Wolf Whistles Offend – Killing the Unborn Does Not

Wolf whistles offend some but killing the unborn does not.  One such person is Princeton philosophy professor Elizabeth Harman who was offended by this billboard.  She posted it on Facebook, someone blogged about it, which then prompted Holly Kearl, founder of the Washington-based organization “Stop Street Harassment” to start a petition drive to have it removed.  And, sure enough, the mall management agreed to remove it.

According to Miss Kearl’s website, street harassment is “catcalls, sexually explicit comments, sexist remarks, groping, leering, stalking, public masturbation, and assault. Most women (more than 80% worldwide) and LGBQT [by the way, I have no idea what the “Q” stands for] folks will face gender-based street harassment at some point in their life. Street harassment limits people’s mobility and access to public spaces. It is a form of gender violence and it’s a human rights violation. It needs to stop.”

And these women somehow equate public masturbation and assault with this dopey billboard?  It’s absolutely ridiculous.

But, I want to get back to Prof. Harman who started the brouhaha about the “offensive” billboard.

This is the same Prof. Harman’s who wrote a paper on “Creation Ethics:  The Moral Status of Early Fetuses and the Ethics of Abortion” in which she espouses the “Actual Future Principle,” which says, “an early fetus that will become a person has some moral status.  An early fetus that will die while it is still an early fetus has no moral status.”  In that paper she says, “I believe that nothing morally significant happens in an early abortion” and concludes, “while there is nothing wrong with having an abortion on a whim, there is something gravely wrong with allowing a pregnancy to continue without moral deliberation.”

Then in 2008, at a symposium, “Is It Wrong to End Early Human Life” at Princeton, she compared unborn babies with plants, “Look, when we think about ending an early human life, this is something that is really bad for the embryo or early fetus that dies, it’s losing out tremendously—I agree with that as I already said. And then you said that it’s one of the things that we should care about. And, um, I think that I should have said before that I think it’s really dangerous to slide from noticing that something is bad for something, to thinking that that gives us a moral reason. And just to prove that that doesn’t follow, think about plants. So lots of things are bad for trees, and plants, and flowers, and often that gives us no reasons whatsoever, certainly no moral reasons. In my view, fetuses that die before they’re ever conscious really are a lot like plants: They’re living things, but there’s nothing about them that would make us think that they count morally in the way that people do.”

So, Prof. Harmon (thank God I’m not in school anymore), on the one hand, is offended by a billboard about wolf whistles which she claims is an affront to her dignity, but, on the other hand, won’t recognize the dignity which should be afforded to an unborn child who she equates to a plant.

I wonder if proponents of abortion ever feel lucky that their parents didn’t believe in abortion.

Prof. Harmon’s stupidity is offensive to me and her status as a professor lecturing young people is shocking.  To whom do I complain?

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • Count_E_Limerick

    This sign was informing in a cutesy way that a) the area is under construction, b) management apologizes for inconveniencing the public, and c) the mall will look great when finished, so do come back.
    99% of women chuckled, maybe even appreciated the “Man, do you look good!” and went on their ways.
    A few people like Ms. Harman chose to feel offended that this “limits people’s mobility and access to public spaces.” Hindus and moral vegetarians feel that way about McDonald’s, Catholics feel that way about abortion clinics, and I feel that way about this street of bars and nightclubs in my neighborhood. But they, like this mall sign, serve an acceptable function, and we don’t get our way despite our feelings.
    Whether you believe morality as coming from G-d, Nature or Man, there is much intense debate as to where to draw the “Life” line. You want to err on the side of life, but you don’t want to restrict people’s moral or religious freedoms. So, wherever you personally draw the line, there are many abortions that make you queasy, where you say, “It may be legal, but it may not be right.” At most, this mall sign is in that gray area – it’s protected free speech, it threatens nobody, but it may not be right if it offends some.
    How I hear Leona’s point, dear philosophers and teachers: If this sign, which may be in a moral gray area, needs to be reconsidered morally as it may affect FEELINGS, surely many abortions, which may be in a moral gray area, need to be reconsidered morally as it may affect LIVES. Why then does Ms. Harman feel “there is nothing wrong with having an abortion on a whim” but there is something wrong with hanging a cutesy billboard on a whim?
    If you feel that’s too tenuous a connection, there’s always the Daily Kos & Media Matters…

    • James King

      Limerick, you are a joke.

