investigations, i would have no objection to an investigation simply as a precautionary measure.
As well, if you ask me if there should be an additional 10-20 more investigations without any new evidence, I woud say no.
“In his tiresome defenses of Planned Parenthood, Tony has repeatedly asserted that CMP has twisted the videos. Apparently Tony is unable to come to terms with the fact that I simply quoted Gatter’s remarks directly. I didn’t include any CMP commentary at all. Tony seems to think that CMP ” -first, you are interpreting those words. What she said does not imply what you or CMP suggest. Second, CMP released an edited video then much later released the unedited video. This tactic is typically used to get an idea planted in people’s mind. If it were clear as you claim,… Read more »
Just to be clear, no one is arguing that we have a right to lie to get what we want. We agree with you there. Now, Doug and others have argued that God sanctions deception in cases like Rahab and the Hebrew midwives, and argues this is analogous to tactics used by undercover investigations, which are not possible without deception. They do not argue that it extends to intentionally misrepresenting another’s words or fabricating evidence. I know you believe that is what CMP has done, and you have made your point. We understand it.
Actually, in many of his blogposts, he reference Alinskys “12 rules for radicals and endorses the use of them. CMP, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have deploys these tactics well. It is morally wrong to use many of see tactics, but Doug sees no problem is using them.
And for the CMP videos, they deliberately edited videos to imply these PP officials comitted crimes when in fact they did not do anything illegal. One can say they don’t approve of dishonest means, but when they don’t call out when those means are used, they are in fact supporting them.
I know you believe that is what CMP has done, and you have made your point. We understand it.
So, you can continue to erroneously insist that what I am saying is not the case, or you can stop trying to pass along missinformation…
Hugs and kisses to you, Tony!
Lol
Yet you pronounce PP guilty of illegal activity even though no investigation has found illegal activity.
And as I have. Stated many times, Doug’s writings and teaching have never encourages doing practical things to reduce abortion rates now , have always encouraged simply making abortion illegal, endorsing candidates that only talk about making abortion illegal without any other policy that would help reduce abortions and has encourages being dishonest to end abortion. His teaching says it all!
Tony wrote: And as I have. Stated many times, Doug’s writings and teaching have never encourages doing practical things to reduce abortion rates now Tony continues to proudly display his ignorance of Wilson. Apparently Tony would rather play internet vigilante than look for evidence before convicting. Anyway, here is an example of Doug encouraging charity and practical help for the genuinely poor and struggling: The exhortation this morning will be half announcement and half exhortation. But it is no less spiritual for being practical, and so here goes. You all should recall that beginning next Lord’s Day we will be… Read more »
So, your examples of Doug giving and encouraging concrete examples of helping women who are considering an abortion is a video on abortion (which is good, it is in no way dealing with the reasons why many women choose abortions) four years ago and a quote from one of his books that generally teachers being generous……..not what I am talking about…
That does not show he is actively encouraging his church members, his students at new St. Andrews or readers of his work to do practical things to lower abortion rates now….
Tony wrote: a quote from one of his books that generally teachers being generous……..not what I am talking about… … That does not show he is actively encouraging his church members, his students at new St. Andrews or readers of his work to do practical things to lower abortion rates now. When I asked Tony to provide references to Jesus encouraging help for single moms, or doing practical things to reduce the abortion rate, all Tony could do was quote Jesus teaching on the broad subject of generosity and kindness (much like Wilson does). Apparently, as self-appointed internet vigilante, Tony… Read more »
Actually, the verses I quoted actually stated we are to do practical things to help people in need, which includes helping women who are considering an abortion to have other options, while you presented an advert for dougs church about a woman’s testimony on abortion, which is good, but doesn’t help in giving a woman options, and a general quote in one of dougs books that give a vuage comment on helping people in need (which when you understand that comment in the fact that Doug subscribes to dominion theology, probably means making a Christian nation obeying biblical law) while… Read more »
“That does not show he is actively encouraging his church members, his students at new St. Andrews or readers of his work to do practical things to lower abortion rates now….”
Dougs mission statement is ‘All of Christ for all of life for all the world’
This nessessitates a reduction in abortion rates when applied.
-seriously, people will be incouraged to lower abortion rates through a general mission statement that most people gloss over ….
If Doug preaches all of christ for all of life for all the world, and his church acts on his preaching then abortion rates will go down in the area.
no matter what the motto is, it is debatable whether he actually does it. But assuming he does, wouldn’t that come out is some teaching or blog post on practical ways to lower abortion rates now?
