This should be a lesson to American Liberals (*cough* David Corn *cough*) who think it is okay to “out” people in public. In Nigeria, outings have resulted in the gay community being terrified to have dinner with each other. And now the government is considering all forms of gays interacting with each other in Nigeria.
In the Muslim north of Nigeria, Bisi Alimi could be stoned to death for having gay sex. In the south, he could face three years in prison. Now, a proposed law would make it illegal just to share a meal at a cafe with gay friends.
The proposal under debate in Nigeria’s House of Representatives would outlaw not just gay marriages, but any form of association between gay people, social or otherwise, and publication of any materials deemed to promote a “same-sex amorous relationship.”
Anyone attending a meeting between gay people, even two friends in a private house, could receive a sentence of five years under the act. Engaging in homosexual acts is already illegal in Nigeria, with those convicted facing jail terms in the south and execution in the north.
Alimi’s been trying to drum up united opposition to the legislation, but says Nigeria’s homosexual community is so far underground and the subject is so taboo that it’s been difficult. The 27-year-old activist is one of few openly gay Nigerians, having been “outed” by a university newspaper three years ago. None of his companions have told their families they are attracted to men. The risk of arrest, beatings or even death is why they requested that only first names be used for this article.
It’s funny how the American Left accuses the Bush Administration of gay oppression and alleges that Bush is building “gay concentration camps” in the Western States. But the leading indicators of actual gay crimes are coming from the Gay Left itself….. Outing Their Own Community.
Sick.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
In terms of measuring hysterical blowhard punditry, that comment is right up there with Dobson’s “Marriage is under attack by the forces of Hell Itself” comments. Its funny really, the GOP tries to demonize gays in order to win elections, while Bruce, in order to avoid spending any time addressing that fact, continues to demonize the “Left” whatever that is supposed to mean.
In the wake of one of the most devastating elections for the GOP in the last 20 years, GP post-election rhetoric is exactly the same as it was before. Excellent. Continue doing the same things again while expecting different results. Good to see you doing your part to assure a Democratic election victory in 2008.
Patrick-
Are you DENYING that the public outings of gays in America is all coming from the American Left?
Maybe we should give you a plane ticket to Tehran so you can hang out with the rest of the History Revision crowd?
Sheesh!
#0 – Bruce, not sure I understand this time. It isn’t the outings that “have resulted in the gay community being terrified to have dinner with each other”; it’s the beatings and the Nigerian Islamist anti-gay laws.
In the U.S., of course, outings don’t have the same consequences – proving the U.S. is good – which many lefties need to acknowledge.
#1 – ????????????????? Relevance? Coherence? LOL
They don’t have the same consequences anymore. American is good, but it isn’t perfect.
Much of the anti-gay prejudice in Nigeria is based as usual on religion. Even the Catholic and Anglican Churches have come forward supporting anti-gay measures. (not these particular ones as far as I know). Although they seem to be having second thoughts.
Bruce missed a major point of the story, in that this is part of an impostion of Sharia law into a previously more secular legal system. Perhaps he wouldn’t have missed it if he would stop trying to smash every story that comes across the newswire into his standard anti-left blog template.
Catholic and Anglican Bishops have started to complain about the imposition of Sharia, but its probably too late. They are starting to find out belatedly that the same forces that they have encouraged to hate gays and lesbians in their country are not fond of Catholics or anyone else thats not Muslim either.
BTW, these are the same Nigerian Anglican bishops that conservative Anglican Churches want to break off and form union with.
I read about the proposed Nigerian legislation yesterday. It’s terrible.
I’d like the President to (at least) threaten economic sanctions against Nigeria for this gross crime against humanity. They should be confronted.
Will they be? Not a chance.
But I do like how on this blog, the story is taken to be spun against the gay left. The left is just soooo evil!
For real, you guys would take a story about trans fat in Oreo cookies and spin it against the left if you had to.
Well, Bruce, according to above you have the lefties reading your blog. That is good.
Meanwhile, speaking of leftist morality, Ukrainian Babies Butchered for Stem Cells.
