Like many young people who grew up in Texas, I was disillusioned with and apathetic toward politics. I used to believe “both parties are the same” and “nothing ever changes anyway.”

That was stupid. Both parties aren’t the same. And things can definitely change — for the worst.

By passing the Heartbeat Bill and effectively gutting abortion, the Texas Republican Party has proved that women’s rights are fragile and can be taken away at any moment.

They’ve passed legislation based on their fundamentalist ideology — even though the Supreme Court has a much less restrictive definition of viability — because they want to force their oppressive and misogynistic way of life on all women.

I’m lucky that I’ve never been in a position where I needed to have an abortion. I’m lucky that a family member, friend, or stranger never raped me, and that I never had a pregnancy that could cause me significant harm.

But because of the Republican Party, any woman who falls into those categories — rape, incest, dangerous pregnancies — will have two options: carry a fetus for nine months before bringing it into the world and raising it for the next 18 years or risk their lives in dangerous at-home abortions.

As horrific as that is, it doesn’t stop there. The Heartbeat Bill is only one piece of a much larger endgame: Republicans are creating a world where anything that doesn’t fit their narrow, fundamentalist version of reality is punished.

Through the voter suppression bill they’re consolidating government into their own hands. Through the peddling of lies, conspiracy theories and culture wars (critical race theory, anti-mask and anti-vaccine mandates), the Republican Party has radicalized large portions of the population to believe in their extremism.

It’s disgusting.

As a young, religious woman, I’m terrified. The Republican Party of today is unmitigated pedagogy. So, if you feel the disillusionment and apathy I used to, it’s time to wake up.

I’m building a new communications team within the Galveston County Democratic Party because I believe in the party’s vision for the future. I believe that the government should exist to better the lives of its citizens and that our nation becomes more prosperous and competitive on a global stage if everyone — regardless of race, gender or economic class — has a fair shot at the American Dream.

This can only happen if we protect the autonomy and rights of our people, not take away rights from half of our population. It’s insanely simple but too politically unattractive for Republicans.

But I need more young people like me. As someone who’s not a politician, I’ll give it to you straight: There’s a ton to be done, the bureaucracy/procedures feel like molasses and some of the personalities remind me of middle school.

But these horrific laws don’t affect most of our Republican lawmakers who can score their political points and die in 20 years; they affect us.

Join me, and let’s get to work.

Angel Maredia is the communications lead for the Galveston County Democratic Party.

Locations

Recommended for you

(124) comments

Carlos Ponce

There's a reason why Democrats do not do well in Galveston County. It is not an age thing. It has to do with values. Most in this county do not believe in harming the innocent. That baby has its own DNA and is given the spark of life at conception.

Michael Jozwiak

But why is the GOP so concerned about embryos, but after a child is born they just ignore children who are hungry, ill, or abandoned? And at 6 weeks it doesn't even have a heartbeat.

Carlos Ponce

" but after a child is born they just ignore children who are hungry, ill, or abandoned? " - that's a lie.

A Johns Hopkins’ textbook entry said “the fetal heart begins beating as early as the 5th week after the [last menstrual period].” While heartbeat dopplers used at 12 to 14 weeks does not allow you to hear the beat itself, ultrasounds allow doctors to confirm a heartbeat.

"And at 6 weeks it doesn't even have a heartbeat." - another lie

"A fetal heart beat can be detected by 22 days..."

"Basic Science in Obstetrics and Gynaecology" by Sailesh Kumar(Fourth Edition), 2010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/fetal-heart

Charles Douglas

Mr. Ponce> Years ago there was a rich man who made his own rules to live by while he lived on the earth, because he thought he was so smart. He was so smart he memorized scriptures, and use his knowledge of them to make fun of God in public like some others I know. The bible states he ended up in HELL, and tried to make reference to those scriptures to pray, but once you are in HELL, ..you've waited to late to repeant. So it is with any individual who thinks he/she knows more than God, who inspired the writing of ALL scriptures given for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

I just finished a thirity-five day bout & isolation with COVID,...I've been sick before, but never like that! Having faith, knowing how to pray, and knowing others who knew what I know,... and knowing those of faith who have gotten results from "ON HIGH" in the past, served me well!

[wink][wink]

Paula Flinn

I’m sorry you were sick with the virus, Charles. Here’s wishing you a good recovery with no after effects. You’re in my prayers.

Charles Douglas

I appreciate it Ms. Flinn. Thanks a bunch! It was quite an ordeal, but we made it!

Gary Scoggin

Glad you are recovering, you old goat!

Charles Douglas

Thank you "OG"...I'm very blessed to be here ..that was something I would not wish on anybody!

DANIEL PICKETT

Charles, I am so sorry to hear that you had COVID. I hope you have a full recovery without any long-haul symptoms.

Charles Douglas

Mr Pickett> Thanks you I appreciate it. It would seem that I am about 99.5 percent now, and getting better. I self isolated for about 35 days but I had some of the best prayer warriors, I could find ..standing in the gap and making up the hedge on my behalf! I used all the scriptures and performed all the corresponding actions in faith fighting the enemy who attacked me,..... in order to beat him back!! Lolo.

David Hardee

Charles - were you vaccinated? I'm not trying to intrude on your privacy or make a point on the decision to yea or nay on vaccination. But among all the confusing reports we are suffering every incident from a trusted source will be valuable.

Bailey Jones

Yes, David, Charles was vaccinated. Jesus told him it was the thing to do, and he did it, and it likely saved his life. Did I get that about right, Charles?

Charles Douglas

Mr. Jones, that is absolutely correct! I got to much work to do helping the LORD around this place ...to leave now! Poor people all over the world who needs our help, the incarcerated, homeless, the hungry, and more ...I meet them everywhere! They are my responsibility, just like the man who fell among theives, who robbed and beat the man, then left him destitute and wounded along side of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, in the book of LUKE 10:30-37. This man was the Good Samaritan's responsibility!!

You will note that there were others who did not do what the Good Samaritan did with what he was blessed with, but instead passed the wounded man by ....and did Nothing to help him! Nothing has changed, time has not changed the hearts of people, people have to do that for themselves by guarding what they allow to come in their hearts.

( Proverbs 4: 23 ) ...because as a man thinketh in his heart ..so is he. ( Proverbs 23:7 ). These processes determines what comes out in the way of Inspirations, proclamations, and demonstrations in them live of a man! [wink]

Bailey Jones

You're a good man, Charles.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Hardee, yes I was vaccinated! Two shots of the Pzifer Vaccine. Thanks you for your concern. I am ready to go fight the Taliban now!!!

David Hardee

Thanks for reply, Sir. I'll ready to join you in battle with the Taliban. But at 81 and no war combat experience, (a few mutual bruising in youthful conflicts) I'll need you guidance. Sign me up. David

Ed Buckner

Mr. Douglas, You have my deep sympathy over having COVID and I'm truly happy you are well, or at least on the road to recovery, now.

Charles Douglas

I appreciate it Mr. Buckner! Thank you.

Bailey Jones

I'm so glad you got vaccinated, Charles. I'd hate to see you suffer the full effects of this disease. Get weller sooner. The GCDN comment section would not be the same without you.

Ed Buckner

I remain a big fan of Bailey Jones, and I have only a small quibble with this comment. I am also glad Charles Douglas was vaccinated and is recovered, or nearly so, from COVID. But it's pretty important, I think, to keep in mind and clearly state the probabilistic aspects of all this. There have been, rarely, some ill effects of vaccination. There have been, less rarely but still infrequent, fully vaccinated folks who have gotten COVID and even who have suffered "the full effects of this disease," even dying of it. The vaccines, masks, social distancing, etc., are none of them 100% guarantees--but they are dramatically more likely to help than to hurt.

Indeed, Charles, "Get weller sooner" is something all reasonable people surely wish you.

Ed Buckner

For more details on what I meant-- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/12/1036356773/i-got-a-mild-breakthrough-case-heres-what-i-wish-id-known

Lizzie Tish

[thumbup] SO very true, Bailey!! [smile]

Lizzie Tish

I am SO sorry to hear that you have been so sick, Charles! [sad][sad]. I am just catching up on my reading, so please forgive my late response. I have missed your writings the past couple of days. I hope you are feeling better!