Comments from Gatter and others strongly imply an existing practice of modifying abortion procedures for the purpose of harvesting organs. An indictment would be necessary to convict, but there would have to be a will to move forward with an indictment. To date, the current administration has no such will to pursue justice, either in the case of Planned Parenthood, or Hillary Clinton.
Many red states investigated, found no wrong doing, then voted to defund PP. as well, the federal government and a congressional committee (which a majority republican) investigated and found no wrongdoing.
They did even discuss illegal activity. A bipartisan law passed, I believe in the 90’s allowed the donation of fetal tissue to research companies for a reimbursement to cover processing, etc.
Tony appears to be continuing to deceive and misrepresent the issues.
The PP videos revealed haggling over price, rather than fixed processing fees (“I want a lamborghini.”). Thus the accusation of selling of baby parts.
The PP videos revealed offers to modify abortion procedures in the harvesting of the baby parts. This is in violation of federal law.
Tony was unable to address this direct evidence of illegal activity. He merely dismissed it by pointing to the lack of convictions, which is question begging in its weakest form.
Which has shown nothing illegal. The “haggling” you keep insisting is week. Modifying abortion procedures to “harvest” baby parts, pp was never convicted by the many states that have investigated. That lack of conviction is important, even though you dismiss it, when the claim is that PP is involved in illegal activities.
Once again, Tony seems unable to address the actual evidence, and continues to point to current lack of conviction as if lack of conviction ought to be admissible as evidence in the case. What if someone in PP is convicted next year? Rather than keep begging the question, perhaps Tony can try to address the actual evidence, rather than keep pointing to that which is not evidence.
The lack of entitlements is pretty clear evidence that nothing illegal happened. If there was anything illegal, at least one of the many states who did investigations (many red states who would want nothing more than to prosecute PP) would have incited. Considering the only inditement in all of this is for those at CMP, well, that’s telling.
It’s funny that you are demanding that I prove their innocence of any illegal actions or practices when many investigations have done that very thing..
Tony, try as I might, I simply can’t see how you see PP as the injured innocent here, and CMP as the slanderous villain. Again I ask you, how could anyone go about “smearing” an outfit that performs around 300,000 abortions a year? How about the 18 late term abortion facilities owned by Planned Parenthood? I don’t think there is much debate about personhood at 28 weeks. And is this something that PP finds regrettable and would prefer not to do? I don’t think so. According to PP’s Senior Director for Medical Services Deborah Nucatola, “But what you’re going to… Read more »
“Tony, try as I might, I simply can’t see how you see PP as the injured innocent here, and CMP as the slanderous villain. Again I ask you, how could anyone go about “smearing” an outfit that performs around 300,000 abortions a year?” -I am not defending planned parenthood, I am simply stating that what CMP claimed was erroneous and does not help the pro life cause. PP does not “sell” baby parts nor have they, in all the investigations that have been done, have not been indicted for any wrongdoing, which was the CMP’s claim. With all you have… Read more »
“With all you have stated, let me ask- do the ends justify the means? Are we allowed to force our will and our moral beliefs on others? ”
Making anything illegal is forceing morality on others.
That isn`t true. Many things are ilegal that have no moral bearing, while man things are legal but are immoral.
“Many things are ilegal that have no moral bearing”
Once they are illegal they have moral bearing.
“while man things are legal but are immoral.”
Like abortion.
The only way you can say something illegal will have a moral bearing is the morality of following the law.
And I do agree that abortion is immoral.
“The only way you can say something illegal will have a moral bearing is the morality of following the law.”
Yes, and following the law is a moral consideration.
Backong up a bit, what makes it ok to force non christians by law to not steal.
The fact that it is moral that we follow the law does not automatically dictate that a law is moral or immoral……….
True, but making an action illegal is an attempt to make it immoral.
Morality an legality are different issues……
Yes, so should theft be illegal or is that judging non chtistians by christian standards?
Should sex outside marriage be illegal? Should Gossip or little white les be illegal? Should being angry at someone be illegal even though Jesus says its the same as murder?
Is the illegality of theft and murder the imposition of christian morality on non christians, and therefore contrary to paul saying not to judge outdiders?
No because laws against things like murder or theft are illegal based on ethical standards, not a specific religious idealology.