Michael J Fox must be proud. But of course, there is nothing wrong with this, according to liberals. Embryos can be harvested for parts, and babies can be partial birth aborted even up to the time of birth. So, harvesting them for stem cells is entirely consistent with liberal “morality.” Right?
Thank you VtheK, for your lovely, completely disingenuous comment. OF COURSE embryos can be harvested for parts. They’re just being thrown in the trash as left-overs from fertilization procedures. I’d have more sympathy for the religious right’s position on this if they weren’t oh-so-thankful for God blessing couples with children while at the same time not lining up to have those leftover embryos implanted in their own uterus. And why aren’t they lining up to adopt all the unwanted children? Oh that’s right, because that is something Jesus might do.
I fail to see hos those who support abortion rights in our country (the horrible partial borth abortion techniique aside) as having anything to do with the morality of a completely different culture.
According to the liberal left, partial birth abortions are okay. According to the liberal left, harvesting embryos for stem cells is not only all right, it should be a spending priority for taxpayer dollars. Therefore, using partial birth abortion to harvest stem cells is entirely consistent with left-wing “morality.” And the only difference between harvesting from a partial birth aborted fetus and a born alive infant is… about half an hour.
I should also probably point out that I have adopted two “unwanted” children that the left is so eager to abort. And I plan on adopting again next year.
VtheK, I admire that you’ve adopted – I do think that’s great. If I wanted children myself I would adopt rather than pay a surrogate. (I happen to hae absolutley no desire to be a parent and never have – but that’s me.) But your assertion is not exactly on my point. EMBRYOS that are being discarded as part of fertility clinic work are NOT fetuses in the womb. I agree with you on the half-hour comment. But it’s not relevant to a discussion of embryos not being implanted into a womb.
And for what (very little) it’s worth (at least on this site), not everyone on the left thinks unwanted babies should be aborted. But that’s a different question from access to abortion, which I would be happy to discuss off the board.
My personal opinon is that spending tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research is absolutely as justified as spending them on any other medical research in it’s early stages. I might also add that this is a better use of my tax dollars than a great many other allocations.
Correction to my #10 post. I should have more clearly said that I think you’re making a leap of logic that’s simply not there, i.e. harvesting embryos = harvesting partial birth aborted fetuses. I personally think you’d be hard-pressed to find too many even way lefties who would equate the two.
Basically, you have done nothing to refute my point. You admit that lefties find nothing wrong with harvesting stem cells, and nothing wrong with partial birth abortion. If lefties then want to say it’s wrong to harvest stem cells from partially aborted fetuses, they’re being hypocritical and irrational. But then, that’s pretty much the way lefties arrive at all of their positions.
The only distinction you make is whether an embyo results from a lab procedure or carnal activity… which is an irrelevent distinction. Life is life. What does it matter how an embryo, a fetus, or a baby was created if one has a moral viewpont that says any of them can be destroyed for the benefit of adults?
VtheK, your comment “Life is life” just goes back to what I was originally saying (so to some degree we’re discussing this in a circular way). I don’t hear an outcry from the religious right about the embryos being destroyed as part of infertility treatment. If one views an embryo as a human life, why aren’t those discarded embryos worth as much to the righties that have such a problem with embryonic stem cell research?
I’m not trying to refute all your points – lefties (myself included) don’t think there is anything wrong with harvesting embryonic stem cells because we don’t believe that’s a life. But then, that’s really the origin of the disagreement between both sides, isn’t it?
Once you abandon the idea that life in the womb is human life and is worthy of protection, you open the Pandora’s box that permits, ultimately, the growing and harvesting of children as organ banks. Lefties support every link in the chain that leads to that, but then you balk when the links are connected.
And many religious people are alarmed at the treatment of fertilized embryos. But treating them as a resource that can be grown, harvested, and sold… as, for examplem, the recently passed law in Missouri permits … accelerates the devaluation and commoditization of human life.
