Culture wars: Why gay marriage and ab...

Culture wars: Why gay marriage and abortion have been 'decoupled'

There are 384 comments on the Christian Science Monitor story from Jun 29, 2013, titled Culture wars: Why gay marriage and abortion have been 'decoupled'. In it, Christian Science Monitor reports that:

Governor Rick Perry addresses a large audience in attendance at the National Right To Life Convention, Thursday in Grapevine, Texas.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Christian Science Monitor.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#312 Jul 15, 2013
RalphB wrote:
That's terrific. However, who determines what "within reason" means? Except for the fact that I will take it into consideration when voting, I will leave my opinion out of it and just say that I leave it up to the women to decide.
Personally, I think the existing restrictions which ban abortion after the age of viability are appropriate.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#313 Jul 15, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
I'm gay. I am, and always have been, against abortion, by anyone, at anytime, for any reason. Abortion is the MURDER of innocent babies.
I am not a fan of abortion and I do agree that something that can become a human being is killed during the procedure. However me and you do not have any right to turn our opinions into laws and force other people to obey them.
Instead of forcing abortion into the back alley Science needs to find a reversible procedure for young people, both males and female so that they can not become pregnant in the first place.
Of course this means we accept recreational sex among young people and that just makes the Republican Sex Police heads spin.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#314 Jul 15, 2013
Abortion is not prohibited by any biblical verse or any series of connected verses. The only text that is repeatedly cited in this regard is EX. 21:22-23 ("If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"). Even fundamentalist, John R. Rice, whom Jerry Falwell described as his mentor, admitted that "only in the case of Ex. 21:22-25 does the Bible specifically mention retaliation for the death or injury of an unborn child" (Abortion by John R. Rice, p. 8). Unfortunately for apologists their favorite quotation is inadequate in several respects. First, we are no longer under the Old Law according to biblicists and EX. 21 is a good example of same. Second, and even more important, careful reading of the words will show that they do not prohibit abortion. In fact, they aren't even discussing abortion. Notice what is said! If two men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman such that a miscarriage occurs, "yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be punished." The man who caused the miscarriage will be punished and forced to pay by the woman's husband and a judge for what he did to the woman, not for what he did to the fetus. Third, the last line says, "if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." If any mischief to the woman, not the fetus, follows, then the offender will be killed. The key word is "if." "If" any mischief follows. The mischief has already occurred if the miscarriage was the main concern. Obviously, mischief to the woman is the only concern since the fetus is gone. In truth, Ex. 21:22-23 has nothing to do with abortion. It's actually saying that if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured in the process and has a miscarriage but suffers no other injury, the offender should be punished by the woman's husband. On the other hand, if the woman incurred "mischief," which appears to be death, then the injuring party must die.

“BLM domestic terrorist group”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#315 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, and STILL no answers.
I am done with you!

“BLM domestic terrorist group”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#316 Jul 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You ahve consistantly made comments that abortion is killing, you stop shy of murder. The problem is that your assertion is inapt, because a fetus prior to the age of viability (often considered to be 20 weeks) is incapable of sustaining life (breathing, circulation, etc) without the assistance of a host (the mother).
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
You then have argued, hypocritically, that exceptions should be made in cases of rape or incest. What makes those fetuses any less alive than any other?
This is why I do support abortion (regardless of the mother's decision to pursue one) up until the age of viability. Otherwise the circumstances under which abortion is legal are simply arbitrary exceptions.
Tell me an abortion does not kill something that is alive? I have said from the beginning, limited, regulated and rare. This all started because people complain about 11,000 gun deaths a year but say NOTHING about 3400 abortions a DAY! Law vs Rights, abortion legal by LAW, gun ownership a RIGHT in the Constitution!
You never asked my stance, again you ASSUMED I thought only one way. Now that what I said does make sense, you want to b*tch about it because we do agree. Do you want another Gosnell abortion house of horror? I don't, limited, regulated and rare!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
I am done with you!
Funny, you said that yesterday, too. Yet you still responded.

What you CAN'T do, is answer the questions posed by the other poster. We get it. You should just say so. All the deflection fools no one.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#318 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
I am done with you!
You've said that before, you didn't live up to it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
Retired SOF wrote:
Tell me an abortion does not kill something that is alive? I have said from the beginning, limited, regulated and rare. This all started because people complain about 11,000 gun deaths a year but say NOTHING about 3400 abortions a DAY! Law vs Rights, abortion legal by LAW, gun ownership a RIGHT in the Constitution!
You never asked my stance, again you ASSUMED I thought only one way. Now that what I said does make sense, you want to b*tch about it because we do agree. Do you want another Gosnell abortion house of horror? I don't, limited, regulated and rare!
Legally, a fetus is not a person with rights until it reaches the age of viability, which is the point where it could potentially live without assistance outside the womb. So no, it is not killing a living thing, it is removing live tissue from within the mother's womb. I know you would love for the fetus to be a child with rights, but the reality remains that is not the legal reality. Those on your side of this debate have to offer such sensationalistic rationalizations, because you wish to inflame passions, not engage in a rational debate.

