In my latest post to the Abortion Discussion Megathread, I asked for clarification on your objection to my "It Gets Better" reference, however uncomfortable that might be for both of us.
While going through random videos looking for ones to length, dead, and thumbnail, the sidebar for "Newest Controversy Talk Posts" produced what looks like an answer.

I'm assuming (since you asked me to work it out for myself), that the charge is perpetuating homophobic culture with the tone of my reference. Essentially, that my crass tone wasn't attacking the absurdity of homophobia (funny jokes), but was presented as tacitly accepting of a culture that is oppressive to LGBT, and implicitly suggestive that the problem isn't that culture, but the sensitivity of LGBT youth to criticism (destructive).

If so, then I hope what little you know of me is enough to recognize this was absolutely not my intent. As I mentioned above, I had already posted that reply before coming across your (rather insightful) Sift Talk post.

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

>> ^kavalow9:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I find it interesting that changing the word "was" to the word "is" can make a statement into a lie so easily.

I stand corrected Ryjkyj, I should have added Obama's definition changed about three months ago. Anyway this video is about something Romney allegedly did years ago as Governor, long before the President came out of the closet. Who knows, maybe Mitt will become a lifetime member of Man’s Country Bathhouse too if he thinks it will help with his LGBT fundraisers.:


Yeah... again, there's a difference between having to project a certain political opinion in order to get elected, and aggressively taking action against something. This isn't rocket science. It's something even two-year-olds understand.

In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
No one is discriminating against Christians, you wannabe martyr. We're just calling you out on your bullshit.

You: I disapprove of gay marriage
Everyone else with synapses: That's fine. Believe what you want, but the facts are that you're wrong and here's why and because of separation of church and state, you don't get to make any laws based on your nonsense unless you can back your shit up with more than just "gay sex is icky and they make me uncomfortable" And now you also alienated yourself from the rest of society because of the growing acceptance of LGBT.

Not all opinions are equal, dumbass, get over it. We put Christian beliefs to the test for a long time and they just don't pass muster anymore...deal with it. Adapt or die

If someone came in and started arguing that hitler was awesome, It's not discrimination if we tear into him for being a moron.

You being Christian has nothing to do with it. It's your shitty ideas that demonstrably infringe on other's rights that are under fire, not your freedom of religion.



Well said! I'd upvote that twice if I could.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi


No one is discriminating against Christians, you wannabe martyr. We're just calling you out on your bullshit.

You: I disapprove of gay marriage
Everyone else with synapses: That's fine. Believe what you want, but the facts are that you're wrong and here's why and because of separation of church and state, you don't get to make any laws based on your nonsense unless you can back your shit up with more than just "gay sex is icky and they make me uncomfortable" And now you also alienated yourself from the rest of society because of the growing acceptance of LGBT.

Not all opinions are equal, dumbass, get over it. We put Christian beliefs to the test for a long time and they just don't pass muster anymore...deal with it. Adapt or die

If someone came in and started arguing that hitler was awesome, It's not discrimination if we tear into him for being a moron.

You being Christian has nothing to do with it. It's your shitty ideas that demonstrably infringe on other's rights that are under fire, not your freedom of religion.

Of course, Dan Savage has some words of wisdom about this:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/09/pat-robertson-the-bible-is-terribly-wrong

Excerpt:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that LGBT people aren't asking conservative Christians to do anything they aren't already doing. We're asking conservative Christians to ignore what the bible says about homosexuality just as they ignore what the bible says about slavery. (They ignore what the bible says about slavery so thoroughly that many don't know that the bible says anything about slavery at all!)

Christians moved in their "conception of the value of human beings" before and they can do it again.

>> ^jwray:

If she does this regularly, somebody should have helped her get help. Ignoring and playing along with the insanity isn't helping.
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.




Please read the article.

Now to point out one quote from it.

"He said her family has tried to get her help multiple times, but unless she harms herself or others, there's not much more they can do."


Being Ill does not remove a persons rights. Its easy to say "Get her Help or she needs help" but unless she is willing to receive it there is not much anyone can do. It's no so much as playing along as it is just being respectful.
It also does not hurt anyone just to be polite.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.

Or, they're all just having a laugh at her expense. I find this all really humorous, and yet I can't help but feel a little bad for laughing.

If she does this regularly, somebody should have helped her get help. Ignoring and playing along with the insanity isn't helping.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Usually I end up with a strong dislike of city councils or groups like them in general. The viciousness and petty squabbles that erupt in these groups are often blown far out of proportions to the issues that instigated them.
That being said. I honestly am finding it strange that this city council has earned some respect from me.
They know of this lady's illness but continue to allow her to speak in front of them and do not hinder her in any way.
From the article,
"She usually speaks twice a month during the council's open mic sessions, where citizens can talk for up to five minutes on any topic. The council sits patiently until she is done."
Had she been doing this in Dallas Tx, or any of the surrounding cities I have no doubt that she would of been forcibly removed and banned from returning. More likely causing even more damage to her psyche by adding the idea that she is being prosecuted for her ideas and beliefs.
Hats off for this city councils understanding and patients.

>> ^MrFisk:

This woman makes fliers and hands them out on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/video-of-testifier-s-anti-gay-words-goes-viral-but/article_82ec7104-4062-5988-8e56-8effde1
ff202.html


There is actually a super sad story underneath the surface. They say they can't do anything about her mental illness unless she harms someone...

"He said her family has tried to get her help multiple times, but unless she harms herself or others, there's not much more they can do."

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^hpqp:
According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.


Well played, good sir.

>> ^hpqp:

According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crazy, lady, speaks, lgbt, protection, ordinance, OMG' to 'crazy, lady, speaks, lgbt, protection, ordinance, OMG, nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

Such a non-retraction. Again, only sorry for the wording not the sentiment and then, only because he got called out:


"I apologize to anyone I have unintentionally offended," Sean Harris, pastor of Berean Baptist Church wrote in a statement on his church's website. "I did not say anything to intentionally offend anyone in the LGBT community.

"My intent was to communicate the truth of the Word of God concerning marriage," the statement continued. "My words were not scripted. It is unfortunate I was not more careful and deliberate."

"Berean Baptist explains its stance on discipline of children on its website:
"Remembering the love and forgiveness that God has shown them, parents in turn should train their children with the purpose of reflecting the Heavenly Father to their children. Parents should consider their responsibility to be the instrument of discipline in their child's life (Prov. 19:18). At times this may include appropriate and reasonable physical means (Prov. 10:13) employed upon the fleshy portion of the child's buttocks (Prov. 22:15; 23:13); that this method is to be viewed as correction rather than punishment (Prov. 23:13); and that this correction will result in the child's physical and spiritual betterment.""

>> ^sepatown:

his retraction:
http://ww
w.ketv.com/news/national/N-C-pastor-retracts-sermon-remarks-about-punching-gay-kids/-/9674576/12529326/-/bs2q95/-/index.html
"I did not say anything to intentionally offend anyone in the LGBT community."