Another birthing day rolls around

[Juvenal]

Last year I wasn't sure if the cards were a joke […]

Not that that’s ever stopped you from posting them before. I went to the trouble of checking some of your previous offerings, but the only places I could find them were right fringe websites, so I marked it off to your continued descent into irrelevant hackery. Seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish with these serial self-swirlies. Some of these folks never had a reputation to lose, but I remember well when you’d nail folks for the exact same practice of picking cherries in the crevo threads.

What happened to that guy.

Did you just get old, and decide it was time to start shouting at kids to get off your lawn?

[seanD]

Is your reading comprehension that poor? Point to me where I defended any of this. You can't, because I never did. Pointing out illogical arguments does not equate to the defense of a position. Pointing out that Ray Comfort's banana argument is a poor apologetic would be defending atheism, per your logic.

The Christian cultural witness is damaged when Christians make poor or false arguments for it, which is where critique comes in.

But "pointing out illogical arguments" in an article that doesn't have illogical arguments is the same as defending it. Where is the OP article illogical? The point the OP is making is this: "We need people to stand up and defend the very concept of motherhood and what it means to be a woman." "Birthing people," though not as pervasive or consequential (at least now), is terminology that stems from the same aberrant ideology that also allows men to compete against women and allows men into female prisons. And since it's an issue that isn't static, but evolving and progressing in our culture, downplaying even the smallest instances of it, or instances that are seemingly inconsequential is probably not in the best interest of the church (or our society), especially in the long run.

[KingsGambit]

I hereby condemn the term "birthing person", transgenderism, emojis of pregnant men, newspeak,etc. Can this process of expressing outrage to illustrate my intellectual bona fides be automated for future reference?

[seanD]

I hereby condemn the term "birthing person", transgenderism, emojis of pregnant men, newspeak,etc. Can this process of expressing outrage to illustrate my intellectual bona fides be automated for future reference?

So when are you going to follow through with the argument of your first and last post and point out the illogical arguments in the article? How are they illogical? Or do finally get why "birthing person" is an issue to a much broader ideological problem?

[seer]

280252931_5150259375010251_8676335319269407934_n.jpg

[rogue06]

Not that that’s ever stopped you from posting them before. I went to the trouble of checking some of your previous offerings, but the only places I could find them were right fringe websites, so I marked it off to your continued descent into irrelevant hackery. Seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish with these serial self-swirlies. Some of these folks never had a reputation to lose, but I remember well when you’d nail folks for the exact same practice of picking cherries in the crevo threads.

What happened to that guy.

Did you just get old, and decide it was time to start shouting at kids to get off your lawn?

Etsy is now a "right fringe website"

This has all the signs of someone dishonestly pretending to have checked but never did and based his claims on assumptions he just knew must be true.

0_JqTLgEVsZDQd4oRG.jpg
You don't get this from your "right fringe websites"



65955e2b-4e13-4726-bf82-36690f97b70c.jpg

This is NOT a Parody



FTW.jpg
For someone who appreciates irony




And now for something from the closest I went to one of your "right fringe websites" -- The Daily Mail
c02b7f6f-11dd-476b-a893-7ec847dd8c09.jpg

And back in second grade my best friend and I vowed that when we became grown ups that we were going to be dirty old men because we thought that meant we could sit out on the porch and yell at kids to "GIT OFFA MY LAWN!!1!"

[Juvenal]

Etsy is now a "right fringe website"

This has all the signs of someone dishonestly pretending to have checked but never did and based his claims on assumptions he just knew must be true.

Nah, that’s just you. You know I wasn’t referring to the current post.

I found barbed dildos on Etsy — an article Caryn famously suggested be used on or by one of her political opponents last year, but that doesn’t tell anyone how wide the collection is in your panty drawer.

You don't get this from your "right fringe websites"

Does it come with links, so we can check it out?

This is NOT a Parody

Shouting “not” isn’t going to keep from folks from noticing it actually is a parody if you leave a link for us to check it out, rouge. How could you miss that. Is this actual cognitive decline or are you just playacting to distract from the dishonesty.

For someone who appreciates irony

Please do keep providing posts proving the folks you say are pushing to eliminate Mom references are using Mom references.

I appreciate irony, but I live for the unwitting variety.

And now for something from the closest I went to one of your "right fringe websites" -- The Daily Mail

Is your memory playing tricks on you. Have you momentarily forgotten my position on the Daily Fail. These aren’t my websites. They’re yours.

And back in second grade my best friend and I vowed that when we became grown ups that we were going to be dirty old men because we thought that meant we could sit out on the porch and yell at kids to "GIT OFFA MY LAWN!!1!"

Give me a moment here because I’m still trying to figure out how it came to be you posted a link to a parody image with a shouted declamation that it wasn’t a parody.

Or how you think posting more cherry picked items is a defense against an accusation of cherry picking.

And that’s before we look at the moral failings which pale the logical issues into irrelevance.