I see you are back to arguing anti-abortion. Are you still a hypocrite who supports exceptions in the case of rape and incest?

“BLM domestic terrorist group”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#319 Jul 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said that before, you didn't live up to it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TKJ0FEBVR...
<quoted text>
Legally, a fetus is not a person with rights until it reaches the age of viability, which is the point where it could potentially live without assistance outside the womb. So no, it is not killing a living thing, it is removing live tissue from within the mother's womb. I know you would love for the fetus to be a child with rights, but the reality remains that is not the legal reality. Those on your side of this debate have to offer such sensationalistic rationalizations, because you wish to inflame passions, not engage in a rational debate.
I see you are back to arguing anti-abortion. Are you still a hypocrite who supports exceptions in the case of rape and incest?
So you want an abortion up to the due date? You did catch me about being done with you, I thought you wanted to debate but you want to argue. My stance has been consistent NO MATTER what you had ASSUMED!! You are right, I am done now!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#320 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
So you want an abortion up to the due date? You did catch me about being done with you, I thought you wanted to debate but you want to argue. My stance has been consistent NO MATTER what you had ASSUMED!! You are right, I am done now!
Why do you insist upon trying to put words in my mouth? I have never claimed to support late term abortions. In fact, I have clearly stated, multiple times, that I support the current standard, which bans abortion after the point of viability, and would even support bans after 20 weeks.

You never stated you were done with me, you said you were done with Bitner, however you continue to respond to them as well (this is only one of your inconsistencies). Similarly, you have claimed not to be anti-abortion, while regularly making the argument that the fetus is a living thing, and that abortion is killing. Then, just to be a hypocrite, it would seem, you outline the circumstances in which abortion would be justified.

I suppose you just think some fetuses are less equal than others?

One can't participate in an honest debate if their approach is entirely dishonest. You have not been consistent at all. It had been a little like trying to staple Jell-o to a wall.
justme

Cabot, AR

#321 Jul 15, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, goofy, men have an OPINION. You just don't have the VOTE in a woman's reproductive decision. The WOMAN decides whether or not to continue a pregnancy, not you. Deal with it.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
So if a one night stand turns into an unwanted pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but a man has no choice whatsoever? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#322 Jul 15, 2013
justme wrote:
So if a one night stand turns into an unwanted pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but a man has no choice whatsoever? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!
Actually, the theory that the man involved in a one night stand would have a say is utterly insane. The woman would have to carry the child to term, and isn't even required to inform the one night stand. If she does not wish to have the child, she is free to avail herself of Plan B or abortion.

Your assertion that the father (trick?)has the right o input in such an instance is crazy.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323 Jul 15, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a fan of abortion and I do agree that something that can become a human being is killed during the procedure. However me and you do not have any right to turn our opinions into laws and force other people to obey them.
Instead of forcing abortion into the back alley Science needs to find a reversible procedure for young people, both males and female so that they can not become pregnant in the first place.
Of course this means we accept recreational sex among young people and that just makes the Republican Sex Police heads spin.
This 'reversible procedure' is something I've advocated for years.

You have stated this mutual opinion, on the issue of abortion, which we hold, as clearly as I've ever seen it stated.

Thanks.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#324 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Men have to support your fat as*ses while you b*tch about what we did to you WHEN YOU WHERE TO ONES WANTING TO F*CK IN THE FIRST PLACE! Evolve and make a baby by yourself and men will shut up!
So you are paying support??

You pay support for the child idiot, not the woman.

So you are admitting that you and the boys have NO self control if a woman wants to fck?? You are out of control? But yet you want control of a woman once pregnant? That makes as little sense as possible.

MANY of your brothers never pay their fair share of child support even when divorced. I know case after case where the woman was and is the full support why the boy/man hides. So please save your whining for your boyfriends.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#325 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we agree, limited, regulated and rare!
Abortion is already regulated, and limited. How rare it is, is not up to anyone but the women who elect to avail themselves of the procedure. Sorry, my little control freak, but you STILL don't get to decide who needs one, and who doesn't, unless it is you who is pregnant.

And if that chaps your ass, it's a personal problem on your part.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#326 Jul 15, 2013
justme wrote:
<quoted text>
So if a one night stand turns into an unwanted pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but a man has no choice whatsoever? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!
The man made his choice when he failed to determine what the woman's preferred course of action would be, should she become pregnant from intercourse with him. Had he asked, then she told him she would not carry a pregnancy he helped create, he would have known not to help create it.