I can live with my moral viewpoint that vulnerable life ought to be protected. If everyone was morally appalled by the harvest of embryos and the aborting of babies, human life would be much more valued than it presently is, and babies would not be butchered to harvest stem cells. On the other hand, if one embraces the idea that embryos can be harvested, and fetuses aborted at any time for any reason, that attitude devalues human life and leads the way to baby butchering.
Point understood, and I appreciate where you’re coming from. And while I don’t necessarily agree with you on when life begins, I certainly respect that your opinion on that. I disagree that lefties support every link in the chain. Or, perhaps a better way to say it is that not all lefties do. Very few of the lefties I know would, but then again I’m not exactly the far left fringe of the party either. 😉
Bruce, I completely agree with your post, speaking as a straight, happily married, evangelical, which I assume makes me a hatemonger to the extreme left. About the only thing in the post I might have issue with is your last remark: “Sick.” I don’t believe that involuntary outing of an individual is sick so much as morally wrong. We shouldn’t merely psychologize something like this that can destroy lives .
Regarding the spending of federal dollars on destructive embryonic stem cell research… The following points always bear repeating, I think:
(1) Embryonic stem cells are actually NOT promising. That’s why its devotees have to hit the federal government (as opposed to private and charitable sources for dollars, to begin with). Michael J. Fox has been misleading you (or perhaps himself).
(2) There are other kinds of stem cells. They are more promising. For example, self-produced (adult) stem cells.
(3) Be that as it may… It is possible to do embryonic stem cell research without destroying lives. And the Bush administration fully funds that.
(4) Be that as it may… Mike, if you think your money should be spent on destructive (the kind that destroys lives) embryonic stem cell research, kindly give your own money to it. No law is stopping you!
The last point can and should be made about a plethora of federal expenditures, all of them illegitimate. If I wanted my money to pay big corporate farmers to not grow anything, I would give money to a charity for them. Government has 3, or maybe 4 legitimate functions: police, courts, military, and perhaps plague control. That government takes my money to spend on farm subsidies is morally wrong because farm subsidies (just as an example) are quite simply not a legitimate function of government to begin with.
When I have the time, I enjoy catching up with this blog and more often than not I’m in agreement with most points made by the GP’s, but every once in a while I left scratching my head. This is one of those times. Whatever point you’re trying to make is lost on this reader.
I’d have more sympathy for the religious right’s position on this if they weren’t oh-so-thankful for God blessing couples with children while at the same time not lining up to have those leftover embryos implanted in their own uterus. And why aren’t they lining up to adopt all the unwanted children?
Your statement, Mike, reminds me of the time one of my friends asked to borrow my car, but returned upset and blaming me because I hadn’t given it to him with enough gas in it to finish his errands.
We still are friends, but it was touch-and-go for a while.
You are asking the religious right to clean up a mess that they a) didn’t create and b) whose practices they opposed in the first place. It’s like demanding that the people who protested a toxic waste dump being harangued later because they’re not doing all the cleanup.
As I am fond of saying, the laws in this country treat bird eggs as if they were an adult or juvenile bird without any argument about whether they’re viable or not, but treat human babies as medical scrap.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy of the left is obvious in the fact that they’re willing to use embryos, fetuses, or anything else, but squeamishly draw the line at “unwanted children”. There are hundreds of thousands of people who need organ transplants; if leftists can justify the vivisection of children in utero for medical purposes, I see no reason why they should feel any differently about those outside of the womb, especially since they are more than willing to allow people to turn off the life support on their comatose wife without her express consent when she becomes inconvenient for them.
Well put, ND-30.
Did anyone actually read that article VtheK posted?
It was about a Ukrainian hospital maternity staff stealing newborn babies from mothers shortly after birth… against their will. The mother would first give birth to a healthy baby. The staff would then steal it, presumably kill it and then lie, telling the mother something happened, that the baby died. They would then harvest the newborn for biological material.
OK, now i’m no doctor or lawyer, but that seems waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than what he was comparing it to. They were stealing children against the will of the parents. It’s no wear near the same.