Ed Buckner

Thank you and best of luck, Angel Maredia. It should be a slam dunk to choose actual, living, breathing women over potential human beings, but some choose the latter, anyway. Organize and don't assume that obviously wise choices will be made unless the people, the voters, are educated.

Bailey Jones

I'm always happy to see young people come to the realization that the government belongs to them - and the future of our country as well.

I haven't had much to say about the abortion bill - because I know it's not meant to be taken seriously. The Trump-packed SC may well overturn Roe v Wade, but this miscarriage of an abortion bill isn't the vehicle that will facilitate that. This bill is a scam - an anticonstitutional mishmash of garbage that I can only assume was cobbled together by Austin's Republican fratboys and incels after a long night of drinking and woman-hating.

Luckily for Abbott, no one remembers history. No one remembers the last time this was done - waaaaaay back in 2017 - when the equally absurd fetal tissue burial abomination bill was passed. And just like this one, it was a cynical ploy to dupe the Republican base - and let's face it, that's usually a safe political bet. Make a law that you know the base will love, but the courts will laugh at, then when it gets thrown out for being stupidly, almost magically, unconstitutional, you can claim that you and the base are once again victims of a liberal secular socialist anti-Jesus world that's turned its back on all things good and moral.

Political theater - it's all we have for government in Texas. Here's hoping a new generation will see through the BS that the Boomers of the grand OLD party cannot.

Ed Buckner

Well said, as always, Bailey Jones. Mr. Jones should write--and the GCDN should publish--a weekly column.

Bailey Jones

Thanks, Ed, but I'll pass. Unlike 90% of the commenters here, I work for a living.

George Croix

First, I think this legislation should be amended to include exceptions for rape, incest, and REAL danger to the woman’s health from the pregnancy. Nothing in life is absolute short of the moment of death.

Second, presumably the author has a heartbeat.

Is she, then, a “potential human being”?

If you have a heartbeat, you are considered physically alive. A doctor will not try to stop your heartbeat, then toss your remains into a dumpster.

Third, as usual, we can always count on our ‘progressive’ fellow Americans to accuse others of the exact things they themselves are doing, all the better to deflect. As but one point, I’m pretty sure the “culture war” of CRT is not a conservative promotion, but it sure as heck is being corrected by them…

Gary Scoggin

Why exclusions for rape and incest? It’s not the baby’s fault how it was conceived. Do the circumstances around the conception alter the baby’s humanity?

Carlos Ponce

What do Eartha Kitt and Ethel Waters have in common? Both are singers but both were conceived as a result of rape.

George Croix

Because nothing is absolute in my world, Gary, and it doesn’t take weeks for a victim of a crime to know it’s occurred…

Just exactly as I see a difference between killing a person attacking me with a knife vs one handing me a knife to cut my steak…

Nice try, though…

Gary Scoggin

If life begins at conception, or thereabouts, that implies you value lives created by consensual sex more than those that weren’t. If life doesn’t begin then, then where does it start. And does it start at a different place for those conceived by rape than those conceived in the back seat of a car? Neither baby is attacking you with a knife.

Ed Buckner

Gary Scoggin and George Croix, life can be said to begin millions of years ago, with human cells alive through millions of generations and becoming human beings only after conception, gestation, and birth. Or at conception. Or after three months of gestation. Or at birth. The choice of what definition to use is somewhat arbitrary and inevitably is based on what position one takes on abortion. Human history and culture is replete with wildly varying takes on this and no easy answer. Calling a clump of cells an egg, a sperm, a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, or a baby depends largely on biological definitions, but politics tinges the discussion mightily. If someone put a tiny clump of cells that biologists call a zygote, without explanation, into your hand, no reasonable person would exclaim, "My, what a beautiful baby!" Even most people well aware of what had been handed them would think no more than, "Hard to believe anything so tiny and inchoate has the potential to be come a human baby." So, should you use the correct definitions? Whatever definitions you use, you should recognize that that's not the way everyone sees it--not fixed and *right.*

George Croix

Try actually reading what I wrote, Gary. I used the word heartbeat. Did I not.

I don’t need you or that other guy or anybody else to tell me what I REALLY must be thinking. Just read the words.

I haven’t said word one about inception or clumps of cells or any of that other snidely hysterical waltz through terminology being attempted.

I say if you have a heartbeat you are physically alive.

Not even the most ardent advocate for infanticide can deny that unless they discount their own life.

George Croix

ps: Get your drawers unwadded and see that I did write I disagree with no exception for rape, incest, or REAL woman health problems. Take yes for an answer.

I don’t give a flip what that other character takes.

Gary Scoggin

Sorry George. Knickers now untwisted.

Bailey Jones

Gary, the exceptions for rape and incest have nothing to do with the baby. They're there to protect anti-abortion laws. A woman who has been raped, or sexually molested by a family member, wants justice and restitution just like any other victim of any other crime. These forced pregnancies are acts of sexual violence. Justice and restitution means returning her body and her life to their pre-crime states.

There was a time when women in this country were routinely raped, and routinely forced under threat of violence to bear and raise the children of their rapists. Today we call that a crime against humanity. So any law that requires a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term is going to be indefensible in the arena of public opinion - and that's why even opponents of abortion insist on it.

The fact that this law doesn't include the "rape and incest" clause is further proof that Abbott & co didn't expect this law to go anywhere. They expected it to get struck down and their base to be clutching their pearls and their checkbooks by now. But it blew up in their faces. Instead of just being a national joke, Abbott's law is now seen as a possible national nightmare - and it's energizing the base - of the other party.

Gary Scoggin

Here’s my point in being a bit pedantic about this. For someone who is truly anti-abortion and believes life starts at conception (which is different from being pro-life), the exception for rape and incest is pure hypocrisy. The rape and incest exception illustrates that this new law is less about preventing abortion and more about securing the evangelical base. It’s a new, innovative front in the culture war.

The word “abortion” doesn’t appear in either the Bible or the Constitution so I consider it a fair topic for a political solution. God didn’t make me smart enough to know when life begins but my personal presumption is that it begins early in the pregnancy process. But I don’t have the confidence to force my views on someone else.

The conservative, pro-life writer David French talks about how it’s more important to end abortion than to ban abortion. We end abortion through supporting women who unintentionally become pregnant and through education and birth control we help women from becoming pregnant in the first place. In economic terms, we control demand, not supply.

A key part of this is to actually become a pro-life society. A society that cares for mothers, children and families, relieving them of the stresses brought about by limited access to medical care, food, employment, housing, and education. A society that cares as much for the baby after it’s born as it does before.

Bailey Jones

Gary -" it’s more important to end abortion than to ban abortion" - I couldn't agree more. Abortion has never been the problem. It's a solution to the problem. And since the rate at which women get abortions has steadily declined over the last 40 years one could conclude that there are non-punitive ways to reduce abortions that work just fine.

My opinion on abortion is in line with the majority of Americans. And it's also absolutely irrelevant since I'm not a woman.

But the pro/anti choice political machines are in their 5th decade now. That's three generations of activists who have invested themselves in one side or the other. I doubt that it's a fight that either side can walk away from now. The arguments certainly haven't evolved over the decades.

Charles Douglas

"OG" Gary, far it be from me to tell you what or who to believe in! You say that "Abortion" does not Appear in the Bible, there is no need for it to be there when God Almighty said " Thou shall do no murder!" THAT TAKES IN ALL MURDERS, INCLUDING ABORTION! Now you or anybody else can diddle around with the Gospel and what God meant to satisfy your own consciences, it is okay by Me, but: You or anybody else will NEVER ....NEVER BOOGER-JIVE God.... that because he did not inspire the Word Abortion to be placed in the Word of God ....it is okay to murder the unborn! XI JINPING, Joe China, & Vladimir Putin might buy that,...

But any Christian worth his salt will never fall in that "hellish" trap! :

" There is no wisdom, understanding, nor counsel against the LORD!" PROVERB 21:30. This simply means that a mere man who was created by the creator IS going to play HELL trying to OUTSMART the LORD, and I don't care if he/she have more degrees than a thermometer! It is a Fool who think that God doesn't know if you will be breathing 61.5 days from now & what you will have for breakfast if you are!