Communication is everything. But if you don't ask, you'll never know. And not helping to create a pregnancy, is really the only 'say' a man has in its disposition.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#327 Jul 15, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I am NOT a supporter of the "far right" or the "religious right".
I'm a Libertarian, and a church-going Christian whose denominations I belong to, ELCA & UCC, are very support of equal rights for LGBT people.
I'm a registered Libertarian, and I believe that the Democrats are on equal footing with Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Uncle Joe Stalin, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and The Obamaniac. Add those things all together ( a + b + c + d + e + f) and you get (=) Evil. PURE EVIL.
Good! Then you don't have a problem with eliminating the tax perks that go along with all marriage? You're not interested in adding a hate crime penalty to any crime conviction against a gay? You're not chasing Affirmative Action quotas for gays in the workplace, or legal protections against stifling gay advances in the workplace?(That one's a moot point! Everyone denies it but wants to do it with complete disregard of workplace cohesion!)

See, I'm inclined to profile. Just like the with current Zimmerman verdict, I profile a liberal as someone who wants to impose laws but feels it's their civil right to break them at will.

I profile a libertarian as someone who doesn't want government meddling. No meddling in marriage or breeding. No meddling in workplace success. No meddling in State's rights. No meddling in income redistribution.

There are ways to get equal rights, but I don't see anything but BS in this debate. This is about riding the marriage gravy train, although it IS fun to watch someone taking a position that is blatantly contrary to Republican/Democrat politics. Why does anyone have a right to a tax break by pooling their incomes? Why can't straights engage in a civil union that has absolutely no bearing on their sexual behavior? Why should anyone subsidize the breeding habits of others? We're not livestock property of the State.

When you talk about Civil Rights, they must apply to EVERYONE, not just married people who are being rewarded by the church, the state and industrialists by volunteering to become indentured servants, tied to the welfare of their offspring.

I haven't seen a single soul on this site who will cut through the BS and really be a Libertarian. Show me what you're really about! No, show everyone! I'm not here to put you down for doing the noble thing, just make sure you really mean it.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#328 Jul 15, 2013
justme wrote:
<quoted text>
So if a one night stand turns into an unwanted pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but a man has no choice whatsoever? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!
Personally, I think a man should have the right to request an abortion and be absolved of all financial responsibility for the child if the woman chooses otherwise. Is that a problem or is this just about our obligation to produce workers for the church and state?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#330 Jul 15, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me an abortion does not kill something that is alive? I have said from the beginning, limited, regulated and rare. This all started because people complain about 11,000 gun deaths a year but say NOTHING about 3400 abortions a DAY! Law vs Rights, abortion legal by LAW, gun ownership a RIGHT in the Constitution!
You never asked my stance, again you ASSUMED I thought only one way. Now that what I said does make sense, you want to b*tch about it because we do agree. Do you want another Gosnell abortion house of horror? I don't, limited, regulated and rare!
This is just more sound bite nonsense. You kill animals for your big macs. You kill jihadists for following their faith. You can dismiss things as moral relativism but the reality is that many people don't see early pregnancies as sentient.

In reality, a vast majority, including Christians, are not really engaging in life as if they have an immortal soul. They're just going along with it all to fit in. They want the bullet point on their resume that they're good God fearing family men and women. Maybe they think they'll get lucky and God will believe that they were sincere if it turns out that he's out there when they kick!

If you want people to change, forget about abortion and work out the immortal soul thing so that everyone understands. The rest will follow if you can manage that one, but it's a doozy so you'll probably want a plan B. I know I'm not in the market for an immortal soul. Everyone wants money for that fantasy and well.... I smell a rat.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#331 Jul 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I think a man should have the right to request an abortion and be absolved of all financial responsibility for the child if the woman chooses otherwise. Is that a problem or is this just about our obligation to produce workers for the church and state?
I have no problem with that, either. But you cannot want the man to be able to walk away on one hand, and then insist that your taxes not pay for welfare on the other.

That was a general you, by the way, not knowing your position on the subject of welfare.
Ocean56

AOL

#332 Jul 15, 2013
justme wrote:
So if a one night stand turns into an unwanted pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but a man has no choice whatsoever? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!
To answer your question, YES. Even if it's just a one-night hookup and the woman gets pregnant as a result, it is still HER decision whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Your thinking it's stupid is irrelevant.

And yes, you could end up paying child support if she DOES decide to continue it and keep/raise the baby. That's what you get for hooking up with a total stranger, dude. Don't want to cause a pregnancy? Keep your pants zipped.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Report: Perry spent $2.6M on attorneys to beat ... Jul 16 Paddy OMalley 1
News Clinton campaign hits Trump for seeing Brexit a... Jul 12 tina anne 109
News Tea party abandons presidential race to focus o... (Oct '11) Jul 9 Bush Appointees 185
News Will smart-looking glasses do the trick for Ric... (Jun '15) Jun 27 VorenusI 3
News Milestones in legal fight over Texas abortion law Jun '16 Cat74 2
News Texas Republicans not quite ready to secede May '16 Three Days Paleo 9
News Welcome The Real Housewives of Dallas May '16 Three Days 1
More from around the web