March for Women

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the Saturday march.

 

[gracepoole]

Isn’t that…scandal…?

No one is assuming the Church is now pro-choice. Better the two sides actually speak to one another.

 

[phil19034]

Under whose authority are the ‘nun on the bus’?

This is causing great confusion, at the very least, because people will think Catholic faith is compatible with pro-choice.

Basicly their own.

They (or at least their leader) are party of the Sisters of Social Service.

 

[EIF5A]

No one is assuming the Church is now pro-choice. Better the two sides actually speak to one another.

With “pro-choice Catholics” out there, I wouldn’t be so sure that people are aware abortion is incompatible with the Church.

Do you really, honestly think the abortion supporters want to dialog with the pro-life movement?

They were kicked out of the women’s march. The women’s march stands for abortion, first and foremost. It’s their dogma.

 

[tseleehw]

With “pro-choice Catholics” out there, I wouldn’t be so sure that people are aware abortion is incompatible with the Church.

Do you really, honestly think the abortion supporters want to dialog with the pro-life movement?

They were kicked out of the women’s march. The women’s march stands for abortion, first and foremost. It’s their dogma.

I would tend to agree. The organizers of the march made it explicitly clear that pro-life groups were prohibited from participating and that pro-life marchers were not welcome. I think the nuns on the bus being there and speaking on the same platform as the head of Planned Parenthood is scandalous. As you said, the whole women’s march was too rabidly pro-abortion; abortion was the primary issue that the march was about. I watched the speeches. Virtually every speaker spoke out in support of abortion and abortion rights. There was a speaker that had “I Abortion” written all over her shirt. This was not an event that it was appropriate for a practicing Catholic to participate in. This is not to defend the inappropriate things that Trump has said that partially triggered this march, but this movement was far too heterodox on too many key issues to collaborate with.

 

[Beautiful]

arabamericanny.org/lindasarsour/

One of four women that organized and lead the women’s march is muslim. She also spoke at the podium that day.
huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/female-muslim-politicians_n_7621754.html
Huffingtonpost reports of a number of female Muslim politicians rising to power around the globe. While this might not seem related directly to this march it is worth noting the attachments some Muslim women of power are making.

Does anyone know what historical role Muslim women have played in Islam’s rise to power?

 

[gracepoole]

With “pro-choice Catholics” out there, I wouldn’t be so sure that people are aware abortion is incompatible with the Church.

Pro-choice Catholics don’t believe the Church is pro-choice.

Do you really, honestly think the abortion supporters want to dialog with the pro-life movement?

You realize the pro-choice folks are saying the same thing about pro-lifers, right?

 

[Beautiful]

I would say those that dislike Trump are deepening the divide.
They have some of the most irresponsible posts to Trump supporters and have lost all sense to be charitable.

yes

This divide is among Catholics too.

 

[EIF5A]

Pro-choice Catholics don’t believe the Church is pro-choice.

You realize the pro-choice folks are saying the same thing about pro-lifers, right?

This is about non-Catholic perception. They see the “kind” “pro-choice Catholics”, in contrast to the “patriarchal” Church. They are standing up there side-to-side with the abortion industrial complex.

One side is deceived about basic biology and morality and promotes evil; one side promotes saving of lives.

One side refuses to believe a fetus is a human.

So yes, I guess we’re at loggerheads.

 

[gracepoole]

This is about non-Catholic perception. They see the “kind” “pro-choice Catholics”, in contrast to the “patriarchal” Church. They are standing up there side-to-side with the abortion industrial complex.

One side is deceived about basic biology and morality and promotes evil; one side promotes saving of lives.

One side refuses to believe a fetus is a human.

So yes, I guess we’re at loggerheads.

I just had this conversation with my husband a week or two ago. Because both sides refuse to hear from the other, we can’t make enough progress in eliminating abortion. We need pro-choice folks to recognize that a child is being murdered via an abortion, but we refuse to speak with them and come across as hellbent hysterics. I’ve had very meaningful dialogues with pro-choice friends. I have no doubt that I planted a seed in their minds. One of my pro-choice friends had an abortion as a teen and after talking with her, she told me I’m the only person she is willing to discuss this with. I count that as a very small victory. Dialogue is so very necessary, and the goal is so worthy.