“Our ethical standards are based on ethical standards” – Tony.
simplistic interpritation katie…..
many religions and societies have laws and comands agains things like murder.
What ethical standards are those?
The basic morallity, though flawed by sin, every person has. In the bible this would be called concious. Most civilized societies today and in the past, have had similar laws against things like murder, theft, etc. As well, many other religions hae commands not to murder or steal. So, in your original comment, that laws against murder are imposing christian morality on others, well many other societies both today and in history have those very same commands.
And may I ask, If a minority of muslims demanded we follow sharia law, would you accept?
“So, in your original comment, that laws against murder are imposing christian morality on others, well many other societies both today and in history have those very same commands.”
By this reasoning we would need a democratic vote from several diferent cultures amd religions to make anything illegal.
“And may I ask, If a minority of muslims demanded we follow sharia law, would you accept?”
Not even at the demand of a majority of muslims.
“By this reasoning we would need a democratic vote from several diferent cultures amd religions to make anything illegal.” -a few comments up you implied tha the reason we have laws against murder , theft, etc., is because of christian morality. My point was that many society, whether chritian or secular, in the past or the present, had laws against murder, theft, etc. They coencide with bblical law, but are not because of them. The reason this is the case is because of human concius God gives and his general working. “Not even at the demand of a majority of… Read more »
“-a few comments up you implied tha the reason we have laws against murder , theft, etc., is because of christian morality. My point was that many society, whether chritian or secular, in the past or the present, had laws against murder, theft, etc. They coencide with bblical law, but are not because of them. The reason this is the case is because of human concius God gives and his general working.” A set of ethics from God giving all humans a conscience is a biblical source for ethics. Your previous comments implied a source orher than God for ethics.… Read more »
“A set of ethics from God giving all humans a conscience is a biblical source for ethics. Your previous comments implied a source orher than God for ethics.” -I stated that God gives humanity conscience and works in the world. That is given by God but not based on the Bible. The Bible is specific revelation. The Bible TELLS us of general revelation, but it is not the SOURCE of general revelation. “Do you belive that a religious belief should be mamdated or forced onto an irreligious minority?” What i believe is irrelevant…the Bible teaches that we are not to… Read more »
“What i believe is irrelevant…the Bible teaches that we are not to force our Biblical beliefs on others, wwhich is why I am against the concept of a theocracy that Doug supports…”
Your arguments support the legality of any action being decided by majority of the populus, which offers no opposition to the moral decline of western civilization.
“Your arguments support the legality of any action being decided by majority of the populus, which offers no opposition to the moral decline of western civilization.”
-and that is a democracy-imperfect, but better than other forms of government that power is consolidated by a small group by way of birthright or idealology.
The answer to this is to change the hearts and minds of people through the gospel-not forcing a minority view on the majority…
“-and that is a democracy-imperfect, but better than other forms of government that power is consolidated by a small group by way of birthright or idealology.
The answer to this is to change the hearts and minds of people through the gospel-not forcing a minority view on the majority…”
I wonder what you will do when you realize that Jesus is Lord and that he hasn’t consulted us on how to run the world even though there’s one of him and lots of us.
The funny thing is, Jesus is more concerned about believers doing something practical to he people than making laws…….seriously, if Jesus prerogative was to create just societies through government legislation it would seem that there would be some command to do so or an example to follow……but alas there is none….
Is Doug in favor of a theocracy?
Can you cite where?
He supports a strict constitutionalist so I’m guessing not.