God has proven himself to me over and over in my life, in the South, Overseas, in all my career choices and in my everyday dealings Lastly, as I said before, to each his own, if you want to support the mass murder of the unborn it is not my responsibility, to talk you down, because I just told you the will of God toward it, and now you have no excuse, and it will be a matter of record when you or anybody else who read this ...stands before the Judgement Seat on the last day! You cannot say, " Lord, I did not KNOW!" In the laws of Texas many times the language goes like, " YOU KNEW OR HAD REASON TO KNOW!"

That is why the Word exists, and God has his people out taking the Word to the four corners of the earth, for others to know or to FIND OUT! That is also the reason the HOLY SPIRIT is in the earth today to help us to know and rightly understand & divide the Word Of Truth! There is no excuse for NOT knowing what his word says! So I say this, I hope you will think soberly concerning what I've said. It is not for my benefit I posted this here, I took the time and effort to go get anointed, formal training to learn what I have said here, in order to minister it to the sick, the incarcerated, the poor, and the destitute! Now it is up to you! Be not deceived, many think they have long lives to live, when death could visit them in the night, and what if they are laying there with their souls not right, deceived by the world and the Princes of the power of the air? What then? Hell? Lake Of Fire for all eternity? I will leave you with that! If You are right and I'm wrong, we are ALL GOOD, but if I'm right and you along with many others who are of the same thinking are wrong, somebody has a problem! Willing to take that chance with your soul? Really? When eternal torment in the LAKE awaits? You better think on this some more!

Gary Scoggin

Charles…. I have so much I want to say here but out of respect for you and others, I’ll leave it unsaid except to say that I appreciate your concern for my eternal soul. And to be clear, I don’t support the “mass murder” of the unborn. I had hoped I made that clear.

Ted Gillis

And the rich girls will just go to another state to seek an abortion.

David Smith

Squaw Angel talk em with forked tongue..

Religious? You can straighten this old boomer out by telling me what religion allows killing babies..

One more thing.. the democrat party could care less about you..They only want to dilute thisp country to the point where theres nothing left.. opepn em squawks eyes

Bailey Jones

Wow - we usually have to rely on the other David (H) for thisp level of racist misogyny.

David Hardee

I am the David H that Bailey J has on his mind when he gets excited by even any quip that demeans a progressive liberal. I do not approve of any ethnic references pro or con that is loosely used. A statistical evaluation like polls by the race are repugnant. Misogyny - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women - certainly is not in my nature for the reason a natural woman with her nurturing instinct is the on human that prompt the species in total (both sexes) the virtue of selflessness. Women smooth the aggression of men, protect the weak and inspire civility. There are innate difference in the sexes. Recognizing rationally the innate differences is not misogyny, Bailey.

P.s. get a better spell checker. Touché!

Charles Douglas

Mr. Smith> You are the man ....my friend!!! [thumbup]

Irwin Fletcher

Neither party should be put above the will of the people. Party politics are just a way to further separate the masses and should be dissolved. We need people in those positions to further the needs of the people they represent - not those who line their pocket books with dark money and less than 15% of the popular vote.

Diane Turski

Thank you, Angel, for joining the good fight!

Carlos Ponce

Even in a "good fight" somebody has to lose. Democrats don't fight a "good fight". They play to win. They fight dirty.

Charles Douglas

Mr. Ponce> They will run out on you in a fight too, ...leave YOU behind to die!

Stephanie Martin

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”

Ed Buckner

Since we're reduced to flinging out Bible verses, Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.” But the far more important point is that Bible verses, variously interpreted, carry weight with Bible believers--but this is a free country, not a Christian nation.

Charles Douglas

Ms. Martin> Thank you for standing up! "The ungodly shall not stand in the judgement, nor the sinner in the congregation of the righteous." Psalm 1:5 ( Goats will be separated from the sheep for eternity!!!!!!).

It won't be no "Smack-talking" that day, and of that you can be sure!. Lolo.

Kim Baldwin

[thumbup]

David Smith

Racist? Not me..

Dont respond to me with your rhetoric.. respond to what I said.

DONT ttell me your religious.. and you condone ABORTION..

Attack the Message !!!

. Not the MESSANGER

Ed Buckner

Mr. Smith, let me attack the message: it is profoundly irrational to claim that one can ONLY be religious if one agrees with you about abortion. I am certainly not, by anyone's definition, religious, but you lack the power to define the word for others. If someone disagrees with you about capital punishment, can they be religious? What about in re having a $15 an hour minimum wage? Taxing the rich? war? 75 mph speed limits on the Gulf Freeway? vaccination mandates for smallpox? Where exactly do you draw the line(s)? And remember, attack the message, not the messenger.

Your turn.

domenico nuckols

IF the heartbeat bill stands the up coming court challenges, what happens to the children whose parents can’t take care of them? Republicans won’t pay for them. Wouldn’t expand Medicaid. Cut special education. CPS is a joke. This decision should be left to the woman not the state.

Carlos Ponce

There are many agencies available to set up adoption of a newborn.

domenico nuckols

I apologize to the employees of CPS intent under funded and doesn’t work that well

Charles Douglas

What's the matter? Not enough African-Americans babies being aborted in this country every year? Want more of them to die?

domenico nuckols

1. Be responsible 2. Don’t be a Republican 3. Don’t do a prize fight on 9/11 4. Big insult to me and the first responders

David Smith

Satire Bailey .. grab a breath

Although serious message.. no racist

I live by the MLK Creed..

( content of charcactor)..

Never confuse me with the facist...

Bailey Jones

David, all I know of your "charcactor" comes from the comments you post. And they are racist and misogynistic. If you feel that your comments misrepresent you, I suggest hiring an editor.

Carlos Ponce

This column hopes to achieve "Death by thousands of paper cuts". County Democrat Party leadership thinks a continuous barrage of attacks on Republicans and Conservatives will unseat them in the next election cycle. It did not work in the past. It's not going to work now.

Angel Maredia's (et al) post won't change any votes. But she is welcome to try. Her goal must be to shore up the Liberal base.

Note to Angel: Saying you are religious and pro-abortion is a definite turn off to church attending Galveston Countians. But if that's your aim, go for it.

David Hardee

There is a straight line to the answer that abortion is criminal, murder. Only a diversion or perversion from a mind that is ignorant of the path to abortion or a mind distorted for serving an agenda would condone any abortion as okay. All that condone abortion have the mental delusion described in the previous sentence - read it again if confused. Most of the deluded are those espousing the liberal progressive agendas.

First one must agree a pregnancy is not a miraculous event. Ergo to have a pregnancy or not requires intentional actions on the part of at least one and in the majority of cases both participants, to copulate. Whether the copulation was legally consensual or not, the participants can together or individually, prevent a pregnancy from developing. I.e. Abstaining from copulation, using the multitude of prevention techniques, and or reactive/responsible to and for the event of menstrual cycles and reacting to a menstrual cycle interruption in a timely manner.

Having an accidental/unaware pregnancy is only the result of irresponsibility, extreme ignorance and failure of those in the know of failing to act. Consequently there are no accidental/unaware pregnancies from either a consensual or nonconsensual including rape or incest. And the event of a fetal heartbeat is the only indication of a viable life and the impending birth of a human. Abortion is the termination of a heartbeat and murder.

The "heartbeat" being the indication of a viable life is undoubtedly the only point to use in making a determination, and erecting legislation that ANY abortion is murder of a living human being. Persons that knowing and willingly participate in the murder by abortion are legally criminals. Secrecy of the abortion is the desperate event not to be sympathized and mitigated away. Sufficient couples and institution are plenty to adopt or provide for babies, if the frivolous attitude of society toward copulations and pregnancies were not promoted by the progressive LIBERALS stupidity for condoning no fault to pregnancy.