 

[EIF5A]

I just had this conversation with my husband a week or two ago. Because both sides refuse to hear from the other, we can’t make enough progress in eliminating abortion. We need pro-choice folks to recognize that a child is being murdered via an abortion, but we refuse to speak with them and come across as hellbent hysterics. I’ve had very meaningful dialogues with pro-choice friends. I have no doubt that I planted a seed in their minds. One of my pro-choice friends had an abortion as a teen and after talking with her, she told me I’m the only person she is willing to discuss this with. I count that as a very small victory. Dialogue is so very necessary, and the goal is so worthy.

When they refuse to believe it’s a human being that’s terminated, what is there to do?

I think deep down inside, people at least have a vague idea that something’s not right with killing the unborn, but the propaganda machine is so well-oiled (e.g., “women’s health” “my body, my choice” “clump of cells”) that these slick untruths are believed.

No one can justify murder of the innocent, liberal or conservative, so to justify abortion, the very humanity is outright denied.

How can we dialog when they refuse to believe it’s a human life at stake?

 

[gracepoole]

When they refuse to believe it’s a human being that’s terminated, what is there to do?

I think deep down inside, people at least have a vague idea that something’s not right with killing the unborn, but the propaganda machine is so well-oiled (e.g., “women’s health” “my body, my choice” “clump of cells”) that these slick untruths are believed.

No one can justify murder of the innocent, liberal or conservative, so to justify abortion, the very humanity is outright denied.

How can we dialog when they refuse to believe it’s a human life at stake?

I also think they have an inkling that it’s a human life. Some of my pro-choice friends are mothers and they certainly didn’t refer to their babies as fetuses or zygotes early on – they referred to them as babies. What needs discussion, though, is their belief that women shouldn’t be made to suffer lifelong negative consequences as a result of getting pregnant. We need to cogently persuade them that there really are alternatives that won’t permanently plunge a woman into poverty. We need to demonstrate that community resources and healthcare are possible – that a pregnant woman doesn’t have to give up education, for example, as a result of having a child. None of my pro-choice friends (and honestly this is most of my friends) actually want women to be in a position to have abortions. They just don’t believe there’s any other option that doesn’t completely disregard the security of women.

 

[randomuser]

When they refuse to believe it’s a human being that’s terminated, what is there to do?

I think deep down inside, people at least have a vague idea that something’s not right with killing the unborn, but the propaganda machine is so well-oiled (e.g., “women’s health” “my body, my choice” “clump of cells”) that these slick untruths are believed.

No one can justify murder of the innocent, liberal or conservative, so to justify abortion, the very humanity is outright denied.

How can we dialog when they refuse to believe it’s a human life at stake?

When the unborn child can’t be claimed as a dependent, it’s fairly easy for “pro-choice” to refuse to believe it’s a human life. If it’s a human life, then why can’t it be claimed as a dependent?

I guess what I’m saying is: If life begins at conception, then where’s the legislation to literally prove it?* “Look, you can claim that unborn child on your taxes-! See? It’s a real person-!”* When will U.S. tax law conform to the sanctity of life? It seems like the biggest no-brainer to me…

 

[randomuser]

I also think they have an inkling that it’s a human life. Some of my pro-choice friends are mothers and they certainly didn’t refer to their babies as fetuses or zygotes early on – they referred to them as babies. What needs discussion, though, is their belief that women shouldn’t be made to suffer lifelong negative consequences as a result of getting pregnant. We need to cogently persuade them that there really are alternatives that won’t permanently plunge a woman into poverty. We need to demonstrate that community resources and healthcare are possible – that a pregnant woman doesn’t have to give up education, for example, as a result of having a child. None of my pro-choice friends (and honestly this is most of my friends) actually want women to be in a position to have abortions. They just don’t believe there’s any other option that doesn’t completely disregard the security of women.