    • Russ Payne

      That was Kearl, not Harmon, who made the claim about limiting people’s mobility. Does anyone really choose to feel offended? I don’t, it just happens to me sometimes. If we care about this, and I think we should, we might want to figure out why some people are offended by things like this sign. I wouldn’t want to be hard on Harmon for trying to offer her sincere explanation for her feelings.

  • Dr.C

    I had to post a comment, which I rarely do on any site. I was amazed to see postings from teachers/thinkers here. I do not know whether or not “Horrified Teacher” and/or “The Philosopher” are in academia, but I agree with their posts. I have noticed that writers who are not in the academic world have a tough time critiquing the thinking or analyses of those who are. It’s best that those writers who are not at least somewhat versed in a professor’s particular line of research or discourse allow someone else more qualified to do the analyzing. There are too many writers out there who think they are “experts,” because they can look up basic information on Wikipedia and then try to cobble together some analogy that rarely holds up. (The web, with musings such as these, has only added to the already low literacy and critical thinking levels in this country.) This article certainly was not the worst I have read, and I give the writer some credit for attempting to make some connections, but she is clearly out of her element.

    • Ron F.

      I read Doctor Harman’s paper.  I do not see why any special expertise is needed to understand her argument regarding the Actual Future Principle that an early fetus that will become a person has some moral status and that an early fetus that will die while it is still an early fetus has no moral status.  She also claims that there is nothing wrong with having an abortion on a whim but “there is something gravely wrong with allowing a pregnancy to continue without moral deliberation”.  I understand that the paper is 14 pages long and I have only highlighted two conclusions in the paper.  Nevertheless, you do not need to have a PhD to understand the paper and we do not need to leave the discussion of the moral aspects of abortion to academics.

      • James King

        An embryo has no rights. Only an actual being has rights, not a potential being, living over the not yet living, etc.

        Abortion is a moral right solely owned by the woman.

        • Ron F.

          James, I did not take a position on the moral rights of an embryo.  I was just commenting that on whether non-academics should be able to comment on papers in an academic journal.  I do not think you need a special degree to understand a paper on the moral status of a fetus or to comment on it.

          • James King

            Ron, sorry. I came in late, but if you think that non-academics should not be able to comment, I think you are wrong. Yes, you will get ill-informed comments, and I’m trying to be kind to what I really think, especially about those who watch typical sit-coms, but even they have a right to comment.

            I’ll get out of the conversation because I came in late and perhaps don’t fully understand.

          • Ron F

            James, my position was that non-academics should be able to comment and that you do not need to be an academic to have an intelligent position on the moral status of a fetus or Doctor Harman’s paper.  It seems to me that the acadmic world has always tried to avoid criticism by alleging that only academics can understand.

          • James King

            Ron, Thanks for filling me in. Sorry if I clouded the discussion, and I fully agree and support your position. It is the Objectivist position, of that you can be certain.

      • Dr.C

        I thought later, after I posted, that my post could easily be misinterpreted, or perhaps it wasn’t? I meant that Salazar, who authored the article, may have had more credibility arguing against Dr. Harman’s research if she were also in an academic field, or even if she had stuck to just one of the issues of Harman’s with which she disagrees. I did not mean to imply that the posters here needed to be in academia in order to comment on Salazar’s article about Harman. I still “do not get it” – that is, the logic.  All that she seems to be stating is what someone should or should not be “offended by,” by using examples stated or written by someone whose ideas she finds offensive.

  • Jerry

    “LGBQT [by the way, I have no idea what the “Q” stands for]”Yes, but why are you *proud* of your ignorance?  It’s called google.  Use it.

  • Joeleole

    What a ridiculous article…. The author doesn’t understand the point about plants and definitely needs some genuine exposure to viewpoints different from her own. Ay chee wa wa!! Bad article….ouch…

  • guest

    From the author’s bio: “Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles” 
    Ha ha ha

  • Horrified Teacher

    If one of my students had submitted this as a paper I would have given it an F for sliding off-topic into an extended ad hominem after the third paragraph.  The nice thing about not writing down everything you think is that you can exercise some editorial control over your thoughts before exposing them to the world.  It can save you a lot of embarrassment.  Pro Tip: If you end your essay with: “I don’t get it”, you are probably not ready to speak intelligently about your topic.  Again, this is something I teach my Freshman students. 