In conclusion I borrow this statement from a GDN editorial by Michael Smith about our society. A society of “That tolerance is delusional because the erosion eventually will get to us all if allowed to go unchallenged.” Wise up progressive liberals, stop sympathizing, excusing and mitigating irresponsibility with legal charlatan-eristic interpretation of laws and MAGA.

For the consideration of any uniformed, here are a few legal tests/remedies to a copulation that could result in pregnancy.

1. A pregnancy test result is considered trustworthy only after 10 days.

2. The remedy of a pregnancy by the morning after pil is 99% effective.

3. Medical D&C.

No abortion is committed when an in-progress copulation is terminated by any act executed before a heartbeat/life exists - “A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks after gestation. That's when a fetal pole, the first visible sign of a developing embryo, can sometimes be seen. But between 6 1/2 to 7 weeks after gestation, a heartbeat can be better assessed.”

The author of this article is one of those who were juveniles infected by the progressive liberals' ongoing indoctrination, that nothing is shameful, or should be judged/discriminated against. Liberals teach that an individual is entitled to be their own God, Law, and any perspective that an individual can produce becomes reality, that all society must accept. For example, progressive liberals teach and promote that an individual’s genitalia is inconsequential if the individual’s perception denies it as indicative of gender. And any word denoting gender is an insult and inappropriate for categorizing representation in things like the census. The progressives are vigorous and enthusiastic at work to re-imagine even math so 2+2 will be convoluted. These purveyors of nonsense are rapidly ascending to be acclaimed as stupid personified. And stupid can never be fixed.

Some in this thread of comments deserve recognition for their support for murdering a heartbeat as the right for a declare gender perspective individual (normally a female) to CHOOSE, Those specific progressive liberals in this thread of comments (bb,eb,dt) are easily identified as repetitive committing delusions “That tolerance, (of delusions), is delusional because the erosion eventually will get to us all if allowed to go unchallenged.”

Ed Buckner

Mr. Hardee presents, as he has before, long and detailed commentary which he insists is dispositive and conclusive. The problem this time, as before, is that he doesn't seem to understand basic logic and debate. For an argument to proceed, both (or all) sides must be willing to engage in discussions about what assumptions are being made and what definitions apply. Merely asserting that one's definitions and assumptions are THE correct ones is useless for discourse. When I have attempted rational discourse with Mr. Hardee previously, he has deflected and refused to engage. My advice to others is not to waste your time and effort, as I have. Mr. Hardee apparently is content to abide in a closed circle, undisturbed.

David Hardee

The problem you find with my presentations Mr. Buckner, is my, what you refer to as "long and detailed commentary which he insists is dispositive and conclusive" is declarative with substantial supporting evidence, which leaves Bucker and ilk no rejoinder except to attack the messenger.

Read your comment Mr. Buckner and you find you have done nothing but complain about how I presented, and without identifying any what you consider "assumptions" or "one's definitions" you consider as not being "logical and conclusive."

Your correct that "Mr. Hardee apparently is content to abide in a closed circle, undisturbed." because I am very judicious and evaluate from every angle the books and authors, people and their recitations that attempt to enter my circle/mind as being logical, credible, unbiased, and not self serving or agenda oriented. Buckner the parade of progressive liberals you march in is the nest of bias, perceptive non-sense, group think and peculiarities that are irritation to tranquility.

Please don't continue to "waste your time" the others of your ilk have already surrendered. And to give to free thinker's, "advice to others is not to waste your time and effort, as I have. Those "others" that have not been jaded with progressive liberalism will respond to my presentation's context accordingly.

I don't want you censored but do encourage rebuke when deserved.

David Hardee

Wow, Buckner your claim, " Mr. Hardee previously, he has deflected and refused to engage." Is in a polite discussion called, A WOPPER.

Ed Buckner

My claim has been quite well supported, though not in this exchange. No one is likely to care, but if anyone does, s/he can review previous exchanges and see for themselves.

David Hardee

Gee wiz, Ed is resorting to pouting and taking refuge in the cuddling of the love fest of the mutual admiration progressive liberals, and claiming he is more popular than I. Your comment reminds me of the playground - mine is bigger and better than yours - squabbling.

Recall Ed you said, “When I have attempted rational discourse with Mr. Hardee previously, he has deflected and refused to engage.” Well - where is your rational discourse - and you’ve been engaged sufficiently, and now you're at the bottom of the barrel by squabbling.

For any that may consider Mr. Buckner is NOT jaded and biased, be aware Edward Milton Buckner has a wonderful disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia - son of a clergyman - well educated - is the past president of The American Atheist Society - resident of Georgia etc. and a formidable opponent to be debated.

It is so unfortunate that the highly educated so often resort to agenda oriented activism when they are extremely qualified for mentoring (spreading knowledge) to achieve thought provoking stimulation toward creating tranquility, which is needed so badly, today.

Expounding further philosophically by me/us unwashed with no claim of superiority of degrees and notoriety has not had much result, yet. May the Prime Mover, or who the Atheist recognizes bless America as we struggle on.

Can I get an Amen, if allowed, Ed? See you around the neighborhood - GDN.

David

Ed Buckner

Strangeness abounds. Mr. Hardee apparently thinks revealing my middle name is relevant discourse whereas refusing to grapple with assumptions and clarifications about what "murder" or "baby" or the beginning of human life is an effective debate technique. Mr. Hardee truly seems to think that assertion is all that is needed, so I'll just assert: I'm right. No need to discuss, right, Mr. H? Who said ought about "popular," BTW? In fact, I emphatically reject any notion that the popularity of ideas is much related to the soundness thereof.

David Hardee

Buckner, your middle name was only revealed so that those wanting to review your Wikipedia report about the glorious accomplishment as an Atheist would not get the wrong Buckner since your son also is on Wikipedia.

Okay, Ed, since my first attempt to expound on "what is LIFE relative to abortion was inconceivable I'll go at it with the same conclusion but from another angle that includes some of your tacking/maneuverings for an approach based on what is a HUMAN.

If there is “strangeness” among our tet a tete it’s that a man of your letters at minimum cannot comprehend that a heartbeat is the determination that life exists. An if a pregnancy has proceed to the point a heartbeat is detected life exist and the unnatural termination of that heartbeat by a procedure called abortion there has been a murder. Buckner’s strangeness wants to quibble over whether the heartbeat in the womb is a human being. What could it be other than a human baby, Ed?

Buckner recites all the terms used by the medical community (egg, sperm, zygote, even a mixture of fluid in his hand etc.) to argue the term “human” is not valid for a heartbeat in the womb. What else could it be?

Buckner like all progressive liberals cleeve to Roe v Wade as doctrine frclaring abortions are perogative of choice. Yet as strict reading the Court states, the decision/opinion rendered to the STATES the prerogative of when life exists. There is the struggle between choice to abort and the babies right to life.

Essentially abortion is a political, biological, popularity and legal commundrum. The State of Texas is taking the weakness of the supreme court's decision/opinion to produce legislation that solidifies that the heartbeat is the indication that HUMAN LIFE exists and any abortion without significant codified reasons,excusions/inclusions is illegal ergo prosecutable, (murder).

This issue has been a societal irritant since 1891 and in 1973 Roe v Wade the Supreme diddled and dithered an opinion which open the popularity of abortion and made the undesirable baby innoculous which caused the cascade of abortion.

In general, this popularity of abortions and the frivilous consideration of pregnancy has created a corrupting affect on the morals of society. To provide veracity to the claim abortion is corrupting, one only has to observe the result on those societal practices that are attenuated with abortion. Undoubted that morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. - did once and should always, instll vituous/responsible conduct towards abortion, sex acts, marriage and parental guidance of children, and produce virtuous effects on the universal psychology of society in general, mores.

The answer on the value of abortion is simply in the answer to this - what are the good effects of abortions on those items we listed above and society in general. No good effect has resulted from abortions or on any of the attenuated societal principle and practices.

The Texas heartbeat legislation will increase the reflection and consideration on having an abortion and which conversly decreases the irresponsable attitudes that are prevailing today.

No abortion should be a celerated event.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Hardee's latest is long enough and calls me out so thoroughly (though not accurately) that I will, in due course, reply. (Thousands of GCDN forum-ites are cheering--I can hear you all the way over here in Georgia.) Stay tuned. Bate your breath. And like that.