Many posts and other articles he has written have endorces theonomy as well as the pro-life rhetoric post he put out just a few days ago linked to a book he encouraged his readers to read which supports theonomies…
I do not believe in theocracies, but can you tell me where the Bible says I can’t force my beliefs on others? Notwithstanding, my problem with that argument is that abortion is also a question of civil rights. I would not force my moral beliefs on others in areas where there is no victim whose rights are being violated by the immoral conduct. I do not support laws banning fornication or adultery or gay sex involving adults. But abortion actually ends someone’s life. Just as I support laws banning rape (which is also forcing my ethics onto a person who… Read more »
“but can you tell me where the Bible says I can’t force my beliefs on others? ” Especially in the NT, other than Paul appealing to Ceaser, there is no place where Jesus or any other apostle commands or even suggests that we cahnge a culture through a political process or through forcing christian or even moral beliefs on non-believers. The command has ALWAYS been doing good in the world around us. In that time when children were tossed out if they were not the right gender, christians didn`t go to the authorities and demand new laws, they took in… Read more »
Tony, which of my assertions about what you have said is untrue? I take that kind of thing very seriously, and if I have spoken falsehoods about you, I need to know so I can correct them. Even so, I really can’t follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying that by trying to end abortion legally, the pro-life community (not, I note, the abortion doctors and their patients) are sacrificing one million babies a year. Do you believe that an abortion ban will happen on its own without pro-life people working to bring that about? Do you believe that… Read more »
“Tony, which of my assertions about what you have said is untrue? ” -well, for one, it seems you are making the assumption that I am pro choice and dead set against making abortion illegal because I have stated that it will take a long time to make abortion illegal, that we don’t have the right to lie or twist information just to get a desired result (CMP for example) and that we should put some of our energies to reduce abortions now. “Even so, I really can’t follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying that by trying to… Read more »
Hi Tony, I apologize for calling you pro-choice. I believe that in one of our posts on this subject about ten days ago you said that because there is no medical agreement on when the fetus becomes conscious, you think that the decision should be left between the woman and her doctor. That, plus your tendency to echo some pro-choice talking points and your defense of Planned Parenthood (in conjunction with your criticisms of the pro-life movement), led me to conclude that your sympathies are pro-choice. I am happy to learn that I was wrong. None of your earlier posts… Read more »
“Hi Tony, I apologize for calling you pro-choice. ” -no worries. Short of being called a pedophile, I do not get offended over comments on the Internet. “I believe that in one of our posts on this subject about ten days ago you said that because there is no medical agreement on when the fetus becomes conscious, you think that the decision should be left between the woman and her doctor. That, plus your tendency to echo some pro-choice talking points and your defense of Planned Parenthood (in conjunction with your criticisms of the pro-life movement), led me to conclude… Read more »
The constitution was drafted as a theonomy, which is to say our rights are protected by, and civil laws influenced by Biblical law.
This would, or should, protect the rights of unborn children.
Nowhere have I seen Doug advocating for a theocracy which is state imposed religion.
No, the constitution was not drafted as a theonomy-it specifically gave freedom of religion, which is at odds with a theonomy.
The danger of a theonomy is not that the state imposes a religion (which it always does either forcibly or passively) but that it imposes biblical law on people who reject biblical law…
This is something, in many places, Doug has advocated.
Are you arguing here that opposition to abortion is a religious ideology as opposed to an ethical standard?
No, Chistopher hs been implying that all laws are based on christian beliefs, which is not true.
I would say that I’ve been implying that christian beliefs are a better basis for laws than mob rule.
You are assuming (or blindly insisting) democracy is mob rule…….
I agree that not all democracy is moblike, but is there anything undemocratic about a mob?
Considering mob rule is sheer emotionalism and not weighed decisions based on what is best for a society in general, mob rule is anything but democratic….
They are not always different issues. An action may be both sinful and illegal. It may be sinful but not illegal. And it may be illegal but not sinful. In the examples you gave below (gossip, white lies, sex outside marriage), we are dealing with sins, but even these sins can have legal consequences: civil penalties for slander, to name just one. Some pro-abortion people believe that because many Americans do not share a religious opposition to abortion, it is wrong to take what they see as a morally neutral act and make it a crime. Others might see abortion… Read more »
“They are not always different issues. An action may be both sinful and illegal. It may be sinful but not illegal.” -and if you follow the thread, I have been trying to make that exact point. “Others might see abortion as deeply sinful but be unwilling to make it criminal as well. I think that there is a close relationship between an act being legal and its being perceived as morally unobjectionable. If something is legal, it is sinful human nature to want to pretend that it must be morally okay. When abortion was illegal almost everywhere, people were much… Read more »
You ask if we are allowed to force our will and our moral beliefs on others in our moral outrage over abortion. I have not seen you display any moral outrage about abortion. That is what is troubling me. When it comes to human rights abuses, I think we are allowed to force our moral beliefs on others. Do you believe that the Allies were justified in using force to stop Hitler’s aggression? Do you believe that the Vietnamese were justified in using force to stop the Khmer Rouge after the murder of two million Cambodians? Were the English justified… Read more »
“You ask if we are allowed to force our will and our moral beliefs on others in our moral outrage over abortion. I have not seen you display any moral outrage about abortion. That is what is troubling me.” – I am not sure what you want me to do-yell? Call women going into an abortion clinic murderers? Shoot a few abortion doctors? Preface every conversation I have with “abortion is genocide”?. Moral outrage by itself does not bring about change. “When it comes to human rights abuses, I think we are allowed to force our moral beliefs on others.… Read more »
“-it seems that you and Doug care about the child pre birth, but show no concern for the child after birth, the mothers contemplating abortions because they can’t afford the child, never mention Christians adopting, etc. again, my critique stands. Just be honest and call yourselves anti-abortionists and leave the term pro-life to those who are actually pro -life.”