And even though Mike tries to weasel away from the broad support across the left side of the political spectrum for abortion in all its forms, the fact is that the Democrats are the party of abortion, and not only support partial birth abortion, but even support the ability of adult men who impregnate underage girls to take them across state lines to get abortions without their parents’ knowledge.
There might be a few leftists opposed to abortion, but support for abortion in all its forms is core value of the “mainstream” left.
#21: The reason are being butchered is because left-wing “morality” has allowed their body parts to become commoditized. Because left-wing “morality” says killing and harvesting fetal tissue to benefit the living is okay.
Of course, what you also miss, Chase, is that the reason this is happening is because Ukraine has a thriving cottage industry in baby parts, and people want to take advantage of it.
Besides, the cells from these babies could potentially save hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives. Why are you against the advance of science, Chase? Are you some kind of superstitious, irrational fool who opposes progress?
Rereading Chase’s first sentence, where emphasize’s “against their will,” one gets the impression that if mothers exercised their Sacred Right to Choose, and consented to having their babies butchered for spare parts and stem cells, he’d be okay with it.
I wouldn’t be surprised that it’s already happening, V the K.
Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, I don’t think there is anything that can be done about a woman getting pregnant, then aborting or killing the baby for spare-parts use. Democrats insist that the state has no right whatsoever to intervene in pregnancy, and the ban on selling or producing fetal tissue would never stand up in court.
You know, that’s not a bad idea; humiliate the left by paying for a lawsuit to challenge the ban on fetal tissue and embryo sales under the premise outlined in Roe v. Wade of absolute privacy.
VtheK, I’m not trying to “weasel away” from anything. I’m simply stating my personal opinion, and likening it to many of the lefties *I* know. And the reason I do that here so often is that I’m attempting share the idea that not every leftie represents what they’re being accused of daily on this blog, just as not every conservative represents what the right is being accused of on liberal blogs. (But of course, that’s kind of the advantage/point to blogs!)
Its funny really, the GOP tries to demonize gays in order to win elections, while Bruce, in order to avoid spending any time addressing that fact, continues to demonize the “Left” whatever that is supposed to mean.
It means, Gryph, that leftist organizations that you support, like SLDN, should be consistent; since they support outing gays who aren’t of their same political ideology as a means to publicly humiliate, harm, and get them fired, they should have no problem with those who have access to pictures and names from SLDN fundraisers and events letting the identities of the military folks who attend them be known to the armed forces, especially to the soldiers in the units who serve with them.
Chew on that for a bit.
not every leftie represents what they’re being accused of daily on this blog, just as not every conservative represents what the right is being accused of on liberal blogs.
The difference is, when, for example, Kevin, says that right-wingers are out to exterminate gay people, all one has to do is challenge him to point to a policy or a statement from a leading conservative. Of course, there are no such policies and the best they can come up with from statements is something expressing opposition to same sex marriage or some comment on a blog from a nutjob nobody.
But, the broad support of partial birth abortion and embryo harvesting among the left can be demonstrated by policies demanding federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research and opposition to any legal restrictions on Partial Birth Abortion; policies that are embraced from the Democrat leadership on down.
There probably are isolated left-wingers who support the protection of vulnerable human life, and there are isolated right-wing nutjobs who want to exterminate gay people. However, the evidence demonstrates that neither position is in the mainstream of thought in their respective political domains.
Now, I’ll stand by while ND-30 says that more eloquently with fewer words.
I don’t know whether it’s a cause or an effect, but there are significant numbers of leftists who simply detest humanity. For example, This Australian “Scientist” Who Recommends Genocide, Beginning With the Most Productive.
There is an environmental extremist movement out there that portrays humanity as a cancer on Gaia. If such contempt for humanity is ingrained in a political movement, it makes it somewhat easier, I suspect, to treat humans as organ banks. To an environmentalist, every child born is nothing but a consumer of resources and a despoiler of Gaia. If you believe that, then it makes it a little easier to justify slicing and dicing them for organs.
VthK, I get it that this is an awfully important issue to you, but could you find anything more fringe than that?
Hey NDT, your last comment was interesting. Do you have any info on SLDN supporting outing?
