Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor TED HARVEY

She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.

Gianna Jessen

I want to share with you an awesome experience I had in the Colorado House of Representatives on May 8. It is a humbling experience to look back and realize that God used me to play a role in His divine orchestration.

I was leaving the House chambers for the weekend when our Democrat speaker of the House announced that the coming Monday would be the final day of this year's General Assembly. He went on to state that there were still numerous resolutions on the calendar which we would need to be addressed prior to the summer adjournment. Interestingly, he specifically mentioned that one of the resolutions we would be hearing was being carried by the House Majority Leader Alice Madden, honoring the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

As a strong pro-life legislator I was disgusted by the idea that we would pass a resolution honoring this 90-year legacy of genocide. I drove home that night wondering what I could say that might pierce the darkness during the debate on this heinous resolution.

On Saturday morning, I took my 8-year-old son up to the mountains to go white-water rafting. The trip lasted all day. As we were driving home, exhausted and hungry, I remembered that I had accepted an invitation to attend a fundraising dinner that night for a local pro-life organization. One of my most respected mentors had personally called me several weeks earlier and asked me to attend, so I knew I'd have to clean up and head over.

After our meal, the executive director of the organization introduced the keynote speaker. I looked up and saw walking to the stage a handicapped young lady being assisted to the microphone by a young man holding a guitar.

Her name was Gianna Jessen.

Gianna said "Hello," welcomed everyone, and then sang three of the most beautiful Christian songs I have ever heard.

She then began to give her testimony. When her biological mother was 17 years old and seven and a half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. As God would have it, the abortion failed and a beautiful 2-pound baby girl was brought into the world. Unfortunately, she was born with cerebral palsy and the doctors thought that she would never survive. The doctors were wrong.

Imagine the timing! A survivor of a Planned Parenthood abortion arrived in town just days before the Colorado House of Representatives was to celebrate Planned Parenthood's "wonderful" work.

As I listened to Gianna's amazing testimony, the Lord inspired me to ask her if she could stay in Denver until Monday morning so that I could introduce her on the floor of the House and tell her story. Perhaps she could even begin the final day's session by singing our country's national anthem!

To my surprise she said she would seriously consider it. If she were to agree, she wanted her accompanying guitarist to stay as well. A lady standing in line behind me waiting to meet Gianna overheard our conversation and said that she would be willing to pay for the guitarist's room. Gianna then said that she would think about it.

As I was driving home from the banquet, my cell phone rang. It was Gianna, and she immediately said, "I'm in, let's ruin this celebration." Praise God!

When Monday morning came, I awoke at 6 a.m. to write my speech before heading to the Capitol. As I wrote down the words, I could sense God's help and I knew that this was going to be a powerful moment for the pro-life movement.

Following a committee hearing, I rushed into the House chambers just as the opening morning prayer was about to be given. Between the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy. I took the note to the speaker and asked if I could have my friend open the last day of session by singing the national anthem. Without any hesitation the speaker took the microphone and said, "Before we begin, Representative Harvey has made available for us Gianna Jessen to sing the national anthem."

Gianna sang the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner that you could possibly imagine. Every person in the entire chamber was completely still, quiet and in awe of this frail young lady's voice.

Due to her cerebral palsy, Gianna often loses her balance, and shortly after starting to sing she grabbed my arm to stabilize herself, and I could tell that she was shaking. Suddenly, midway through the song, she forgot the words and began to hum and then said, "Please forgive me; I am so nervous." She then immediately began singing again and every House member and every guest throughout the chambers began to sing along with her to give her encouragement and to lift her up.

As I looked around the huge hall I listened to the unbelievable melody of Gianna's voice being accompanied by a choir of over 100 voices. I had chills running all over my body, and I knew that I had just witnessed an act of God.

As the song concluded the speaker of the House explained that Gianna has cerebral palsy and is an activist to bring awareness to the disease. "Let us give her a hand not only for her performance today, but also for her advocacy work," he said. The chamber immediately exploded into applause — she had them all in the palm of her hand.

The speaker then called the House to order, and we proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests. For dramatic effect, I waited until I was the last person remaining before I introduced Gianna.