The trans community is at exceedingly high risk of suicide, an issue posted here repeatedly in the past. Dr. Morse, above, is a woman of color pointing out a frightening disparity in health outcomes for pregnant women of color. Your response is to pillory transexuals and highlight, approvingly, personal attacks on this woman of color from fellow fringe whackjobs across the pond.

This is a common theme with you. Elsewhere, recently, I’ve seen you referring to women as shrews.

Maybe Jesus loves you, though I’ve abundant reasons to doubt it. But that’s not enough to keep others from pointing out the disconnect between your actions and common decency. At the end of the day, do you imagine your contributions to the suffering of these people are going to earn a hearty “well done” from Peter at the gates despite everyone with a conscience down here telling you to clean up your mess and put out the flames you’ve lit under the pillory you’ve built for the least of these.

This isn’t so much cognitive decline as moral collapse. If you’ve got one, revive it, and if you never had one, it’s time.

Grow a conscience.

[rogue06]

Not that that’s ever stopped you from posting them before. I went to the trouble of checking some of your previous offerings, but the only places I could find them were right fringe websites, so I marked it off to your continued descent into irrelevant hackery. Seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish with these serial self-swirlies. Some of these folks never had a reputation to lose, but I remember well when you’d nail folks for the exact same practice of picking cherries in the crevo threads.

What happened to that guy.

Did you just get old, and decide it was time to start shouting at kids to get off your lawn?

e6e3039a-92ef-49a2-ae65-6234d943a9d1.jpg
Don't forget the Chicom coronavirus likely coming from a lab leak -- another thing that many
on the left insisted was a lie and censored. Meanwhile the professor here is firm in his belief
that old Joe isn't losing his mental abilities, that it is nothing but a rightwing conspiracy (and
maybe the far left too), while supporting the doxing of anyone who expose some of the left's
insanity, exposing her to death threats, apparently because she deserved it.

Glass houses and all that.

[rogue06]

Just the fringe...

Source: Democrats’ National Abortion Bill Replaces Word ‘Woman’ With ‘Person’

Democrats’ latest abortion bill does not include the words “woman,” “women,” or “female.” Instead, the bill uses the word “person” to refer to those who bear and give birth to children.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing the bill back to the floor for another vote, despite its failure in February.

The new effort follows the leak last week of a draft opinion in the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which suggests the Supreme Court is set to overturn its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion across the nation.

“Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing justices,” Schumer told reporters Sunday as he discussed a new vote on the bill. “Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing politicians. It’s a woman’s right. Plain and simple.”

Although Schumer insisted abortion is a “woman’s right,” the legislation states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy,” the bill explains, “to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”

A 2021 version of the bill used the word “women” in the text 13 times. But it also clarified that the “terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services.”

“However,” the 2021 bill continued, “access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant.”

Melanie Israel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said Tuesday that the legislation “doesn’t protect anyone’s health and contorts itself to, ironically, avoid mentioning the very term ‘women’ within the bill text.”

In an email to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s multimedia news organization, Israel said:

Allowing radical gender ideology to erase women isn’t new on the left. Seeing it on full display during consideration of a bill that would decimate health and safety protections for women and unborn children is yet another example on a long list of the left’s extremism when it comes to abortion.

The Biden administration has made a concerted effort to use the term “birthing person” when referring to those who bear children, rather than “woman” or “mother.”

Democrats say the Women’s Health Protection Act would codify Roe v. Wade into law, but the bill actually would go further to remove all limits on abortion across all 50 states, even laws that have been in place for decades.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, called the act “Orwellian” during a teleconference with reporters Tuesday, adding that Democrats are “setting themselves up as the party of abortion absolutism.”

America already has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the word, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would go beyond nations such as China in allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.

The Senate bill is expected to fail for lack of bipartisan support.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

"Birthing person" or the equivalent is apparently now the descriptor of choice for both the Biden Administration and the Democrats.

[seanD]

Just the fringe...

Source: Democrats’ National Abortion Bill Replaces Word ‘Woman’ With ‘Person’

Democrats’ latest abortion bill does not include the words “woman,” “women,” or “female.” Instead, the bill uses the word “person” to refer to those who bear and give birth to children.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing the bill back to the floor for another vote, despite its failure in February.

The new effort follows the leak last week of a draft opinion in the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which suggests the Supreme Court is set to overturn its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion across the nation.

“Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing justices,” Schumer told reporters Sunday as he discussed a new vote on the bill. “Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing politicians. It’s a woman’s right. Plain and simple.”

Although Schumer insisted abortion is a “woman’s right,” the legislation states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy,” the bill explains, “to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”

A 2021 version of the bill used the word “women” in the text 13 times. But it also clarified that the “terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services.”

“However,” the 2021 bill continued, “access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant.”

Melanie Israel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said Tuesday that the legislation “doesn’t protect anyone’s health and contorts itself to, ironically, avoid mentioning the very term ‘women’ within the bill text.”

In an email to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s multimedia news organization, Israel said:

Allowing radical gender ideology to erase women isn’t new on the left. Seeing it on full display during consideration of a bill that would decimate health and safety protections for women and unborn children is yet another example on a long list of the left’s extremism when it comes to abortion.