This is not a facetious question – I’m quite seriously interested, since as a gay vet that’s an organization I support.
True, wanting to exterminate a significant portion of the human race is a fringe position. Having Misanthropy towards humans in general because humans are harmful to the environment is a much more broadly held belief.
But, come on, a generation ago only Bond Villains spoke about wanting to eliminate the human race. Now, it’s an idea discussed by environmentalists and academics… albeit on the fringe.
However the problem is that these Democrats, are able to recieve the Gay vote and yet they hate us!
I put the emphasis on “against their will” because doing something against someone’s will is always illegal. It’s always been illegal to steal someone’s newborn. It’s also illegal to force ably cut an underdeveloped fetus out of someone’s stomach too. (Didn’t that recently happen in Kentucky or someplace?)
But if a couple wants to donate their unused embryos to science after completing the invitro process for conception, that should be their right.
To most rational people, it’s not a comparable issue.
#33
I’d like to donate Chase to science, please.
What tries to pass itself of as logic in this post is wildly funny!! Only in this parallel universe is the “Gay Left” (always capitalized, of course) the enemy of the gay community. That certain entrenched segments of the Left (properly capitalized) is sometimes hostile to gay men and lesbians is not in dispute. But saying that the “Gay Left” is…is a hoot!!
GayPatriot is not only an expert on gays in Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia, but is now the go-to place to get serious analysis of gays in Nigeria? I’m pissing myself laughing…and I’m not even into watersports…
#7. “Babies Butchered”=”leftist morality”!! God, this site is funny tonight!
BUT….let’s play the same game as #7. My turn:
Reading over the quoted section of the article, are you sure they are talking about Nigeria? Are you sure that it isn’t Virginia, Virginia? Sounds more like the right-wing morality. And in Virginia, soon, you won’t even be able to carry a homosexual fetus.
This is not a facetious question – I’m quite seriously interested, since as a gay vet that’s an organization I support.
look elsewhere.
And as much as I dislike making threats, and outing more so, it seems obvious that the gay leftists who insist on practicing it and making light of its effects need a dose of it themselves. Perhaps when active-duty military who have sought help or contact with SLDN are outed to their units, gay leftists will start to realize there are consequences to their misbehavior.
#33: And Chase once again dodges the issue of whether a mother could choose to abort her baby so that its stem cells and other valuable parts could be harvested; which would be entirely consistent with the left-wing view of “reproductive rights.”
Chase also ignores the fact that it is because a left-wing concept of situational ethics has created a demand for stem cells that results in the babies being butchered for them.
And, actually, doing something “against someone’s will,” is not always illegal. Ask Terry Schaivo’s parents about that, or any teenage girl who’s been coerced into an abortion by her parents or her adult male
rapistlover.Bruce, unlike some here… I am not left “scratching my head” after reading your post.
I understand the point you’re trying to make and DID make.
For the “coloring-book-crowd” from the lower-case-clan (yes, that’s you too jimmy), here’s a parallel construct for you that might be a tad easier in playing connect-the-dots without ruining your precious brain cells.
When the corpses were hanging in Iran’s public square, did the GayLeftBorg join in with conservative gay leaders like Bruce and condemn the atrocity? Was the GayLeftBorg’s delayed comments –few and far between though they may have been—a bit, oh, say mortibund?
What did some of the GayLeftBorgies even common to this blog do?
Blame the Bush Administration for creating an international environment where gays are scorned and humiliated –“just like in the US”. Crap. Skip the fact that Bush came out swinging for gays joining his Administration when Gore et al were still fighting to replace democracy with bad loser caveats won from unaccountable judicial activists in Florida.
And some of the comments here reinforce that point even today… long after the corpses were replaced with fresh meat for the radical Left crowds in Tehran. Do you know what the crowds do with those corpses, btw? They hurl rocks at them, they make sport of shooting at them, they drag them through the streets until shorn of skin and recognition. And they wait to do it over. On command. It reminds me of the foot soldiers in the GayLeftBorg in America willing to do anything by any means necessary to advance the liberal or democrat agenda.