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      I have news for ya, there is no embarrassment in writing columns and articles at web page sites and blogs and in the comment section of these sites.  No one cares.  Kids are typing with their thumbs and everything is short hand and there is rarely a completed sentence.  Try giving your better students a paragraph and ask them to diagram the sentences.   Good luck!  Turn off the “spell check” and the lesson is covered in red ink.  Hopefully you were talking about Freshmen HS students!!

  • ChrisTS

    I teach my students to recognize, analyze, and assess arguments, but I admit to being baffled by this ‘article.’   Is the author claiming that a person who objects to sexual harassment or making a joke of it must, also, object to abortion?  Why? 

    I don’t get it, but if you do, Somebody bless you.

    • Ron F.

      Chris, I do not think the author is saying that she thinks that a peson who objects to sexual harassment must also object to abortion.  I think the author is saying that she cannot understand why Professor Harmon finds the public harassment offensive but not abortion, which the author considers the killing of the unborn and which the author believes is a larger moral transgression.  In addition, Professor Harmon has taken very public positions about both.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

    I suggest you write your complaints on toilet paper and then send them to Harman, so she can give them the response they deserve.

  • Alexander Zambrano

    This author is silly. She has an opinion: abortion is morally impermissible and the fetus has moral value. Great. But then she offers no arguments or reasons for this view. Why, then, should we accept it? If you accept a certain proposition (e.g. that killing fetuses is morally impermissible or that a fetus is morally valuable) you must give reasons or arguments for your view. Professor Harman has written academic papers in which she gives arguments or reasons for her view (the author of this poor article probably and purposefully neglected to mention these arguments, if she even read them). Then the author of this article proceeds to say ridicule Professor Harman for her view about the sign. But Professor Harman probably has many good reasons for thinking the sign mentioned in the article was offensive and in poor taste (in my case, I can think of a few reasons why such a sign should be taken off). And if she has good reasons and arguments for this view, then her opinion remains well supported. I simply don’t understand how Professor Harman’s views about the sign have any relevance on her views about abortion and the moral status of fetuses. Come on, write something better!

  • A Philosopher

    Too bad you didn’t have more philosophy classes.  If you had, perhaps you wouldn’t make elementary reasoning errors such as: “I wonder if proponents of abortion ever feel lucky that their parents didn’t believe in abortion.”  I have children.  I believe in abortion.  My parents have children.  My parents believe in abortion.  What you wanted to say was, “I wonder if proponents of abortion ever feel lucky that their parents didn’t abort them.”  I, also, wonder if you aren’t guilty of the same sort of flaw you accuse of Harman of.  You accuse her of overcaring about wolf whistles and undercaring about unborn children, whilst you, yourself, overcare about unborn children and undercare about e.g. the environmental effects of overpopulation, the quality of life of the children, etc.   – A philosopher

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Berger/100001062103609 Robert Berger

       You mean it’s perfectly okay to force a poor pregnant woman  to give birth to a child she will never be able to provide for and for it to grow up in abject poverty,filth,squalor,  abuse,neglect,lack of education, medical care and job opportunity when it grow sup ? 
       You idiot !   These circumstances are the reason why abortion is so common in America and  all over the world !  

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      You mean it would be perfectly okay to rid America of all those animal rescue centers spread across the country because of the abject, poverty, filth, squalor, abuse, neglect, lack of potty training, medical care these poor animals will have to endure?  You idiot, these circumstances are the reason why animal shelters are so common in America and all over the world (oops I forgot they eat pets in some part of the world).  

  • UJim

    Yes, of course. Since abortion is legal, it definitely is fine that women can’t use public spaces without feeling like they could be attacked. That totally makes sense.

  • James King

    Your comments about preventing abortion only applies when the fetus has a brain and a heart. Until that time it is only a potential human, not a human in fact. I am not sure when it develops a heart and a brain but until it does there is one act of violence against a woman greater than abortion denial, and that is murder. A fetus initially has no brain and no heart. Unitl it does the charge that life begins at conception is false, or do you believe that a fetus does not need a heart and a brain to be a life?

    People who believe in abortion denial generally come at that attitude from a book called the Bible. This is a  book that has no peer in being vile, and anyone who has actually read it will agree. The one I will mention is murder.