Ed Buckner

In what follows, in this extra long post (so good that teachers everywhere will be requiring their students to memorize it, as I’m sure all 7,894 of you will agree), parts (many multiple paragraphs long) that start with DH were written by David Hardee and posted on GCDN on 13 September 2021 CE. Parts (some multiple paragraphs long) that start with EB were written by Ed Buckner and also posted on GCDN on 13 September 2021 CE.

DH Buckner, your middle name was only revealed so that those wanting to review your Wikipedia report about the glorious accomplishment as an Atheist would not get the wrong Buckner since your son also is on Wikipedia.

EB There is a Wikipedia entry on me. I did not write it and don’t know who did. It’s mostly accurate but not entirely. (Anyone who wants to know if a particular bit is correct need only ask.) When I tried to correct it, Wiki claimed I was interfering somehow with the proper process. There is another Ed Buckner—no known relationship—who has a Wikipedia entry—he’s a Little Rock, Arkansas TV weatherman and probably wishes no one would confuse me and him. My son is mentioned on the Internet in many places, but there is no Wikipedia entry on him.

DH Okay, Ed, since my first attempt to expound on "what is LIFE relative to abortion was inconceivable I'll go at it with the same conclusion but from another angle that includes some of your tacking/maneuverings for an approach based on what is a HUMAN.

If there is “strangeness” among our tet a tete it’s that a man of your letters at minimum cannot comprehend that a heartbeat is the determination that life exists. An if a pregnancy has proceed to the point a heartbeat is detected life exist and the unnatural termination of that heartbeat by a procedure called abortion there has been a murder. Buckner’s strangeness wants to quibble over whether the heartbeat in the womb is a human being. What could it be other than a human baby, Ed?

Buckner recites all the terms used by the medical community (egg, sperm, zygote, even a mixture of fluid in his hand etc.) to argue the term “human” is not valid for a heartbeat in the womb. What else could it be?

Buckner like all progressive liberals cleeve to Roe v Wade as doctrine frclaring abortions are perogative of choice. Yet as strict reading the Court states, the decision/opinion rendered to the STATES the prerogative of when life exists. There is the struggle between choice to abort and the babies right to life.

Essentially abortion is a political, biological, popularity and legal commundrum. The State of Texas is taking the weakness of the supreme court's decision/opinion to produce legislation that solidifies that the heartbeat is the indication that HUMAN LIFE exists and any abortion without significant codified reasons,excusions/inclusions is illegal ergo prosecutable, (murder).

This issue has been a societal irritant since 1891 and in 1973 Roe v Wade the Supreme diddled and dithered an opinion which open the popularity of abortion and made the undesirable baby innoculous which caused the cascade of abortion.

EB Mr. Hardee seems to think back-handed compliments facilitate good debate, but calling me a “man of letters” doesn’t make him reasonable. His statement is not only not obviously correct to a well-informed observer, it is nonsense. Mr. Hardee has abided even longer than I have (not by much), and should surely know that quite reasonable people have variously concluded that human life begins at conception, at birth, when the fetus is independently viable, when a functioning brain has developed, or when nerves have first developed, or when one’s great-great-great-great-great grandfather got a gleam in his eye. Human life is in fact reasonably viewed as on a continuum stretching back millions of years, with any divisions into a particular Ed Buckner or David Hardee coming at any number of possible junctures. There just isn’t any absolute or self-evident starting point, though human law, custom, tradition, and religions have chosen many different ones, including most recently by the Texas legislature as a “beating heart.” The many problems with that include that “heart” is not well defined in that legislation. An online dictionary definition: “1.a hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation. In vertebrates there may be up to four chambers (as in humans), with two atria and two ventricles.” But the fetus that has a muscle around six weeks along that “beats” is not yet connected to a developed circulatory system, and no discernible thinking or feeling is yet available in the organism. No fetus or human being is suddenly in possession of a heart or a brain or of a circulatory or nervous system. Development occurs gradually and continuously and only lawmakers and preachers think there is some clear, uncomplicated arrival at any fixed point. Complexity, nuance, and thoughtfulness require careful analysis, not simplistic slogans. Even if one calls what is present in a six-week fetus a heart, that is not remotely sufficient to call the fetus a human being yet. It is equally rational to call the fertilized egg a human being—in both cases, a potential human being is a much more reasonable description.

DH In general, this popularity of abortions and the frivilous consideration of pregnancy has created a corrupting affect on the morals of society. To provide veracity to the claim abortion is corrupting, one only has to observe the result on those societal practices that are attenuated with abortion. Undoubted that morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. - did once and should always, instll vituous/responsible conduct towards abortion, sex acts, marriage and parental guidance of children, and produce virtuous effects on the universal psychology of society in general, mores.

The answer on the value of abortion is simply in the answer to this - what are the good effects of abortions on those items we listed above and society in general. No good effect has resulted from abortions or on any of the attenuated societal principle and practices.

EB Throughout human history, abortions have been performed (sometimes rarely, sometimes routinely) and attitudes about them have also fluctuated dramatically. Whether any given policy or practice regarding abortion has increased or decreased any virtuousness in a population is quite hard to determine. A well-designed time series analysis, with careful operational definitions of the key variables, might show a connection, causal or merely correlative. A mere assertion that “To provide veracity to the claim abortion is corrupting, one only has to observe the result on those societal practices that are attenuated with abortion” is pretty close to meaningless unless actual definitions of things like “corrupting” and “societal practices” are agreed on and effects systematically measured..

DH The Texas heartbeat legislation will increase the reflection and consideration on having an abortion and which conversly decreases the irresponsable attitudes that are prevailing today.

No abortion should be a celerated event.

EB I agree that “no abortion should be a celebrated event” but also that legal control of human behavior should only be undertaken with great care and with well-defined provisions of any law. Vigilante enforcement of any laws about any practice is unwise on its face.

David Hardee

Mr. Buckner, It took time and effort to make a response due to the complexity of the issue and our not necessarily opposing but conflicting approach to what is "abortion."

Your latest response-structure is an excellent model for use by all that want to respond to, comment or present a complex issue. I found the context effective on those points you commented on. Thanks for the sincerity and effort.

As to Wikipedia - Since the item on your book said son was Co-Author - the other Wikipedia Buckner could and did cause confusion,

And no back-hand was deposited - the Wikipedia presentation about you describes a "man of letters" (highly credential as learned) and that in the Atheist community your achievements are exceptional. in total a great Bio.

Your response made clear each of our positions - logical constructions - on what is A LIVING Human, are opposing, on the PARTICULARS of where in the path a justifiable Life or Human is established to legitimize a charge that abortion is murder.

We agree that the frequency and excessive number of abortions has corrupting effects on our GENERAL society.

Since I am not able to make a point economically the following is truly my synopsis.

Mr. Buckner - I have distinguished from our comments that we have created a conundrum that is caused by parallel arguments on what is to be our subject(s) (subject are viable life and or qualified as a human being) that intersect only at one point - abortion.

Your argument is on the veracity of intellectual process while mine is based on the undeniable natural order.

Intellectual processing, even from a secular mind, is never accurate when it involves an issue of morality because, even morality is a social construction.

Your Ed, atheism ( a partial secular) being an outsider from the majority, can see what our parallel(s) arguments do and why there is a conundrum.

Below is what I prepared and have to offer as natural order proof abortion is destroying life. Diametric opposite is our definition. In Buckner’s vernacular only a fully functional human being qualifies as having been murdered and abortion of a intrauterine object never qualifies as a human being. In Hardees vernacular a VIABLE functioning/moving intrauterine object is a living (qualifies as life) and wilful destroying it qualifies as murder.

In an effort to minimize the imprecisions caused by vernacular interpretation and confusion makes it necessary to state this declarative with excessive verbiage and a composition intended to over-stress the theme often misinterpreted in any communication of a complex thought pattern. Consequently: I adhered to strict secular approach and concluded/declared - no matter the surrounding, biological, moral, legal, political, religious, length of term, viability of fetus, etc. - that the unnatural extracting of a viable life from the womb with intent to destroy it is an unnatural extinction of life deserving the popular term for such act - murder - and the sub classification - abortion - and is abhorrent corruption on humanity.