Gryph, with as str8 a face as he can muster, writes at #4: “… they (Catholic & Anglican bishops) are starting to find out belatedly that the same forces that they have encouraged to hate gays and lesbians in their country are not fond of Catholics or anyone else thats not Muslim either.”
The same forces??? WTF is that you bigot.
Somehow, Gryph, for you as an avowed religious bigot to offer insights into any religious person’s mindset is like JohnLurchKerry giving tips on being a patriot. It just don’t work, gramps. Stick to the single issue that animates you: BushHatred 24×7. (see comment #2 for example of same)
Mike says that he supports harvesting embryos for stem cells because they “would otherwise be discarded.” What exactly does Mike think happens to a fetus after an abortion.
Challenge for Mike and Chase: Explain why it would be wrong for a woman to have an abortion for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, bone marrow, and other useful parts given that the left views “reproductive choice” as a woman’s absolute right.
Thanks NDT. I started reading the blog well after that April post/discussion, so that’s new information to me. It’s unfortunate that some people at SLDN appear to be involved in outing. The question of outing aside (since I realize that’s an entire other debate here), I personally think SLDN should be politically independent, focused on helping servicemembers, and working on repeal of the gay ban. And properly that would apply to both ends of the political spectrum. Of course I realize as an organization they lean (probably to the point of tipping over 😉 ) to the left. I never needed their legal assistance, but I appreciate the legal work they do.
Anyway, thanks for the enlightened discussion.
Mike
VtheK, I’m not arguing for harvesting embryos for stem cells like it’s some kind of farming program. My original argument was the destruction of embryos that are never implanted into a womb are being discarded and I don’t hear a public outcry from the religious right about that. If you define them as life, why not be more concerned? As you mentioned yesterday there are people who are concerned, and I think that’s a laudable position. But if those embryos are otherwise being discarded, it should be reasonable to use them for embryonic stem cell research. I agree with an earlier commenter that perhaps the answer is to let the couple who have produced those embryos choose whether or not they are discarded or used for research. In fact, maybe even make that a mandatory decision in the fertility treatments.
I’ll explain why, at least to me it would be wrong for a woman to have an abortion in order to harvest stem cells (or other as noted in your post). Because we (as human beings generally, those people in Ukraine in the article clearly excepted) are not barbarians. Pure and simple. To do so would offend the moral sensibility of all but the most radical of us. But again, I get it – for you it’s an all or nothing position, whereas for the vast majority of people there is some middle ground that’s acceptable. (I would note I think this applies to the right and left, that neither side is all extremists.)
I appreciate, and even respect your belief, VtheK. The fact remains that we could argue about this for days and never agree because we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes the beginning of a human life.
If the answer is, “because we are not barbarians,” then it becomes, it’s all right for to slaughter a child for convenience, but barbaric to slaughter a child in order to rob it. It’s like Chase, who isn’t offended that babies were being butchered, only that the butchers didn’t have permission. In his view, the crime was not murder, but theft.
And the thing is not that we don’t agree on when life begins, it’s that you bring absolutely no rational consistency to how you define when it begins. Two women go into an abortion clinic for third trimester abortions. One is aborting because she broke up with the baby’s father. The other one is aborting because she wants the stem cells and bone marrow to be harvested for medical research. To you, the first woman is honorable, and the second is a barbarian. That makes no freaking sense… and you can’t even explain the difference beyond some simplistic “we’re not barbarians” slogan.
There is a rational consistency to it, VtheK, because you can define when life begins in a different ways. If you define it as a fertilized embryo, then every embryo destroyed in a fertility clinic is murder. On the other hand, if you define it as when the fetus is viable outside the womb, then you can easily say a 3rd trimester abortion for any reason would be murder. These are simply paradigms with which you can draw a line – and what paradigm one uses is key to rationality and consistency.