    When Moses finds the revelry with the golden calf, he is instructed to kill, and then causes murder. He does all this right after getting the tablets that has the instruction not to kill. This is where the mixed-up ideas come from. A book of fairy tales that the various religions sell as truth, but which is just plain fiction, and this can be easily proved.

    I do not know if you are blinded by this book but if you are, then you are as immoral as the book most of the world revere. And, just because most of the world does so does not make it true. Many of them easily tell their children that there is a Santa. Same thing.

    What they should tell them in my opinion, is that it is immoral to initiate violence, but it is moral to respond to violence. That means it is moral to respond to all those misguided people who want to deny an early abortion. That is violence against a woman. When the fetus becomes an actual life it needs to be protected against violence, but not before.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Potential, as in “capable of becoming actual.”  I do not know if you are a gambling man James King but I would be more than happy to make a wager with you that the “potential” in the case you present becomes “actual” that is, the human embryo is indeed a human being from beginning to end.  If you come across a female family member or friend that is pregnant I challenge you to follow her pregnancy from the moment she finds out that she is pregnant and please let her know when you decided to call it anything other than a human baby.  No one needs a Bible to make a determination as to whether or not the embryo growing in a human womb is anything other than a baby human.  

      I have seen many sonogram pictures of BABIES in the womb coming out of pocketbooks, on refrigerator doors, women happily showing off their new BABY.  They never call it a fetus or a non-human being.  The pregnant mother NEVER calls her husband/boyfriend/children over to place their hand on her tummy and feel the FETUS move, it is ALWAYS feel the BABY move.  I think the pregnant Mommy has a better grasp on what is developing within that special supposedly safe place called the womb than those who live in that LIBTARD bubble you are existing in.  It bees what it bees Jim, a BABY!!

      You could have picked a better Bible murder story Jim.  You do remember the story about the murder of a perfectly unblemished man, one that was examined by the best religious legalist on earth for blemishes for four days prior to his execution and declared completely innocent of all charges yet still murdered by being beaten nearly to death and then nailed to a cross and finally pierced through with a spear, prophesied in that same Bible a THOUSAND years before it actually happened.  Now that would be one of those “holy shit” moments as it was for those 11 cowardly followers of His.  Now the really “holy shit” moment came when that “sign of Jonas” played out in the story presented in the first seven Chapters of Acts.  Some fools are still looking for a body or making excuses as to why there was never a body found.  Ya see, Jim, someone much, much wiser than you or I came to offer grace and forgiveness to we wretched people.  Wisdom is a wonder thing.   

      • James King

        I agree it is a human baby. But not until a certain amount of time has passed to where it has a brain and a heart. Until that time it is a POTENTIAL human baby and you cannot challenge that on RATIONAL or OBJECTIVE grounds

        As for the other, I do understand that I am in the vast minority and that my view will never be adopted by  large percentage of people. But the tales you cite in the Bible are not true stories. It is complete fiction, not unsimilar to astrology notes in the newspaper, and not unsimilar to the lies told by self-serving politicians.

        No event or person described in the Bible can ever be authenticated, except the Jesus character. And he was described along with similar events leading up to his birth in writings prodicting the Son of God. The only problem with that is that the earlier stories were speaking of the SUN of God because it’s all based on astrology, not fact, and can be easily disproved with rational and objective words. It is all IMAGINARY, including the vampirism and ghoulism that is recommended in drinking blood and eating flesh.

        The Bible is one of the most, if not THE most vile book ever written, endorsing slavery, murder, etc. Someone much wiser than I did not come. Only a mess of con men, writing tales of fiction and selling them as truth. Even Mother Teresa admitted it some years back, and then went back to the con game. The Bible is a collection of plagerized tales that came along long before the men who wrote the Bible. I know that you and others will never openly admit the Bible is fiction, but I would bet a million dollars that some of you entertain that idea in the privacy of your own deluded minds.

        But I did not intend to get on that tangent. My response is about a moral government. But I suppose, on reflection, that if you are not able to see the immorality of the Bible, you surely can’t see it in your own mind that is not rooted to the Constitution, but to something else. Sad.

        • Ron F.