As I waited for my turn, I nervously paced back and forth praying to God that he would give me the peace, confidence and the courage necessary to pull off what I knew would be one of the most dramatic and controversial moments of my political career.

While I waited, a prominent reporter from one of the major Denver newspapers walked over to Gianna and told her that her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before.

Finally, I was the last person remaining. So, I proceeded to the microphone and began my speech.

At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.

"Members, I would like to introduce you to a new friend and hero of mine — her name is Gianna Jessen. She is visiting us today from Nashville, Tennessee, where she is an accomplished recording artist.
"She has cerebral palsy and was raised in foster homes before being adopted at the age of four.

"She was born prematurely and weighed only 2 pounds at birth. She remained in the hospital for almost three months. A doctor once said she had a great will to live and that she fought for her life. Eventually she was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.
"Because of her cerebral palsy, her foster mother was told that it was doubtful that she would ever crawl or walk. She could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of her foster mother, she eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. Shortly before her fourth birthday, she began to walk with leg braces and a walker.

"She continued in physical therapy and after a total of four surgeries, she was able to walk without assistance.
"She still falls sometimes, but she says she has learned how to fall gracefully after falling for 29 years.
"Two years ago, she walked into a local health club and said she wanted a private trainer. At the time her legs could not lift 30 pounds. Today she can leg press 200 pounds.
"She became so physically fit that she began running marathons to raise money and awareness for cerebral palsy. She just returned last week from England where she ran in the London Marathon. It took her more than eight-and-a-half hours to complete. They were taking down the course by the time she made it to the finish line. But she made it, nonetheless. With bloody feet and aching joints, she finished the race.

"Members would you help me recognize a modern-day hero — Gianna Jessen?"

At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.

Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her.

As the applause began to die down, I raised my hand to be recognized one more time.

"Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.

"My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story."

"My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.
"The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.
"You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.
"As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.
"Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…"

BANG! The gavel came down.

Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my speech — the climax of the morning — the speaker of the House gaveled me down and said, "Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

At which point I said,

"Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

Silence.

Deafening silence.

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile.

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.

The headline in The Denver Post the next day read "Abortion Jab Earns Rebuke." The majority leader is quoted as saying, "I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother's womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives.

The paper went on to quote Gianna, stating she was glad I told her story.

"We need to discuss the humanity of it. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb," she said. "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

All I can say is, "Glory to God!" He orchestrated it all, every minute of it, and I was so honored to have been chosen to play a part. May we all continue to be filled with and to fight for the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ted Harvey. "Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor." CERC.

Reprinted with permission of Ted Harvey.

THE AUTHOR

Ted Harvey is Assistant Minority Leader in the Colorado House of Representatives and is currently running for the State Senate. Visit his web site here. E-mail him here.

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset?

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

But let me say this. If you paid attention to what I was saying, you would have seen that I was arguing against LB. My argument structure was:

There are times when killing humans is licit, though it is always an evil.
If you (in the the sense of "you, my interlocutor", not you yourself) want to argue that one should never lie under any circumstances, how much more would you have to argue that one should never kill a person under any circumstances?
And if you argue that, then your suggestion that it is licit to abort a person who cannot survive outside the womb without major techno-med stuff needs to be reexamined. Not to mention the possibility of a just war and all that.

I think Saint Paul cared several whits if he caused an agitation. It's not always bad to cause one, and not always good, and maybe not always good not to care one way or another. Outcomes matter a little, and the purpose of fighting is to win, or else it's perverse, I think. I disagree with LB about the outcome of this action, but I don't think he's off the wall with his concerns. The question of injury to justice in a deliberative assembly is tricky, I think. Just as a solider in the middle of combat probably ought to think as much has he can ab out the outcomes of his acts of bravery, so a legislator needs to consider if stretching the parliamentary rules here might lead to his being unable to act somewhere else.

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

I'm inclined to think he did. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.

221 posted on 06/29/2006 2:50:16 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)

To: Locomotive Breath

Are you now going so far as to say that I have been dishonest up to this point?

Man! With your breath who can get close enough to find out?

222 posted on 06/29/2006 2:51:38 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)

To: Salvation; leda

Did the measure then pass, or not?

223 posted on 06/29/2006 2:52:31 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)

Good question. Anyone know?

jw

224 posted on 06/29/2006 3:00:09 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)

Ok, you are not worth my time to reply to any more.