To EB - Sir your presentation of the chronology of the path and stages from fertilization through the development stages is thorough. The conclusion of when life exists, at heartbeat or is it necessary to have a specific definition of a “human being” makes for a peculiar and divisive argument. Peculiar because we are pitting the natural world’s undeniable fact of an established LIVING entity - against - the irrational man’s construction of an intellectual exercise making dogma for what constitutes a human being.

Unfortunately, intellectual constructs are malleable over time. Being malleable means can be reconstructed and changed as man wills it over differing circumstances at time(s) ergo, unreliable and not worthy of debate against the non changing natural order. If we agree, then we must choose either the irrational realm of human beings - where all construct are malleable over time, or the natural world order where definition and agreement is permanent for infinity, I choose natural world order because an agreement there is so strong the intellectual human will accept and modify to fit that conclusion.

Analogy is sometimes better and will give support for a thought pattern transmission - communicating precisely - then a verbal argument.

VERBAL ARGUMENT

In the natural world order, from any point of time the fact is always the same for an infinite period. Even new discoveries must abide by the natural fact(s). Even if Evolution may modify and or remove the existing image, the fact(s) remain.

There is only one distinction between objects and life. That difference is a “spark”. For the human (our subject) the spark of viable life is universally accepted as the egg fertilization.

The next stage of viable life is motion. Since the spark/fertilization is not observable and it is incumbent that an event is necessary to determine viability/life has started and the first motion detectable is “heartbeat.” Ergo no spark nothing. No heartbeat, no further progress. If without unnatural interruption there is No further progress, development or detectable motion, life has ceased and no baby, naturally.

Analogy is - a totally developed car (human being) that is fully capable of motion will only come to life when the spark makes a motor energized (heart beating) and the car function of motion proves it is a living (motion) , without a brain. The heartbeat (motion) is a living and viable human - with or without all of the attenuating features, i.e. brain.

Abotion the word and act is defined as the extraction of a viable moving life from the womb - the further progress stages are irrelevant i.e. attenuating features, limbs, eyes, brain- in the womb. Any removable from the womb of the developing activity of cell actions is not detectable (cell multiplication is not detectable) the “non moving” object’s extraction from the womb is NOT abortion.

All the effort of humans to and on abortion, for sake of a societal need to construct rules/laws, that will control man and judge hin as good, or bad, is an irrational human intellectual process that will be affected/flawed by a myriad of conflicting influences, causing . And the codifying and enforcing of such abortion associated law by government or any of societies institution, sing non-secular approach is abhorrent and corrupting to OUR society

Dh - to EB What abortions' have done to OUR society

Specific to the corruption of OUR society it is my conclusion that the aurora of a individual human (aurora is meant to encompass every element i.e. physical, metaphysical (body, soul, psyche, etc.)) is restricted from FORCED intrusion from all institutions . And that the intrusion by any institution (government (legislation, laws, mandates,) , churches, cults, etc.)) is the event that propagates into society corruption.

The only time an institution's involvement is permissible, is when a criminal act intersects the aurora and then only the perpetrator should be processed.

The occurrence of pregnancy and disposition thereof is the prerogative of the impregnated individual. To seek counsel or disposal is the total prerogative of the impregnated and the service desired must be supplied but discreetly. Those services that are competent to perform abortion must comply and maintain Because allowing any institution to solicit the public for abortions - despite benevolent intent - that solicitation/advertisement is a promotion of abortion an projects an inspiration or acceptability for abortions.

It is that - benevolent intent’s unforeseen consequences - plus solicitation by institutions that has created the cascade of abortions and affected all the attenuating societal principles and practices with corruption(s).

Where the majority of fault/blame falls

Up to the Traditionalist an out of wedlock birth would be shameful as irresponsible. And fear of pregnancy can be satisfied since 1841 by Dilation and curettage a surgical procedure in which the cervix (lower, narrow part of the uterus) is dilated (expanded) so that the uterine lining (endometrium) can be scraped with a curette. This procedure can be requested without exemptions.

The blame for most convolutions that corrupt our society is on the judicial branch of the federal government. No branch of the federal government was EVER to be allowed to tinker in the lives of individuals. The Feds have been usurping the rights of the STATES and INDIVIDUALS with disastrous results. The shield of the original constitution that would contain/restrict the Feds have eroded and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC now resembles a socialist nanny.

The convolutions of abortion are only one of the many the gargantuan growth of Fed corrupting intrusion has caused.

Amen!

Gary Scoggin

After wading through the long repartee between Mssrs. Buckner and Hardee, I am struck with the feeling that both started at their desired endpoints and worked backwards to support their biases.

I don't know with confidence when life begins. Neither do either of you but neither of you can admit it. It is that uncertainty that causes the conundrum.

As was pointed out somewhere in these hundred plus posts, the presence of mere electrical activity in the evolving fetus/baby (pick your term) does not constitute a heart beat because at that point there is no heart or blood stream, there are only a handful of differentiated cells that will eventually become a heart.

That said, there are few distinct sign posts between fertilization and birth. At some point, this developing mass of cells is obviously a human life. As I said earlier, I'm not smart enough to know when (I'm probably one of the few people around here willing to admit this.) but my bias is that that point is earlier rather than later. I also said earlier I'm not comfortable enough in my confidence to make that decision for others.

I also want to emphasise that if the goal is to end abortion, we, as a society, are on the right path. After a spike in abortions shortly after Roe v Wade, the number of abortions in the US has been on a steady decline and is now well below the abortion rate pre-Roe.

I will also say that, in my opinion, Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. This is a matter for state law, not a Constitutional one. As I mentioned before, the word "abortion" does not appear in the Constituion. In Roe, the SCOTUS created a new "right" out of thin air and created a Federal law on an issue clearly in the providence of the states. If and when Roe is overturned, abortion will be legal in some states and not in others. This inconsistency is okay.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Scoggins,

You surprise and disappoint me. Either I wrote less clearly than I thought I did, or you read too hastily. I declared, pretty unambiguously I thought, that there really is not any clear dividing point that can be recognized as THE starting point for a human life, whatever the quite varied conclusions thousands have come to over many generations. I am unwilling to declare that, as some biblical literalists might, that life begins at birth. I am unwilling to declare that, as some Catholic authorities of old held, that life begins at conception (or even before, based on the biblical account of Onan). That leaves a nine months long development during which one can decide when the rights of a woman recede and the rights of the zygote-embryo-fetus-baby emerge. Where that point falls is not readily definable--is necessarily at least somewhat arbitrary. Saying it starts with a "heartbeat" begs the question: what's the definition of a heartbeat or even of a heart (and, you correctly pointed out, that's not straightforward at all)? Why is a heartbeat more telling than mental activity? Or "viability" (ability to live outside the womb)? Or breathing? I'm no constitutional scholar and don't know whether a right to privacy can be reasonably found in the Constitution--though I hope it can. I was glad Roe v. Wade was decided as it was, because it meant some sort of national, predictable, standard that people--especially women--could count on for guidance. I see no serious evidence that "trimesters" are biologically meaningful, but as a basis for an inevitably arbitrary choice of points, I'll take them. It makes little sense to me to say that women should have more rights in one State than in another, but then I'm happy my Confederate ancestors, however bravely they fought, lost the civil war.

Gary Scoggin

Ed... I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear. My post was directed, at several different points, to people of all persuasions. I realize that you are of the no clear bright line camp, as am I. I think our difference is that if we are forced to draw that line - which we legally have been, I would draw it much earlier than you.

Regarding constitutionality, I'm a bit of a literalist. To me, a question like abortion, which is not even hinted at in the Constitution or its amendments, defaults to the Tenth Amendment, puttting it under control of the individual states. I realize this is a messy solution and I'm no constitutional scholar either but I have trouble when the Courts pull "rights" out of thin air. My feelings here have little to do with abortion itself but with the application of our most important foundational document. I think, in general, we have gone too far in creating interpretations that yield the outcomes we want to see. This particular tendency transcends abortion and is probably a topic for another day.

