SC SENATOR TRIES TO JUSTIFY HIS FILIBUSTER OF PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION …
|| By FITSNEWS || S.C. Senator Lee Bright plans on holding a press conference at the S.C. State House this week with a person conceived during a rape. Bright’s press conference intends to prove his point that (borrowing a line from the movie Juno), “all babies want to get borned.”
We agree with him on that point: All babies do “want to get borned.” That’s why this website has always been pro-life – not because it is a moral or Biblical issue but because it is a liberty issue. Life is the fundamental liberty. Without it, the others don’t matter much. Or at all, really.
But while we can appreciate where he’s coming from, Bright’s recent decision to filibuster a bill banning abortions after twenty weeks is contemptible – no matter how much damage control he tries to do.
Bright is blocking this pro-life legislation because it includes exemptions for rape and incest – exemptions we happen to support.
But no matter how vehemently Bright opposes those exemptions, how on earth does he justify not saving lives when the opportunity presents itself to do so?
We did the math on this and found that one percent of abortions involve conceptions due to rape – while half a percent involve conceptions due to incest.
Assuming the governments’ statistics on abortions performed between 20-24 weeks are accurate (btw … abortion after 24 weeks is illegal in South Carolina), we’re looking at an estimated 200 dead babies over a six-year period.
Because he cannot save all 200, Bright is condemning 197 of them to death.
That’s right. We are talking about three babies out of 200 – and while their lives absolutely matter, how on earth does Bright justify letting the other 197 die so that he can make a political point?
He can’t. No matter how hard he spins.
Bright and his allies – including this moron – “had a chance to save life, and they chose not to,” we wrote last week.
Which means they are no longer “pro-life” in our book. Or any book.
In addition to supporting rape and incest exceptions, we’ve also consistently supported the morning after pill (which prevents pregnancies from happening in the first place). Those views enrage “100 percenters” like Bright, who view them as “surrender.”
We disagree …
But whatever you believe regarding the rape and incest exemptions, there is no way to spin Bright’s position as being anything other than “anti-life.”
34 comments
These people, like the ironically named Mr Bright, are not ‘pro-life’. They are pro-fetus. Once it is born they couldn’t care less what happens. If they are born into poverty, they are lazy moochers. If they are born a minority, they are thugs. If they are born in the wrong country, they are terrorists who should be exterminated by drones. Pro-Life my ass.
I want abortion banned so there are more babies to pay fore, that way mistress Haley can raise taxes on everyone even more! More taxes! LMAO!!!
????? Meet your Dreams:4 hours daily Work@mi32//
……
????http://iManageteamInfo.com/Special/2O15…
“Once it is born they couldn’t care less what happens.”
A tired and worn out myth perpetuated by the pro-abortion crowd against pro-lifers. Nothing more than question begging and projection that’s not grounded in any evidence you could observe from pro-lifers or pro-life groups. In fact, most pro-life groups go above and beyond to support adoption advocacy groups, as well as women’s counseling centers. Not that you care. You just wanted a chance to inject your racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic accusations into the conversation.
I think it is fair to say I am anti-abortion. I do support the rape and incest exceptions, but would encourage counseling first. That said I also agree most conservatives walk away after the child is born. There are some who do not, but they are a serious minority. Saying they support adoption is really not saying much. We all know minority children face an uphill battle when it come to adoption.
The vast majority of Christian conservatives, focus on two issues. abortion and what they perceive as a war on Christians (prayer in schools, teaching intelligent design, prayer at public meetings, etc).
If asked, most would say they care about the poor, the sick, those in need of food, etc; But in reality they are unwilling to devote much of their time or money to those issues. Especially if the people are of a different religion or race.
You have to define what is meant by “walking away after the child is born”. That’s nothing more than an unfairly blanket and meaningless statement, particularly if you want to insinuate that conservatives are arguing against abortion just for argument’s sake and don’t actually care about the issue with its effects.