Because quality of life is more important than life itself?
Noo, because those children who are being born into poverty are people too….
Are you accusing Doug/Cruz ect. of beleiveing that personhood ends at birth?
Actually, I am accusing Doug and Cruz of being more inamored with a political/theological worldview that doing practical things to help people and show grace….
Tony wrote:
And Tony is making this accusation in complete ignorance of Wilson’s personal and private giving. Tony has crowned himself the internet judge, jury, and executioner.
“And Tony is making this accusation in complete ignorance of Wilson’s personal and private giving. Tony has crowned himself the internet judge, jury, and executioner.”
-doug’s teaching on this blog and other writings, and Ted’s policy and voting record give me more than enough ammo……
Tony, if generous maternity leave and welfare benefits would substantially reduce the incidence of abortion, why do nations that provide both of those to pregnant women still have high abortion rates? Canada and the countries of Western Europe have lower abortion rates than the U.S., but generous benefits are clearly not decisive in preventing abortion . But that observation, while true, is still a distraction from the central issue. Are we never to say that an action is flat out wrong unless we have done our best to reduce the temptation? I believe that shoving a pillow over the face… Read more »
“Tony, if generous maternity leave and welfare benefits would substantially reduce the incidence of abortion, why do nations that provide both of those to pregnant women still have high abortion rates? Canada and the countries of Western Europe have lower abortion rates than the U.S., but generous benefits are clearly not decisive in preventing abortion” -they do lower abortions. Many in the states who choose abortions state that the reason is economic. As well, there is something to be said about reducing abortions with the goal of eliminating them. Create an atmosphere where there is no need for abortion, it… Read more »
Hi Tony, I am wondering why you think of yourself as prolife if you are not convinced about the personhood of the unborn child. If the fetus is only potentially a person, it makes sense that you might favor the unwilling mother’s needs and desires over the fetal right to life. At what developmental milestone do you believe that the unborn child has an absolute right to life? You draw a distinction between being anti-abortion and being prolife. You suggest that Doug Wilson is not prolife, merely anti-abortion, because–why? Because he is not pushing the government to raise the minimum… Read more »
“Hi Tony, I am wondering why you think of yourself as prolife if you are not convinced about the personhood of the unborn child. If the fetus is only potentially a person, it makes sense that you might favor the unwilling mother’s needs and desires over the fetal right to life. At what developmental milestone do you believe that the unborn child has an absolute right to life?” -I have never stated that I don`t believe that the fetus is a person. I have stated that science does not no can not currently tell us when that fetus achieves personhood,… Read more »
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-daleiden-anti-abortion-activist-planned-parenthood-video-surrenders-texas/
I have come to the conclusion that, at this time, the Republican Party must want Trump to be the GOP candidate, for they could easily tell Rubio and Kasich to get out of the race. Both of these men are “party” men. I think Cruz’s uncompromising positions on gay mirage and abortion make him more of a threat to the direction the GOP wants to go.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If Cruz gets elected, the welfare state will expand, the military/security/prison-rape industry will grow enormously, the national debt will increase, QE4 and beyond will take place, abortions will continue unabated, racial hostilities will increase, religious freedoms will continue to be eliminated, and America’s reputation on the world stage will be further diminished. Most regrettably of all, the political system and its Joe Average adherents will continue carrying on this long, bleak, boring slog toward sweeping tyranny and godlessness. Tomorrow night, when you’re watching these strange, unhappy, deviant men in yet another… Read more »
You meant Trump, right?
Cruz is the Wall Street candidate. Don’t expect him to jeopardise the continued wealth extraction by the financial elites.
Yup.
Rubio is an establishment man.che may well be staying in to assure Trump wins
Right.
The establishment wants Donald Trump to win.