You clearly can't follow words that are written.

I said a BABY is one that can survive outside the womb. I also said a BABY's life begins at conception.

That is a no-brainer.

I said a FETUS, by MY definition, is an embryo that CANNOT survive outside the womb.

You are clearly more interested in antagonizing than in discussing, and I don't need to play that game with you. But if you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, then have at it.

225 posted on 06/29/2006 3:02:02 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)

It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

Don't exactly know what you're getting at here, I quoted you verbatim from post #153. I copied and pasted your own words into the discussion between you and I.

If I didn't change your mind, are you saying that you are in disagreement with the Church? Please explain your position further.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

LOL!

Wow, I'm sorry about your friend. May God grant them eternal rest and may He give you comfort.

226 posted on 06/29/2006 3:06:42 PM PDT by FJ290

To: Locomotive Breath

"JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post."

What hypothetical? The "lesbian thing" in the first paragraph?

And I must note that this is inaccurate:

"He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement."

This has alredy been coverd in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors nad make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

227 posted on 06/29/2006 3:07:35 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)

I think we're on relatively the same page here. As I said, I don't think anyone had a problem with HER, I think the problem was with HARVEY, and the way he got her on the platform.

Yes, false pretext was a misnomer on my part, because as you said, he presented the truth about part of her story. Just like Harvey himself said, he's not Paul Harvey, but there was "the rest of the story."

That's my only beef with the whole thing - and the whole system and the way it has become so full of animosity that people can't simply state the truth and be given equal floor time. Harvey should have been able to say "This woman has CP, she has overcome many obstacles in her lifetime, and she is an abortion survivor, and since that is apropos to our topic today, I'd like to have her open the session by singing the National Anthem." And that should have been allowed and welcomed and applauded in exactly the same way that it was. Harvey SHOULD have been able to tell the whole story up front, but sadly, in today's animous world, he knew he probably would be shut down if he did that.

The same way that you and I are able to have a civil discussion, why can't the two parties in our Govt do the same? Why can't two sides to a different issue do the same thing?

In other words, why can't people just behave like grown-ups? :-)

228 posted on 06/29/2006 3:10:31 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)

Gosh JW, this is really too long to reply to, but I think I can break it down.

1. I was not defining "life" in my definition. You are adding that word to the discussion. I was simply stating what my personal definition is between a "non-viable fetus" and a "baby." BOTH are LIFE.

2. I didn't say "with care" anywhere in my definition. You added those words to the discussion. As you said, it's a given that no baby can survive outside the womb, at any age, without care (for almost any species). My definition is whether it could survive, at all, under any circumstances, whether it be the best of circumstances, with the best of care, with the best medical advancements available of any kind, or the worst of care. Simply, whether it could survive, AT ALL. I didn't qualify it with any type, quality, or amount of subsequent CARE. You added that part.

2a. Because yes, I absolutely agree with you that "with care" changes the entire definition, and that's why "with care" is not in my definition. I know alot of 15-yr olds who couldn't survive without care. And we all know alot of 90-yr olds who can't survive without care. Etc.

3. To answer your question about whether a murder has been committed. As you know, "murder" is a legal term that implies/includes intention and forethought, etc. So your question is not specific enough to answer under the legal definition of murder. If you are asking if a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby, then my answer is yes, a human being (aka baby) has been killed. But many people will have different definitions of "readily available care."

These things are why it is so difficult to have a discussion on abortion, because every time you turn around, someone opens up a completely different can of worms, or another word or set of words needs to be defined by all parties involved, etc. It's not a simple topic, like whether the earth is round or not. :-)

229 posted on 06/29/2006 3:54:43 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)

I want to publicly apologize to Delphinium for my previous post.

Delphinium, please forgive me. I didn't mean to make a personal statement about you like that. I meant to say that your post was not worth replying to, not that you personally are not worth replying to.

Please forgive me for my rudeness.

230 posted on 06/29/2006 3:58:12 PM PDT by BagCamAddict (Prayers for the victims - human and animal - of Katrina and Rita)

This has already been covered in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors and make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:

The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

[change of topic - ding, ding, ding]

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…

This is exactly the point at which he deviated from introducing her to turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP. Why can't you see that? He was gaveled to silence and rightly so.

"Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

Exactly right. The time for debating pending legislation is when that legislation is under consideration. The proper thing for him to do was to wait for that legislation to come up and be recognized to speak on it. At that time he was perfectly entitled to recognize her and use her to put a face on the issue. It's done all the time. If he is such a minor member of that legislative body that he can't get recognized to speak then that doesn't give him special privileges to speak out of turn.

I don't care how inspired by God you are, if you are going to participate in the civil polity then you don't get to make up the rules for yourself. If you violate the rules, yes you can get away with it once, but: a) you shouldn't be surprised if you are never recognized to speak again, and b) you shouldn't complain if everyone else decides the rules don't apply to them either.

And maybe it gave him, and those here, some fleeting satisfaction at having made mad those with whom we all disagree (how Christian is that?). Acting like the rules don't apply to you actually hurts rather than helps the cause. If you demonstrate that you don't believe in the rules then who's going to trust you to obey the law going forward? As I said at the start, "This is exactly the kind of stunt that gives Christians a bad name." It becomes pretty hard to convice non-believers of the righteousness of the Christian faith when they see stuff like this.

---------------------------

As a technical aside, in utero oxygen is supplied by the umbilical cord. I don't see how the saline solution interfered with that. Unless he means there was lung damage that resulted in hypoxia after birth? In any event, as I said early on, it's not medically established that a lack of oxygen is connected with CP yet he states this as an established fact. I have a problem with that as well.

For those of you that don't know John Edwards made his first millions by suing an obstetrician with the allegation that a failure to perform a C-section resulted in oxygen starvation and CP. There were several net results
1) an obstetrician's practice was ruined
2) other obstetrician/gynecologists quit the obstetrician part of their practice resulting in less available health care.
3) C-sections skyrocketed in NC which increased cost was passed on to everyone
4) the incidence of CP remained unchanged

Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?

231 posted on 06/29/2006 4:16:57 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)

To: Salvation; GMMAC; sionnsar; styky

232 posted on 06/29/2006 4:28:25 PM PDT by fanfan (I wouldn't be so angry with them if they didn't want to kill me!)

To: Nihil Obstat

40,000,000

God forgive us.

233 posted on 06/29/2006 4:30:06 PM PDT by fanfan (I wouldn't be so angry with them if they didn't want to kill me!)

To: JWinNC; leda; Salvation

It appears the resolution passed 24-11.

I could weep...

234 posted on 06/29/2006 5:11:48 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)

To: patton; Salvation; leda; All

From what I can find, the Denver Post is reporting that the Senator was rebuked for his behavior...

They also describe the girl as a "pro-life advocate," not a CP advocate.

And nowhere do they report that the resolution passed, 24-11.

235 posted on 06/29/2006 5:37:52 PM PDT by patton (...in spit of it all...)

To: Locomotive Breath

Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?

Hate to say this, but Edwards did his homework!

From The Wisconsin Council on Developmental Disabilities about Cerebral Palsy:

CP often originates when oxygen is cut off to the motor cells in an infant's brain. The oxygen deprivation may occur just prior to birth, during a difficult birth, because of prematurity, infection or by a brain injury in the first two years of life. Once the damage is done it can not be changed, but early therapy and/or surgery may increase abilities.

Living and Aging with Cerebral Palsy

The Merck Manual is used in medical training. Their definition says:

Many different types of injury to the brain can cause cerebral palsy, and most often a specific cause cannot be identified. Birth injuries and poor oxygen supply to the brain before, during, and immediately after birth cause 10 to 15% of cases.

Merck Manual

From the Cleveland Clinic/causes of Cerebral Palsy:

Lack of oxygen to the baby's during development or delivery

Cleveland Clinic

236 posted on 06/29/2006 5:59:31 PM PDT by FJ290

To: BagCamAddict

If you believe that the fetus and the baby are both “life” and “human beings” then does that not immediately go against your original post #48? You are trying to make a personal definition and distinction between a “fetus” and a “baby” but your on words blur the lines between the two.