It’s also not fair to say that the vast majority of Christian conservatives are only focus on abortion and a “war on Christians”. Is there a place for that and are they hot button issues? Sure they are, but it is by no means above and beyond numerous other issues. Just because it is sometimes approached wrongly doesn’t negate it’s importance. Regardless, there is a lot of merely lip service given to those issues and many of those who pay that lip service aren’t always taking action, which is what you accuse them of doing regarding “the poor, the sick, those in need of food”. There are always people who are vocal in support of or against certain things, but they may not always be in a position to actively doing anything about them. That doesn’t mean they are wrong or that “they are unwilling to devote much of their time or money to those issues”, it just means that maybe they are not in position physically or financially to do so. Sure, there may be some who are just plain hypocrites but it borders on nothing more than an ad hominem attack to accuse most of just being sideline yellers. It has nothing to do with race or religion, either. There may be instances where you don’t reach out to certain poor neighborhoods because of crime, but that’s just being discreet. I’ve known many instances where churches have had to direct their outreach elsewhere due to threats of physical violence in certain neighborhoods. Does that mean they don’t care or are just a bunch of racists?
What Mary is trying to say is that there are documented actions taken by mostly GOP state legislatures and some activity by Federal lawmakers in the GOP to target and disadvantage (or show preference to) some groups of people above others. It was encapsulated best by Romney’s “47%” remark to donors when he thought nobody was listening. The GOP is willing to write off and disparage 47% of Americans.
I understand that’s what she was trying to say and it’s BS just like your Romney take is. Romney was merely speaking about those people to whom it was pointless for him to reach out to because nothing he would or could say would sway them. It had nothing to do with “targeting” or “disadvantaging” anyone. It was merely a statement of acceptance of that fact. It was only said when he thought no one was listening because he knew it would be misinterpreted and he was obviously right, as the fact that you have done just that suggests.
If he was right, why did he lose the election?
The 47% was merely the group that was never going to give him a chance, thus the reason he brang up the fact that he was not attempting to reach them. That doesn’t necessarily mean he was guaranteed the other 53% in its entirety.
Actually none of that is what I am saying. I am not talking about politicians. I am talking about Christians. I believe a large percentage Christian’s today are appallingly indifferent when it comes to the poor, the sick and the homeless. When it comes to poverty, hunger and curable disease they identify more with the teachings of Ayn Rand than the teachings of Jesus Christ.
As I have said before, they, like the rich man who asked Christ how he could be perfect, walk away from they simple and direct answer given. The price is too high. They choose to believe they will be among the few camels who make it through the eye of the needle.
While not all areas of the Bible are totally clear, the teachings of Christ in regard to to the obligations of Christians to the poor and the sick are unambiguous. (Matthew 25: 31-45). Many Christians simply ignore this warning and focus on frivolous things, like whether Christians should bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Don’t forget Common Core…it’s the Debil
conceived by none other than Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky and George Soros to indoctrinate your child to be a leftist drone.
It’s a secret plot the right have uncovered and now we’ll have to start all over again.
These are facts. Not accusations. An accusation would be your comment above. Those groups harass women making a hard decision. They don’t support the poor, homeless and needy children of any race or creed. So go back to your baseless name calling and the rest of us will deal with reality.
You can’t just throw out a bunch of caricaturized generalizations and call them “facts”. They are just that, extreme caricatures. I made no accusations. I merely described your discrediting methodology, which was based on those intellectually dishonest generalizations. It’s just absolutely absurd to say that pro-life groups harass women. That’s like saying suicide interventionists harass severely depressed people about to jump off a bridge. Then you go and make another baseless statement about how we don’t “support the poor, homeless and needy children of any race or creed”. Then to top it off, you tell me to go back to “baseless name calling”, which I did none of.
“That’s like saying suicide interventionists harass severely depressed people about to jump off a bridge. ”
NO – NO – NO. That is not the same in any way shape or form – yet you are on here lecturing everyone about “baseless statements”. If you’re against abortion THEN DON’T HAVE ONE.
1) I’m not “lecturing” anybody here. Why is it that people always have to misrepresent what’s going on? I was simply describing what was being said in regards to pro-life people and what was being said were “baseless statements”. Thus the reason I described it as such. That’s not “lecturing” anybody.
2) I was trying to draw a parallel to show the absurdity of the claim that pro-life groups “harass” women. Pro-life groups/organizations, who counsel and provide support for women struggling with whether to abort their baby or not, are only “harassing” women if you want to say that suicide interventionists (who counsel and negotiate with those on the verge of suicide) are “harassing” those who they are trying to engage with. That’s not saying the two situations are the same, only that the context within which “harass” is being used is the same.