Yeah, that makes sense.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/huffpos-grim-54-private-jets-at-meeting-to-stop-trump/
Doug, read the latest column from the elites favorite aristocratic columnist David Brooks. Yes, the establishment does plan to hand the nomination to someone like Rubio no matter how bad the primary results. Elections have always been a rigged game. It’s just more in the open now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/its-not-too-late.html?_r=0
Man, there’s some serious spinning in this article. Good luck, though, Doug! (Because you’re gonna need it.)
Immigration is THE issue. If it is not stopped we will no longer be the same country. No borders, no country (ask Israel). Cruz is open borders, he’s lied, and he is not eligible to be POTUS. Why would anyone still be considering him as an alternative? I still watch Trump carefully and I couldn’t believe he would be so foolish to lie to an America that has been stabbed in the back so completely by Republicans. If he BS’ed everyone there is not enough security he could buy to protect himself. I don’t think he’s that stupid. Cruz needs… Read more »
Trump lied to two wives and you trust him?
You can’t run for presidency and not lie, so far as I can tell. (Cruz is no paragon of honesty either, for example.)
Sadly too true. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t punish candidates for the more open and blatant lies. With someone like Clinton having been in office recently, it’s painful for me to say that Trump and Cruz look like some of the most opportunistic and consistent liars of any major candidates of my lifetime.
Cruz urged Obama to release one of the worst traitors since the Rosenbergs.
And he didn’t stop there – he told a Jewish group that if he’s elected, he’ll consider pardoning the traitor Jonathan Pollard, and has already met with Pollard’s attorney to discuss the possibility of a pardon.
And Trump’s the one we shouldn’t trust?
That’s pretty amazing.
And yet, Ivana had come out in public support and defence of her ex. I find that interesting.
“Immigration is THE issue. If it is not stopped we will no longer be the same country.”
The country wont be the same even if immigration is stoped.
Cruz might had better improve his campaign. (1) Even now, fire a few shots at Hillary: “All us Republicans look forward to running against the loathsome paternalism of Hillary Clinton and the Bureaucratic Party who thinks it takes a village to choose your light bulb…” (2) Think out loud about putting Trump in charge of immigration enforcement–he has the ability and the passion and it’s not in the line of succession, right?–or making trade deals. Both of these would enhance Cruz’s stature, and the 2nd would invite Trumpites to get on board.
If you think we’re wrong for supporting Trump, fine. But please stop lecturing us about his lack of good moral character. Because if that’s a reason to not vote for Trump, then you can’t vote for Cruz, either, because he also lacks good moral character. Badly.
Not comparable at all. We’ve seen bad in presidential elections before, seen all kinds of bad, seen it all over the place, but Trump is a whole new kind of tacky, tawdry, tasteless bad. I suppose the novelty is part of his appeal, to those who find that sort of thing appealing. Anyway, I will not stop lecturing, so deal with it.
Why is tackiness worse than pharisaical sanctimony?
Pharisaical tackiness. The sanctimonious version at least pays homage to the virtue of dignity.
Dignity and democracy can’t stay together for long.
Guess it depends on what you mean by democracy and what you mean by long.
So you simply cannot abide Trump because he’s tacky, tawdry, and tasteless. But you’re cool with Ted Cruz urging Obama to release one of the worst traitors since the Rosenbergs, Jonathan Pollard. And you’re just fine with Cruz telling a Jewish group that he has met with Pollard’s attorney to discuss Cruz giving him a full pardon if he’s elected president. Trump insulted Megyn Kelly and replied to Rubio’s insults to his manhood? Whoa. That’s beyond the pale. Cruz urged Obama to release a traitor? Hey, that’s cool. Cruz says he might grant that same traitor a full pardon? Hey,… Read more »
And reckless and rabble rousing and irresponsible and dishonest and faithless and bloviating and boorish and narcissistic and I could go on. And what he *says* he wants to do is either impractical or immoral. Anyway, Pollard huh? That’s what it’s all about for you? He’s been punished. He’s in no position do harm anymore, so at this point, whether a pardon is right or wrong – yawn. Bigger problems JFN. That and talk of mercy doesn’t bother me nearly as much as talk of torture and killing families of terrorists. But then I don’t share your animosity toward Jews.
John,
Thanks for the update on Trump’s evil character. Your behind the latest news…He’s “The reincarnation of Hitler”, with more similarities than you can count. You can smell the desperation in the air…..
But lacking the gravitas.