Why would it be okay (or at least more conscionable) to abort a 6.5 month “live” fetus than it would a 7.5 month “live” baby? You're walking an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary line between fetus and baby.. you say they are BOTH LIFE. I agree.

I think you may be getting really close to seeing the point, I wish I had more time.

Okay, change every where I said "life" and insert baby. The points would still be same. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

#2. You have still avoided the issue. How do you take care out your definition? We've clearly established that care is required to meet your standard of definition for a "baby." That is... that a fetus has to have the potential to live ("could live") outside the womb. If none (zip, zero, nada) can live outside the womb without care then you must by logic deal with it or remove it.

Simply saying “... whether it could survive, AT ALL” does not answer the question because none, not one, can survive with out care. What does “AT ALL” mean? Are you implying a time factor, a quality factor or something else? Does it's heart have to beat outside the womb? Once or twice? Does it have to take a breath? How many?

#3. Now we're getting really warm. Forget about the legal term “murder.” You agree that “ a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby....” Okay! ... getting really close to heart of the matter. What is the definition of readily available care that will give the “entity” a chance to survive “AT ALL?”

If that is not clear, let me phrase it another way. You belief the difference between a fetus and a baby occurs somewhere between 2 and 5 months gestation. What care does, say, a 4.9-month-gestation fetus need to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive?

If what a 4.9-month-gestation fetus needs to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive is not provided, does that end the life of a human being? I realize you have already answered that, but I don't think you see the full implication of that statement. I am hoping by this point you will see that there is one particular type of care that is almost 100% of the time readily available that will more often than not give the 4.9-month-gestation fetus a chance for life beyond the womb. It also applies from conception to birth.

Peace, jw

237 posted on 06/29/2006 6:02:38 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)

To: Locomotive Breath

Yes, we're aware of your opinion. You still didn't answer me: are you obligated to volunteer the additional information about yourself?

238 posted on 06/29/2006 6:07:18 PM PDT by beezdotcom

To: Locomotive Breath

"It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:" "The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy."

I must strongly disagree. No where does it say he was given the floor for on the basis you claimed... no where. You now change the subject from the "basis for the floor" to the content of what he said.

Further you go on to read the fellows mind...

"...turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP."

Sorry, I think we've passed reasonable discussion and I'm through. God bless and best wishes.

Peace,
jw

239 posted on 06/29/2006 6:13:46 PM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)

What I said:
I think homicide is just as evil as lying,
I think what I meant was more like "no less an evil than"....

You quoted me, but then you said:
...but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide ...
which led to my asking if "just as" is commutative.

But my argument works not much worse even if lying were as bad as homicide. That is, if sometimes you gotta kill a human, how can it be a priori true that it is never okay to lie?

You write:
It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

I respond: Asserting the contrary is not an argument. It's just stating what the argument is about. It may not have been calculated to put him on the defensive. I have no more a window into your soul than you have into his, and e-communications on fora are not a good environment for picking up on the vibes of someone's feelings.

But his upsetittude or non-upsetitude is not to the purpose. My mood is one thing, my arguments another. They neither stand nor fall on my emotional state at the time I present them.

And whatever your intention, if he responds to the question, "What are you so upset about?" what will we learn about his thinking on the morality of lying? I'm upset, somewhat, because a friend died earlier than I would have liked and there's this big hole here where she used to be AND I think her husband is one of the world's truly good guys and I hate to see him suffer,

But I'm just as much of a pedantic, nit-picking, argumentative logic chopper when I feel good. (And thanks for your prayers for the deceased, Ann, and her excellent husband, Richard.)

I think Locomotive Breath has been bear-baited by many of us pro-lifers. I regret it because clearly he has tried to think well about both abortion and telling the truth. I think he has reached the wrong conclusions, but I have reached plenty of wrong conclusions in my life, I mean PLENTY!, so I don't hold that against him. He even has the nerve (da NOIVE!) to think that I have reached the wrong conclusion -- which just shows how out of touch with reality he is.

I want to hear him make his argument against being subtle as a serpent in the Colorado legislature.

Of course, my personal opinion is that if one DIDN't lie to a politician he'd feel all lonely and disappointed. But that's just me.

240 posted on 06/29/2006 7:49:32 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (If the gates of Hell prevail against it, it probably never was a church anyway.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794