3) You’ve got to be kidding me with the ” If you’re against abortion THEN DON’T HAVE ONE” argument. I’m so tired of that statement. It’s really a pretty childish thing to say. It’s akin to saying if you are against murder that you shouldn’t kill people, just don’t try to impose your anti-murder belief on everybody else. Pro-lifers (like myself) are not against abortion because we personally don’t want to have one but because it’s wrong, period. There’s not a “what’s good for thee may not be for me” in this debate. Either it’s right or it’s wrong. If you believe abortion is justified, then argue for it, but don’t try to just shut down the debate by telling those against just to not have one.
Oh for crying out loud. Your analogies are ABSURD – all of them that you’ve posted so far. No need for further discussion. Thanks.
That’s the whole point. I’m illustrating the absurdity in your argument by giving absurd examples. The situations are not analogous, but the logic behind them is exactly the same. That’s the only reason I brought them up. You are not disputing any of my points. You are making a ridiculous assertions about how I should approach the abortion issue and I’m calling you on it. Simply calling it “absurd” is making my case. I’m well aware that it’s absurd and I just stated the reason for that.
LOL You’ve not posted one logical thing on this entire thread. You’ve not posted a point to dispute – you’ve babbled a bunch of bullshit. You’ve not made a case for anything other than proving yourself a con-artist and a master of double-speak and a crank. You’ve not called me on anything. You’re a joke. But do carry on. Too funny – really. If you’re against abortion, DON’T HAVE ONE.
So apparently you’re not interested in debate, just blindly categorizing everything into your hyperbolic boxes. You’re no different than Grand Tango. That’s exactly what he does.
This started by another poster making the statement that pro-life groups “harass” women. That was a ridiculous assertion and I stated why, giving an example of a scenario where you could insert “harass” using the same logic. The point was to illustrate the absurdity of the claim. You didn’t like that and said they weren’t “the same in any way shape or form”. I responded saying that I never said the situations were the same, just that the use of “harass” would be the same in both scenarios.
You then followed with the ” If you’re against abortion THEN DON’T HAVE ONE” nonsense. I’ve already addressed that. TWICE. And yet you’re still repeating it as though it’s a good point to make. Your only response thus far has been “No need for further discussion” and to claim I’ve “babbled a bunch of bullshit” and that I’m a “joke”. I’ve tried to be civil and address your points as best I could (even as dishonest as they were) but you insist on browbeating with your ad hominem. Like I said, this really isn’t a hard issue to engage a rational debate on. Your insistence on making it a childish display of insults is what has made this pointless. You have not actually responded or addressed anything I’ve said. I don’t respond to Grand Tango any more and I guess I’ll put you in the same place as him if you don’t want to engage respectfully.
LOL WHATEVERI don’t respond to Grand Tango any more and I guess I’ll put you in the same place as him if you don’t want to engage respectfully.”
LOL WHATEVER
Yeah, just keep going. You’re proving my point more and more with every response. It’s funny how out of every thing I said, the part about Grand Tango is what you’re focusing on.
LOL You posted something else? NO – you babbled on a bunch of BULLSHIT and double-speak. And you are as dishonest a poster as I’ve encountered on these forums – and that is saying LOTS. Go pray, pray, pray for yourself and maybe you can make all that dishonesty go away!
No one asks to be born, that’s just stupid. There are plenty of people who would rather have never been born. No woman should be forced to carry her rapist’s child either, that is a cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon rape victims by the government thanks to small-minded religious assholes like Bright who claim to be against government intrusion into peoples’ lives.
Not to mention sperm abuse and egg neglect. Just think of all the lost possibilities
When you think of all the “spilt seed” holding that poster of Farrah Faucet with one hand it was a waste indeed………….
********Unadbashedly kinda/sorta stolen from Steve Martin**********************
What about the civil liberties of, say, THE WOMAN. Dammit!
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
ummmm….. yeah. i was just going to say that too.
And your point is? Lee Bright is a Negro?
Yeah, if Bright’s wife were raped, wonder if he would give her the option or tell her what to do.
Mr. NotSoBright likened himself to Jake Knotts today. Now if that does not prove stupid, what does?
“Life is the fundamental liberty. Without it, the others don’t matter much. Or at all, really.”
Hmmmm…it seems to me that only after some babies (i.e. non-white) are born where the liberty starts to fade then eh Fits?