We should also take steps to make childbirth/delivery more affordable and accessible. It’s a sin how expensive it has gotten – even WITH insurance. What steps are being done to reduce the high cost of childbirth, and when will delivery costs be part of the “pro-life” discussion?

 

[dvdjs]

Feel free to post all of Trump’s words from the tape verbatim. I’ve asked not once, not twice but three times now for you provide evidence to your claim that Trump was not talking about women who throw themselves at stars? I hold my breath any longer. As you are attempting to not engage in conversation but to clearly deflect.

The tape is clear on this point. Stop playing and do your homework.

Likewise. However, I disagree as my responses have been just that, an attempt to engage in conversation. You have made the statement that consent is not definitive

Nope. Like the claim of my calling Trump a sexual predator this statement is false, You are not engaging just playing games.

I’m not defending Trump’s behavior using idiosyncratic evidence.

Of course you are.

Wrong, not a pivot. Trump agreed to Stern as you say so yourself, and as I have as well stated. Now did Trump speak in specifics about his daughter like you claim in one of your previous posts, I do not believe he did and believe it’s a false statement on your behalf.

1. Stick to my word not your substitutes. 2. No need to “believe” just listen to the tapes.

It is what it is, I mean if liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any.

Again, nothing serious.

1998 is not greater than 1996

LOL.

And while in a legal sense a settlement is not always an admission of guilty in the public eye, settlements are almost always seen as a tacit admission of wrongdoings

Like the fraud case against Trump U etc.? But the salient point is 1998>1996.

And one should definitely not try to label Trump a “seuxal assaulter” when there are no facts to suggest that he is. I’m not sure what statements and which supporters you are referencing here?

His words. DoJ definition. Done.

The conversation wasn’t TV broadcast production. It was a private conversation that was “secretly” recorded. Why the desideratum for spin.

Yawn. He was being filmed. it was not private. Love the quotes around “secretly”.

Once again there was not admission to acting before consent,

Wrong. please re-read my last post.

Not a needle in a haystack.

Well that really narrows it down.

No one said society created Donald’s Trump comments. But one can argue society has a large part in promoting sexual vulgarity and the proliferation of objectifying women as sex objects and then their selective outrage at such behavior when they themselves engage in such.

Ahhh so the comment is just … irrelevant.

I’m defending cataloging someone as a sexual predator and sexual assaulter outside of a court of law …

Is that a logical AND? If so, take it up with someone who called Trump a sexual predator. If not, why another semantic shuffle? It is fair to talk of sexual assault in the case of Trump following DoJ definitions and his own words. You have used terms to describe others that are made on similar bases rather that findings in a court of law,

While you personally may not have used the term sexual predator you have stated “Trump’s sexual assaultS, and his sexual prowess”

Finally we agree on something: your accusation that I called Trump a sexual predator is false.

Farewell.

 

[kat07]

The tape is clear on this point. Stop playing and do your homework.

Mature.

I’ve done my homework and I also understand the English language. Yes, the tape is clear that Trump was talking about women who throw themselves at stars, and I think most people understand this.

I also understand why you won’t go and do your homework and post verbatim Trump’s words, as asked numerous times.

Nope. Like the claim of my calling Trump a sexual predator this statement is false, You are not engaging just playing games.

As explained, while you may not used the word “sexual predator” what you did do a myriad of times was make reference to, what I can only call fantasies greater than Walt Disney, “sexual assualtS” and Trump’s “sexual prowess”. Also when I stated “his comments don’t make him a sexual predator or guilty of it”, you responded: “You can say that as often as you want, but that doesn’t make it so.” So yea…

I’ve asked you direct questions on too many occasions now to count with no response. The only responses received have been captious ones.

Of course you are.

Wrong again and you’re totally lost here. You said I was using idiosyncratic evidence to my reply about “wow really” after you called into my character and posture on this forum, which doesn’t even make sense. Pretty comical coming from a poster who just wants to stir the pot again and won’t respond to direct questions.