          The heartbeat begins about the third week and the brain and spinal cord begin development in the first trimester.  I am not smart enough or arrogant enough to know the exact time when human life begins.  Therefore, since none of us know for sure, I think life should be protected from the earliest possible moment.  In almost all thinks we error on the side of caution but we do not want to in the protection of the unborn and when life begins.

          • James King

            Ron, Not sure what you meant by your last line, but in essence I agree with you. When life begins to take it would be murder to take it, but that is never at conception. I do think that smarter people than I, certainly, and probably you too, can tell when there is a heart and a brain. That is where life begins.

          • Ron F

            James, what you and I disagree about is that I am not as certain as you when life begins.  Lower invertebrates do not have hearts but are certainly living beings.  Even if you think about a fetus only being a potential for life prior to a heart and a brain, it is still a potential and all of us are happy that our mother’s did not abort us when we just had the potential for life.  I have yet to meet anyone who is not thankful that their mother did not abort them at any time during preganancy.  We can only be having this discussion because we were not aborted.

          • James King

            Ron, what you just said about not being aborted is certainly true. What is also true is that a human baby does not exist until it has a heart and brain. When that happens I don’t know, but it is not right away. That is all I am saying, but I think you are saying that no abortion should ever take place and if that is true I believe that stand is based on emotion, not fact.

            Certainly I believe that if a person approaches anything from a religious point of view is saying that evidence does not matter. But I am not making that charge unless you say it is true. Evidence matters. No evidence exists to support the Bible, but emotion certainly does.

            At any rate, I respect what you have written because it sounds as if thought went into the words.

          • Ron F.

            James, and all I am saying is since I do not know when life begins, I would error on the side of caution.

          • James King


  • Beckieweinheimer58

    The point isn’t professor Harman (you’ve also spelled it Harmon and Harmans). The point is that it isn’t ok that mall construction workers, the construction company owners nor the
    Mall owners harass women who are at the mall ostensibly for shopping. Any study and all surveys conducted about women in a public space indicate that they don’t expect or want comments about themselves personally by construction workers they don’t know. And, further that these kinds of comments collectively (meaning whether in a mall and all other public spaces) starting for a large percentage of females, as early as 12 years old, significantly affect their personal lives. These comments force many women to change how they walk, where they walk, where they work, what they wear, how they wear it, an so forth. Public harassment is a near universal prolem for women. I hope we can do our parts wherever we live to make public spaces safe for all females.

    • Will Swoboda

      Hey Beckie,
      How about this, you’re so full of it you would float. I don’t know a real woman who wouldn’t like to be be noticed for being good looking. May you’re an ugly hag who is just jealous some one won’t notice you. As the young people say, “get a life.”
      Thanks, Will

      • Ron F

        Why in the world do you have to make the comments personal?  Besides, I think Beckie is right.  Most real women that I know do not whant comments, whistles or to be ogled when they are walking down the street.

        • LeonaSalazar

          At this point in my life, I’d welcome any whistle or compliment. 

          • Ron F

            The fact that you might welcome it does not mean that it is not invasive and disturbing to other women.  In addition, the problem I have with it is when does it go over the line?  I still do not believe women should be subjected to it so I can understand Beckie’s and Professor Harman’s position. 

    • SendTheClunkerBackToChicago

      Have you ever noticed all the leg that is shown on that Conservative news outlet, Fox and Friends.  Hell, there is always a woman with long naked legs showing out front on The Five.  Don’t misunderstand me, I love naked legs especially if they are shapely but these women love the attention the leg shots get them.  

      • Eli

        Has it crossed you mind that they show all that leg because they like having jobs? I guess you thought they were showing it because they want YOUR attention?

      • James King

        Women like attention because they are DISPLAY humans–to themselves and to men. Men display them in a variety of ways like on the dance floor because they ultimately regard them as DISPLAY humans. Women display themselves freely, but I do not think it is because they want men to be interested. Their actions are to other women who also display themselves.

        As for Fox, I think your reference to the network is because you don’t like them. Is it because John Edwards makes fun? That’s a rethorical question, by the way. But someone at Fox has decided to have these women in positions where it must take good intelligence, and all of them I have seen are intelligent, even though I would recommend less display.

  • Chief98110

    So, big surprise that Professor Harman is offended by a billboard but
    not by abortion.  I would challenge her to take part in an abortion and
    see the horror done to a human life. She is a typical limousine liberal
    who espouses her position based upon her own little virtual world.  I say
    to her, wake up and look at the real world and then tell me why a
    billboard offends you.  As for me,  I am offended by stupid people like
    Prof. Harman!