Ed Buckner

Hardee's answer is long and involved and I have not yet read or absorbed it all, so--probably--more later. For now, let me just take strong issue with one thing he wrote: "We agree that the frequency and excessive number of abortions has corrupting effects on our GENERAL society." We do not agree, and nothing I've said would suggest we do. I have said that whether the frequency or number of abortions has had specific effects, good or bad, since 1973 is complex and difficult to measure. My *opinion* is that the effects have not been corrupting or negative, but I have not doen or read any carefully done study related to this. When I noted that relevant variables need to be operationalized and measured, maybe that wasn't clear. For example, what if someone claimed that allowing abortion had increased violent crime in the US? If one merely examined the violent crime rate from 1973 to 1991, where the trend has been toward more violent crime, one might conclude that abortion made it worse (though other variables would have to be accounted for). But then the violent crime rate has gone steadily down from 1991 through 2018 (it was less than half the rate in 2018 compared to 1991) even though abortions continued through all that period to be legal. Any other effect claimed to have been caused by legalizing abortion would require careful analysis.

David Hardee

Mr. Scoggins, thanks for giving this issue attention and weighing through all the comments. Your posting has gleaned the essential dichotomy(s), and spoke to those conflicts, without direct patronizing either, the contested items between Buckner and I.

Let me offer what my series of posts declared on the points of - Life exists when and - where correct is the jurisdiction.

1. The only determinant of intrauterine life beginning that is detectable is NOT the “spark” (egg and sperm union but IS “movement” (heartbeat).

2. Quote from David Hardee Sep 13, 2021 12:18am

Buckner like all progressive liberals cleave to Roe v Wade as doctrine declaring abortions are prerogative of choice. Yet as strict reading the Court states, the decision/opinion rendered to the STATES the prerogative of when life exists. There is the struggle between choice to abort and the babies right to life.

Both 1 and 2 have concurrence with the State of Texas “heartbeat” legislation and substantial lucidity to raise a Supreme Court revisit of Roe v Wade.

Gary, I found your comment clear, succinct and agreeable. There is one element I stressed that you seemed to have ignored - The effect on morality of the general public. My contention is: The blame for most convolutions that corrupt our society is on the judicial branch of the federal government. No branch of the federal government was EVER to be allowed to tinker in the lives of individuals. The Feds have been usurping the rights of the STATES and INDIVIDUALS with disastrous results. The shield of the original constitution that would contain/restrict the Feds have eroded and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC now resembles a socialist nanny.

The convolutions of abortion are only one of the many the gargantuan growth of Fed corrupting intrusion has caused -

Thanks David

Charles Douglas

Well, it would seem to me that Conservatism and love of country is still alive and well not only in Glaveston County, but all over the land! We are not goimg to give UP, and we are not going to give IN....until America is number one AGAIN!

I heard Joe China had a ninety minute phone call with his boss XI JINPING of Beijing China last week. I would imagine XI JINPING commended him for leaving the multi billion dollar base in Afghanistan, for the Chinese to take over, not to mention the pallets of US Currency worth in the billions, along with Billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment LEFT behind for China to pick through, and confiscate. I did not hear anything about Joe China asking about the Red China Virus that China let loose on the world though! I took two shots, and still contacted the Red China Virus! Good thing I know about a NAME that every other name has to bow a knee to, and that includes the Red China Virus! That name is JESUS The Healer. ( Philippians 2:10-11 ).

This is the year of the "Boomerang!" I'm sure of it! We have an imposter in the Oval Office who sold us out, and everything he touches turns to [censored]! He is like that king who had the Midas touch! Everything the king touched turned to gold! The only difference is Whatever Joe China touches, or tries to do ....it TURNS TO CRAP! It does not matter, from killing a pipeline to signing off on one, from running out on Americans leaving them to die, or making decisions getting our military people killed! It does not matter weather he is paying laborers to stay home causing businesses to go bankrupt, or opening up the border for COVID, Fentanyl, Gangs, Illegals, and Terrorists to come in! Are there anyone besides me hearing laughter coming from our enemies around the world, profanity coming from our Allies, or am I just imagining things?

David Smith

Once again .Bailey .. right over your head..

Address claiming to be religious.... ( you do know the 10 commandments?)

And being pro abortion..

SHE WROTE THAT.. I DIDNT

Once AGAIN..Address the message .. not what your opinion of me is..

Typical demtard

Ed Buckner

Mr. David Smith doesn't read very carefully. It really is arrogant and absurd to claim that religiosity and one's view on abortion are causally related. Many religious people are, of course, opposed to abortion. But many others, including Christians and believers in other faiths, do *not* accept that abortion = murder and that if one follows the 10 Commandments as being from God, one must oppose abortion. And of course not all religious people accept the 10 Commandments as being of divine origins, either. Mr. Smith failed to answer my earlier point, so I'll repeat it here: Mr. Smith, let me attack the message: it is profoundly irrational to claim that one can ONLY be religious if one agrees with you about abortion. I am certainly not, by anyone's definition, religious, but you lack the power to define the word for others. If someone disagrees with you about capital punishment, can they be religious? What about in re having a $15 an hour minimum wage? Taxing the rich? war? 75 mph speed limits on the Gulf Freeway? vaccination mandates for smallpox? Where exactly do you draw the line(s)? And remember, attack the message, not the messenger.

Bailey Jones

David, there are people (and clergy) of goodwill in every religion who oppose a ban on abortion (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/), and some denominations are quite strident about it ( for example - https://www.ucc.org/justice_womens-issues_reproductive-justice/)

But I agree with you that one's views on abortion are heavily influenced by one's religious beliefs - as is the case in most social issues. That being the case, and the US being a country that cherishes religious freedom and the exercise of one's moral conscience, abortion MUST be left to the conscience of the individual woman, otherwise, the state is just inflicting the religious views of one sect upon another, which is, of course, unconstitutional.

America is a religious nation and also a representative democracy. As such, our laws must be informed by the religious views of all Americans. Only about 20% of Americans support a ban on abortions - and since most Americans (70+%) are religious, it's clear that many religious Americans do not support this bill. About half of Americans support a right to abortion with reasonable limitations. About a third support abortion without limits. So you can see, even among the minority views, those who want an absolute right (30%) outnumber those who want an absolute ban (20%). (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

And America must protect the rights and beliefs of the minority. This is the case when we leave the decision to get an abortion to the individual. No one is forced to have an abortion. And no one should be forced not to.

The right to choose is fundamentally a matter of religious freedom and individual conscience.

I hope this has answered your question. The rest of America gets it, even if you don't.

Ed Buckner

Quite well said, Bailey Jones. This reply would have made a fine Guest Column in the GCDN pretty much as is. So, it seems to me, even someone who has to earn a living may have time to write interesting and logical short essays. Just saying.

Bailey Jones

It's something I might consider when I retire, Ed. Until then you'll just have to sift through the dross. [tongue]

Carlos Ponce

From your Pew poll:

"There are, however, cases where the views of a church’s members don’t align with its teachings on abortion. For instance, while the Roman Catholic Church is an outspoken critic of abortion, U.S. Catholics were divided on the issue in the 2014 survey, with 48% supportive of legal abortion and 47% opposed."

As for Catholics the numbers reflect those who call themselves Catholic. HUGE difference between active Catholics and those who rarely attend church. They show up at Easter and Christmas, when someone is being married or buried. A follow up question should be if the person actually attends church.

Of active Catholics 87% of those surveyed agreed with church teaching that abortion is wrong. Poll taken June 1 – 8, 2021. Of the remaining 13% they want exceptions for rape, incest but generally agree abortion is wrong. Poll taken by Catholic Vote.

The Pew poll like most polls is skewed to the Left. It reflects the views of individuals, not the church's actual stance.

As for those who have no problem with abortion they remind me of the church of:

Pergamum: The church that needed to repent of sin (Revelation 2:16).

Thyatira: The church whose false prophetess was leading people astray (Revelation 2:20).

Laodicea: The church with lukewarm faith (Revelation 3:16).

But God will judge their leadership.