1. Stick to my word not your substitutes. 2. No need to “believe” just listen to the tapes.

Which I have. You may have forgotten what you said just yesterday, but here you go: “Trump gave assent to Stern making the comments.” My response: "Trump agreed to Stern as you say so yourself and as I have as well stated.

I’ve listened to the tape. I’m not aware of tapeS…

But the salient point is 1998>1996.

Congratulation you know 1998>1996, not something I would define as a salient point. Once again there were settlements before 1998 and other findings of sexual assault.

His words. DoJ definition. Done.

Wrong. Shan Wu, a former sex crimes prosecutor for the Department of Justice and current criminal defense attorney in Washington,and her response on Trump. "It **wouldn’t **be criminal. But I think one thing that people are not doing a good job of distinguishing between is criminal sexual assault versus, perhaps, sexual harassment, or just pure crass behavior.

Numerous other legal experts have commented on this as well.

Yawn. He was being filmed. it was not private. Love the quotes around “secretly”.

He wasn’t being filmed; it was a hot-mic conversation. There’s a difference, in case you didn’t know.

And yes, the conversation was “secretly” recorded, hence the emphasis with the quotes around “secretly”. Also a criminal act and most likely reason why NBC let it leak rather publish it themselves – to try to distance themselves from their own possibility of lawless acts.

The secretly recorded conversation was the only illegal part of the entire revelation with the Trump tape.

Wrong. please re-read my last post.

Nope not wrong. There was no admission to acting without consent, as explained; every statement was directly followed up with the admission of consent.

Ahhh so the comment is just … irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all, parallels with my comments and examples about double standards.

Is that a logical AND? If so, take it up with someone who called Trump a sexual predator. If not, why another semantic shuffle? It is fair to talk of sexual assault in the case of Trump following DoJ definitions and his own words. You have used terms to describe others that are made on similar bases rather that findings in a court of law

So a semantic shuffle is now when you use a conjunction to join two words together, that’s a new one for me.

I’ll take it up with people who also called him a “sexual assaulter” or have mentioned the word “sexual assaults” in reference to Trump, since it’s inaccurate and unfair.

Wrong again here, I have not used the term to label anyone a sexual assaulter on similar bases.

Farewell.

God Bless.

 

[kat07]

His words. DoJ definition. Done.

Wrong. Shan Wu, a former sex crimes prosecutor for the Department of Justice and current criminal defense attorney in Washington,and her response on Trump. "It **wouldn’t **be criminal. But I think one thing that people are not doing a good job of distinguishing between is criminal sexual assault versus, perhaps, sexual harassment, or just pure crass behavior.

Numerous other legal experts have commented on this as well.

Just adding this here, as it was deleted by mistake from my previous post and my response above.

You’re using the words “let you” as if woman involved with Trump didn’t explicitly consent, and were just silent, forced, coerced, didn’t have the mental ability to understand the acts, or were within the legal scope of being declared incapacitated. DoJ definition is not definitive and not even relevant, and while all STATES prohibit sexual assault, the exact definitions of the “crimes” that fall within the category of “sexual assault” differ from state to state, the structures wording and scope also vary considerably.

 

[dvdjs]

Mature.

I’ve done my homework and I also understand the English language. Yes, the tape is clear that Trump was talking about women who throw themselves at stars, and I think most people understand this.

I also understand why you won’t go and do your homework and post verbatim Trump’s words, as asked numerous times.

As explained, while you may not used the word “sexual predator” what you did do a myriad of times was make reference to, what I can only call fantasies greater than Walt Disney, “sexual assualtS” and Trump’s “sexual prowess”. Also when I stated “his comments don’t make him a sexual predator or guilty of it”, you responded: “You can say that as often as you want, but that doesn’t make it so.” So yea…

I’ve asked you direct questions on too many occasions now to count with no response. The only responses received have been captious ones.