Please don’t tell me what I “think” about the two examples you gave – what I think about this issue can’t even begin to be covered in a rational debate on a blog. I’m not a doctor, and I don’t presume to be any authority on when life begins. I personally don’t think it’s an embryo, but I also don’t think it’s every stage of the fetus in the womb. Interestingly, I think we do sort of agree….until you can rationally and consistently apply a definition, one can draw the same conclusions about the left that you do.
We’ve gotten kind of far from the original topic, but I appreciate the discussion. I think essentially it’s simply unfair to imply the entire left has a “morality” that is unquestioned and shared among all, just as it would be unfair to accuse the entire right of that.
I think essentially it’s simply unfair to imply the entire left has a “morality”
I question whether the left has any morality at all.
Fair enough, VtheK. I sometimes ask question that about my side of the aisle as well. 🙂
Umm, wow that was some really bad typing on my part. That should have read:
“I sometimes ask that question about my side of the aisle as well.”
Speaking of amoral lefties, whatever happened to that lower-case troll ‘lester?’ Did he get banned, or is he just off attending the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran?
lester was fried alive during an intervention; he literally melted down when he learned that he wouldn’t have the GOP Congress to kick around anymore… he’s being reprogrammed by the GayLeftBorg and should be out for “advocacy” in a MikeRogers nanosecond. stay tuned… the lester will be back; in the meantime, read keogh and jimmy and gryph… it’s works just a well.
The lefties smell bad. And they have cooties. And probably crabs.
Cooties I admit to. I got rid of the crabs. Man those little buggers are a b*tch to eliminate.
Totally agree with Mike’s comments above. Mike, thank you for trying instill some reason and sanity into some of these ‘lofty’ moral hypocrits. Geez! I wish some of them would put their mules in the barns for a few minutes. For crying out loud, Mike makes an excellent point! It’s not that difficult to grasp.
VtheK, et.al., it’s not just the lefties who are pro-federal funding for stem cell research. Nancy Reagan, the widow of the late KING/prez (Ronald Reagan), whom you all worship at 3 levels above God, came out in favor of it a few years ago, did she not?? She made a very fervent plea to congress trying to gain support for scr funding. There are also some republican senators and reps who support it. It has nothing to do with partial birth abortion. The cells are harvested lonnnggg before they ever become viable fetuses. The results from scr may save the lives of one of you, or some of your family members (especially your children/nephews/nieces) someday. Think about that.
So, ndtovent, would the slim chance that embryonic stem cell research might possibly cure something someday justify a woman having a partial birth abortion so that the viable fetus could be sliced up for parts? Do you support partial birth abortion? Does that slim chance justify butchering healthy live babies as was done in Ukraine according to the linked article you apparently never read?
I think what Mike was getting close to, but could never bring himself to admit, or articulate, is that left-wing moral positions are based on emotions, not reason. They feel that stem cells should be harvested for research, so they are okay with that. They feel that even if partial birth abortion is barbaric, they don’t feel so uncomfortable with it that they would take a moral stand against it. (Unlike, for example, female genital mutilation, which they feel uncomfortable enough with to denounce and even perhaps legislate against).
At the moment, they feel uncomfortable with performing partial birth abortion to harvest stem cells, although they are comfortable with each separate practice. There is no reason here, only emotion. But emotions can be acted upon. Let Michael J. Fox tremble on camera and beg for partially-born fetuses to be harvested for parts so that he can have hope, or let enough forceful feminist women declare that it’s every woman’s right to abort her baby and harvest it for parts, show a few people suffering with some disease that tissue from an aborted fetus could possibly cure… and lefties will find their visceral repugnance replaced with tolerance, then acceptance, then horror that anyone would oppose the practice of harvesting fetuses for tissue and cells.
Emotions can be manipulated. Facts and reason, however, are much more stubborn.
Well, we here in this country don’t want to stone gays or kill them, we just don’t want them to flaunt their behavior in public and by no rights do we want them to marry or even appear as though they are on equal footing with the rest of normal society. Let them have their parades, let them have their gay bars and discos, but every chance we get we should shame them into submission regarding open affection in public or anything that smacks of marriage rights.
Gotta love that indoctrinated party! They got all the morals on ya.