The Biden administration has made a concerted effort to use the term “birthing person” when referring to those who bear children, rather than “woman” or “mother.”

Democrats say the Women’s Health Protection Act would codify Roe v. Wade into law, but the bill actually would go further to remove all limits on abortion across all 50 states, even laws that have been in place for decades.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, called the act “Orwellian” during a teleconference with reporters Tuesday, adding that Democrats are “setting themselves up as the party of abortion absolutism.”

America already has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the word, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would go beyond nations such as China in allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.

The Senate bill is expected to fail for lack of bipartisan support.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

"Birthing person" or the equivalent is apparently now the descriptor of choice for both the Biden Administration and the Democrats.

So much for KG's claim that "When push comes to shove, I don't think most of the left truly believes what they say about transgenderism. They've given up the game in the last few days."

[KingsGambit]

So much for KG's claim that "When push comes to shove, I don't think most of the left truly believes what they say about transgenderism. They've given up the game in the last few days."

I do mean on a practical, everyday level, not about pieces of legislation that few read, or even about Biden himself. Nearly everybody shrieking about it is talking about "women's rights", including the statement given by Chuck Schumer in your article. If trans ideology was taken to its logical conclusion, this would be labeled "trans exclusionary language". But this is not happening. Why not?

[seanD]

I do mean on a practical, everyday level, not about pieces of legislation that few read, or even about Biden himself. Nearly everybody shrieking about it is talking about "women's rights", including the statement given by Chuck Schumer in your article. If trans ideology was taken to its logical conclusion, this would be labeled "trans exclusionary language". But this is not happening. Why not?

You seem to be missing the "evolving and progressing" part I referenced at least three times in this thread already. Sure, it's a gradual progression, but we already see this bizarre ideology infesting culture -- universities, Hollywood, national athletics, corporations, etc. We see it in politics with our representatives, the executive branch and even how they write laws. We now have a judge on the supreme court that follows this loony ideology. How do you think things will look like in another 10 or so years at the rate it's progressing? To downplay even small instances of it I don't think is in our best interest as a normal functioning society, much less as Christians.

[rogue06]

I do mean on a practical, everyday level, not about pieces of legislation that few read, or even about Biden himself. Nearly everybody shrieking about it is talking about "women's rights", including the statement given by Chuck Schumer in your article. If trans ideology was taken to its logical conclusion, this would be labeled "trans exclusionary language". But this is not happening. Why not?

When stuff gets codified into legislation then it becomes a proper term for it.

Given the atmosphere concerning using proper pronouns and the like, would anyone wager against someone getting fired over calling another person a mother instead of "birthing person" in the next 5 years?

[KingsGambit]

When stuff gets codified into legislation then it becomes a proper term for it.

Given the atmosphere concerning using proper pronouns and the like, would anyone wager against someone getting fired over calling another person a mother instead of "birthing person" in the next 5 years?

Not taking that bet, unfortunately.

[Sparko]

Just the fringe...

Source: Democrats’ National Abortion Bill Replaces Word ‘Woman’ With ‘Person’

Democrats’ latest abortion bill does not include the words “woman,” “women,” or “female.” Instead, the bill uses the word “person” to refer to those who bear and give birth to children.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing the bill back to the floor for another vote, despite its failure in February.

The new effort follows the leak last week of a draft opinion in the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which suggests the Supreme Court is set to overturn its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion across the nation.

“Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing justices,” Schumer told reporters Sunday as he discussed a new vote on the bill. “Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing politicians. It’s a woman’s right. Plain and simple.”

Although Schumer insisted abortion is a “woman’s right,” the legislation states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy,” the bill explains, “to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”

A 2021 version of the bill used the word “women” in the text 13 times. But it also clarified that the “terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services.”

“However,” the 2021 bill continued, “access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant.”

Melanie Israel, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said Tuesday that the legislation “doesn’t protect anyone’s health and contorts itself to, ironically, avoid mentioning the very term ‘women’ within the bill text.”

In an email to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s multimedia news organization, Israel said:

Allowing radical gender ideology to erase women isn’t new on the left. Seeing it on full display during consideration of a bill that would decimate health and safety protections for women and unborn children is yet another example on a long list of the left’s extremism when it comes to abortion.

The Biden administration has made a concerted effort to use the term “birthing person” when referring to those who bear children, rather than “woman” or “mother.”

Democrats say the Women’s Health Protection Act would codify Roe v. Wade into law, but the bill actually would go further to remove all limits on abortion across all 50 states, even laws that have been in place for decades.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, called the act “Orwellian” during a teleconference with reporters Tuesday, adding that Democrats are “setting themselves up as the party of abortion absolutism.”

America already has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the word, but the Women’s Health Protection Act would go beyond nations such as China in allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.

The Senate bill is expected to fail for lack of bipartisan support.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

"Birthing person" or the equivalent is apparently now the descriptor of choice for both the Biden Administration and the Democrats.

If they want it to be a right, then Schumer and crew have the power to try to make it so. They can draft a federal law, or even a constitutional amendment and make it a right.