Only one Republican can win this election: Donald J. Trump.
Cruz voters are like “whatever”, but DJT voters are all “ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE?”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/pollster-ted-cruz-supporters-are-just-lukewarm-trump-supporters-are-fired-up/
And don’t believe the BS polls about Cruz or Rubio doing better than DJT against Hillary. DJT is redrawing the electoral map.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432528/donald-trump-michigan-win-shows-general-election-appeal
“Only one Republican can win this election: Donald J. Trump.”
As Bart Simpson used to say, “Au contraire mon frere.”
I would say only one Republican can *lose* this election: Donald J. Trump.
56% of registered voters say they could never vote for Clinton. That’s a stinking majority! She could never win. Oh, wait, that’s unless she runs against Trump. 66% of registered voters say they could never support Trump.
Yes, and something like 99% of white people tell pollsters that they hate racism and looooove diversity.
But when the blacks move in, the whites keep moving out.
ICYMI, people often lie to pollsters rather than confess to a socially unacceptable opinion. Look up “Bradley effect.”
Trump will easily beat Hillary.
Focus.
White Flight and Bradley Effect (yes, I had to look it up – and ICYMI too – thanks for that) have only to do with race. I know Trump’s got a spray-on-tan and all, but he’s still the same race as Secretary Clinton.
Clinton v Trump would be worse than LBJ v Goldwater. A real blood bath that would be a hyuuuuuuge setback for any influential conservative movement in the foreseeable future.
You haven’t got a clue, have you?
At least you’re not ashamed of it. I’ll give ya that.
Walk proud, buddy.
No shame here. But still, what makes you think Trump can beat Clinton in the general? Have you any evidence beyond anecdotal emotion?
Never mind. It would go right over your head.
You might want to look up katecho on here. I think you two would really hit it off. Great minds think alike, etc., etc.
Andy, don’t feed the trolls.
I lived in Florida and voted for Rubio. And yes, I was most assuredly double crossed. Ain’t voting for this guy or anybody else bearing the imprimatur of the traitorous GOP establishment.
How were you double crossed?
The Rubio campaign (boosted as passionately as possible by Neal Boortz) created the impression of an American nationalist. Mr. Rubio, for whatever other virtues he may have, is no nationalist by any stretch. He has done the usual GOP bait-n-switch by campaigning to the Constitutional conservative right, then joining the GOP establishment in the squish middle left. He, like ¡Jeb!, exemplifies what is foul about the mainstream GOP and why, if they don’t change markedly, they will lose and deserve it richly.
Any specifics?
Amnesty and war. On these two, The Donald is right. (No, I don’t support Trump.)
Just to define terms here, I’m assuming by “amnesty” you mean pardon of illegal immigrants. Unlike Reagan, I’ve never heard Rubio call for a pardon of illegal immigrants (illegal immigration technically, by the way, is a non-criminal offense). Can you point me to a case where he did? And what do you mean by war? Do you mean we shouldn’t have been in Iraq? Afghanistan? Both? Trump wants to bomb the stuffing out of ISIS – so you’re obviously ok with some war. Where does he differ in that regard with Rubio? If it’s over Iraq, there’s an argument to… Read more »
the way Ted Cruz went about voting for cloture on TPP was very disingenuous.
I also find it ironic that there are some who will never vote for Trump bc of his moral failings but would for Mitt Romney, a member of a cult. Makes a lot of sense.
A cult could have horrible theology yet teach excellent moral principles. The horrible theology might have no conflict with our constitutional principles, economic system, or traditional American values. In that case, a person’s membership in that cult does not affect his fitness for high office. On the other hand, a person could profess adherence to Christian beliefs, but exhibit a pattern of conduct that most Christians would consider immoral. By that I am not referring only to sexual morality. This self-declared Christian might show through his behavior that he does not value truth telling, ethical conduct, and keeping promises. Are… Read more »
we’re all asked to hold our noses over certain things/people when it comes to politics. I voted for Romney bc of this and will vote for Trump bc of this.
So Cruz is blaming Trump for the Chicago rioters now. Classy.
Cruz just joined the street/msm mob. Disappointing
And how anyone can support Rubio after his effeminate, passive-aggressive, manipulative speech of late–piling on the “Trump is mean and violent,” and “Trump’s just making it difficult to support him,” and “If you want to stop Trump, don’t vote for me, vote for my other competitor,”–is rather…perplexing?