Wrong again and you’re totally lost here. You said I was using idiosyncratic evidence to my reply about “wow really” after you called into my character and posture on this forum, which doesn’t even make sense. Pretty comical coming from a poster who just wants to stir the pot again and won’t respond to direct questions.

Which I have. You may have forgotten what you said just yesterday, but here you go: “Trump gave assent to Stern making the comments.” My response: "Trump agreed to Stern as you say so yourself and as I have as well stated.

I’ve listened to the tape. I’m not aware of tapeS…

Congratulation you know 1998>1996, not something I would define as a salient point. Once again there were settlements before 1998 and other findings of sexual assault.

Wrong. Shan Wu, a former sex crimes prosecutor for the Department of Justice and current criminal defense attorney in Washington,and her response on Trump. "It **wouldn’t **be criminal. But I think one thing that people are not doing a good job of distinguishing between is criminal sexual assault versus, perhaps, sexual harassment, or just pure crass behavior.

Numerous other legal experts have commented on this as well.

He wasn’t being filmed; it was a hot-mic conversation. There’s a difference, in case you didn’t know.

And yes, the conversation was “secretly” recorded, hence the emphasis with the quotes around “secretly”. Also a criminal act and most likely reason why NBC let it leak rather publish it themselves – to try to distance themselves from their own possibility of lawless acts.

The secretly recorded conversation was the only illegal part of the entire revelation with the Trump tape.

Nope not wrong. There was no admission to acting without consent, as explained; every statement was directly followed up with the admission of consent.

Not irrelevant at all, parallels with my comments and examples about double standards.

So a semantic shuffle is now when you use a conjunction to join two words together, that’s a new one for me.

I’ll take it up with people who also called him a “sexual assaulter” or have mentioned the word “sexual assaults” in reference to Trump, since it’s inaccurate and unfair.

Wrong again here, I have not used the term to label anyone a sexual assaulter on similar bases.

God Bless.

 

[dvdjs]

1. Thank you for bringing forward “captious”. It speaks revealingly about the style of conversation, which has become a bore to all.
2. I disagree with your dismissive interpretations of the content of recorded information discussed involving Trump.
3. You may have other information that you are not disclosing, but I could not find any adjudication on a matter of sexual misconduct by BC before his final run for office. That was the point, so long ago that it may be forgotten.
4. I don’t disagree with Wu on whether a criminal prosecutor would move forward on a case of criminal sexual assault; I had already mentioned that long ago. The difficulty of a he said/she said case is of course also compounded by his perception of consent. But as discussed, perception is not necessarily reality; this perception has a considerable likelihood of not being reality - even if not 1/(needle in a haystack). The simple truth is that he claims to act without confirming consent. And the DoJ has this as assault, even if that standard is difficulty to uphold in court, or by enacted differently by prosecutors who like to advance winning cases.
5. It might be considered unfair to hold a presidential candidate or president to the literal standard rather than the standard of practice. If so, to avoid the double standard, it is important to be far more scrupulous in talking of activities of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
   And let’s not forget HRC.
6. Semantic shuffle. A shift from of wording to restate the argument in a way that can be refuted. Conflate assault and predator, then focus the argument on the latter. Or: I say, “You have used terms to describe others that are made on similar bases rather that findings in a court of law”, you respond: " Wrong again. I have not used the term to label anyone a sexual assaulter on similar bases." You shifted from “terms”, generic, which includes the terms that you have used, to “the term”, specific which does not - deflecting from what you did do, to something that you can deny.

 

[qui_est_ce]

When the unborn child can’t be claimed as a dependent, it’s fairly easy for “pro-choice” to refuse to believe it’s a human life. If it’s a human life, then why can’t it be claimed as a dependent?

I guess what I’m saying is: If life begins at conception, then where’s the legislation to literally prove it?* “Look, you can claim that unborn child on your taxes-! See? It’s a real person-!”* When will U.S. tax law conform to the sanctity of life? It seems like the biggest no-brainer to me…

Missouri allows a tax exemption for stillborn children.