David Smith

Geez..

One of the commandments says

Thou shall not kill.

So dont claim to be religious if you're going to violate that ..

Thus the purpose of my original post.. Thsts not me talkin.. that's Gods commandment.

You dont get to pick and choose which suits you

Next .. subject

Ed Buckner

So, Mr. Smith, you're quite willing to ignore counter-arguments and claim "victory"--but please understand that others won't accept your simplistic declaration. 1. Not all religious people follow the Bible (do you deny that Muslims or Buddhists or Zorastrians are religious? If so, why?). 2. Not all religious people, including nowhere near all Christians or Jews) think anyone who kills violates the commandments. (Curious--do you accept capital punishment? Self defense killing? War?). 3. Not all people, religious or not, accept David Smith as the final authority on what definitions are right OR what any god commands. So don't claim to be logical and informed if you won't respond to actual counter-argument; you don't get to pick and choose which suits you. Next subject?

Ed Buckner

Speaking of flapping your gums--DAVID SMITH claims, repeatedly, that no one can be religious AND disagree with him about abortion, despite utterly clear logic to the contrary and several postings by several of us correcting his nonsense--and THEN he claims others don't read. Ms. Maredia certainly did say she's religious and that she supports abortion rights. Mr. Smith declares, absent logic or evidence, that that is a contradiction. Others explain why he's wrong--but Smith is, apparently, illiterate, because doesn't rebut these explanations, instead just repeating his silliness. Gives anti-abortion Christians a bad name, and does no good to his already tattered reputation.

Cary Semar

Obviously abortion is a subject that men care deeply about.

Ed Buckner

I care deeply about all my fellow citizens, over half of whom are women. I do not claim to be able to speak for women on this--or on other--matters.

George Laiacona

Our founding fathers had the right idea when it came to separation of church and state. The Republicans want their church ideas to power over other Americans ideas concerning what religion is best for Americans. By keeping god out of government including the Supreme Court Americans can have freedom from the religious zealots that think their way is the only way. The first amendment gives us the right to worship or glorify to our own beliefs. Right now the Republicans have the power to legislate their way, but we can change that at the voters booth. Just remember January 6th when you vote.

Carlos Ponce

" separation of church and state" often misinterpreted.

The First Amendment guarantees no national religion.

The First Amendment guarantees Congress can not interfere with you practicing your religion.

And I will remember the "Summer of Love 2020" with its killing, looting, arson, attacks on police, etc.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

January 6 - a speck.

"Summer of Love 2020" -a log, indeed, a whole forest!

Bailey Jones

America is a misogynistic nation enveloped in toxic patriarchy. By "toxic patriarchy" I simply mean that America is ruled by a class of citizens who are responsible for 95% of all murders, 95% of all rapes, 95% of all child sexual abuse, 95% of the porn and sex trafficking industries, etc., - which is to say, America is ruled by men.

If American men had as much respect and concern for the welfare of the women in their lives as they do for their penises, there would be little or no demand for abortion. As far as I'm concerned, American men have [censored] away any moral authority to opine, much less legislate, about women's bodily autonomy.

Carlos Ponce

A very sexist post from Bailey.

David Smith

Is Bailey a man .. or woman?

Bailey Jones

Would that materially affect the facts I presented, David? (This should be good.)

Ed Buckner

Is David a human ... or a right-wing robot?

Mason Schraufnagel

Standing up for, and protecting unborn children is noble.

Systematically murdering babies is despicable.

Ed Buckner

Standing up for, and protecting thoughtful discourse is noble.

Systematically misrepresenting the terms and definitions of a dispute is despicable

Mason Schraufnagel

There is no misrepresentation of the murders. Hundreds of thousands of babies are murdered each year - that is fact. Protecting the unborn is a very noble cause and I applaud the Heartbeat Bill. It is a great thing Texans did.

Ed Buckner

Denying that a misrepresentation is dishonest doesn't make it honest. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that babies are being murdered--but that doesn't make it a fact. Abortion doesn't kill babies and it's not murder.

Mason Schraufnagel

Abortion is absolutely the murder of babies. Planned Parenthood turned it into a systematic genocide, especially targeting blacks.

Protecting these babies is a noble cause. I applaud Texas for being brave enough to do so.

Ed Buckner

Lying is absolutely dishonest, even if someone lies again, repeatedly, to say he is not lying. Making up crap about genocide is disgusting as well as dishonest. Logical thought is too rare.

Mason Schraufnagel

It is not a lie. You can argue semantics but abortion systematically murders babies by the millions per year. It is fact.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Schraufnagel, this is not mere semantics, and your reputation for honesty and integrity are at stake. Of course some people, clearly including you, think abortion is the murder of babies, and I don't deny that you are free to hold that opinion. But it is flatly NOT a fact--it's an ill-supported assertion. And repeating it makes it not one whit closer to true than it was the first time you declared it. Abortion does not murder babies any more than contraception does. And there is not a single credible shred of evidence that Planned Parenthood has engaged in genocide, of black folks or anyone else. If destroying unborn fetuses is murder, are you content to charge Mother Nature--or, if you're religious, God--of murdering babies? (There are far more miscarriages than human controlled abortions.)

Mason Schraufnagel

However you need to justify the murders for your own self-worth is up to you, but it is abortion is certainly murder. I applaud those who stand up for the unborn and allow them a chance a life.

Ed Buckner

So, apparently Mason Schraufnagel thinks God is guilty of murdering little babies by the millions and that He is proud of doing so. Weird.

Carlos Ponce

God Bless you, Mason Schraufnagel!

Carlos Ponce

Mason Schraufnagel [thumbup]

Ed Buckner

Mr David Smith,

Geez..

One of the commandments says

Thou shall not bear false witness.

So dont claim to be religious if you're going to violate that ..

Thus the purpose of this post.. That's not me talkin.. that's Gods commandment.

You dont get to pick and choose which suits you, David Smith. So, quit being dishonest unless that's displaying your true self.

Next .. subject

Bailey Jones

A Father creating a Son just so He could be brutally murdered by religious fundamentalists (and then writing a book about it) seems like a pretty pro-abortion thing to do if you ask me.

Carlos Ponce

No, Bailey. as usual you've got it wrong.

Ted Gillis

I know Cary, all these comments from opinionated old men, and hardly a one of them with a uterus.

Ed Buckner

Who are you calling "old"? Or "opinionated"? Or "men"? Oh, OK--guilty, guilty, guilty.

Carlos Ponce

Ted posts, "and hardly a one of them with a uterus." And neither did some on the US Women's Olympic Team.

Looks like one of you Liberal Democrats need to get Ted caught up on current Liberal gender agenda!

Ed Buckner

We all need to cooperate and post a few more comments, so we can get Angel Maredia's count up to 100! Speak up!

Ted Gillis

Some one on the US Olympic Team was posting on the GCDN comments section. That’s just Awesome!

Ed Buckner

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-texas-abortion-hypocrites-dont?

David Smith

Ed.. I didnt claim religious.. Angel did!! Read her guest column again instead of flapping your gums every time someone post

Ed Buckner

Speaking of flapping your gums--DAVID SMITH claims, repeatedly, that no one can be religious AND disagree with him about abortion, despite utterly clear logic to the contrary and several postings by several of us correcting his nonsense--and THEN he claims others don't read. Ms. Maredia certainly did say she's religious and that she supports abortion rights, as do millions of other people. Mr. David Smith declares, absent logic or evidence, that that is a contradiction. Others, including me, explain why he's wrong--but Smith is, apparently, illiterate, because he doesn't rebut these explanations, instead just repeating his silliness. He gives anti-abortion Christians a bad name, and does no good to his own already tattered reputation.

David Smith

830.. still a wake.. cant sleep ..worrying about my tarnished reputation by Archie Buckner..lol

Ed Buckner

I'm just broken-hearted. I didn't see this message from poor David Smith last night and so missed a chance to put his mind at ease. Let me do so now: Mr. Smith, your reputation is no longer at any risk. You have a quite secure reputation as illogical, ill-informed, unwilling or unable to think and debate clearly or wisely. So, quit worrying.

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.