    • SendTheClunkerBackToChicago

      This Youtube says it all concerning violence committed against women in the womb.


      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        Jim King, take a look at the “brain matter” that is spilling out as the murdering abortionist crushes the head of that small baby human.  It should be a wake up call as to what actually happens during this “woman’s health” moment. 

        • James King

          Sir, or Madam, I know you don’t know this, but my name is James, not Jim. If it were Jim I would have listed it as such on my email address.

          Now, if you will take a deep breath from what sounds like a bigoted brain, though I am not making that charge, you will never find that I endorsed that kind of late term abortion, so let me be clear.

          There is a time that I think is a few weeks but I do not know how many, that the cells in a womb do not have a brain and a heart. That is the kind of abortion I support. I do not and have never supported any abortion where the cells inside contain a heart and a brain. Early on they do not, and that is a POTENTIAL life, not a life. This is where the decision is the woman’s alone. After that it would be murder, and I do not support murder.

          But I will say that anyone who supports the words of the Bible DO support murder, because individuals are directed in the Bible to commit murder. If anyone reading this disagrees, then you have not read much of the Bible. And at this point let me add this to one of the directives, I don’t remember the number of the ten main ones, but it is to honor father and mother.

          I don’t know about anyone else, but my father did not deserve my honor, and I know that millions of other fathers fall in the same category. I just look at this verbiage objectively. But I do not support murder, and your emotions, not your rational brain seemse to make that charge.

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            “Ahh, ya doesn’t has to call me Johnson!  You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Ray Jay, or you can call me RJ, but ya doesn’t hafta call me Johnson.”  So Jim it is>

            Well Jim, the typical liberal progressive philosophy is to first get your foot in the door and make it legal to dispose of the unwanted child in the first trimester.  Later move on an make it legal to dispose of the unwanted child in the second trimester and since we came this far why not dispose of the unwanted child in the third trimester.  Hell, why stop there, if the unwanted child survives a saline solution abortion let it die by starving it to death (the Obama progression).  The Jim’s Rule of Thumb is to figure out where along that  liberal progressive road do we call it murder?  Once the liberal progressive gets his/her foot in the door there is no stopping the perversion.  

            We have seen that same progression happen in the homosexual movement.  First they attached themselves to the “civil rights” movement and then called sodomy “gay” and then forced fed the populace with the “tolerant” and “diversity” crap.  Now we have them attacking the sanctity of marriage to include men marrying men an women marrying women.  Sex in the poopie hole is now defined as “love.”  

            Just a brief comment on the Bible.  God severed His relationship with gentiles (pagans) in Genesis Chapter 12 when He created the nation of Israel and the Jewish people.  From Genesis Chapter 12 all the way through to Acts 8 that Bible is about the history of the Jewish nation and it has been proven to be extremely accurate.  So the “fairy tale” comment is your own created myth.  Gentiles don’t get back in the game until the conversion of the Apostle Paul and his 13 Epistles which explains their relationship with God.  Hebrews thru Revelation is back dealing with Israel and the Jewish people.   Most of the Scriptures are Jewish.  As you examine Scriptures with this division in mind it will make a whole lot more sense to ya.   Praying for ya! 

            Nice chatting with ya Jim.  

          • James King

            Well, it sure comes out. I was fairly certain that Bible insanity is where the support for Israel comes and you just confirmed it. As for calling me Jim, that is your call, but maybe if you thought about it if you can find that rational part of your brain, you might understand what a bigot you are. That is the route a lot of bigots use when they have no brain power, the route of name calling.

            Also, this is the very first time anyone has referred to me as a liberal. I am not, by the way, but I am a libertarian, and we know more than guys like you because of Objectivism.

            God and the Bible are imaginary. This can be proven in many, many ways. Now let me address your bigotry as it involves gays.

            You may be unlucky enough to live next to a neighbor who does not maintain their property. I hope you don’t. But that sure would not be the case if you lived next to a gay couple, and as this relates to two friends of mine in Florida, I live in Illinois in the western suburbs of Chicago, (Republican Heaven) they are better citizens than most because they fly the flag, tell their friends to not forsake the troops, etc.

            And they also maintain their property to a T. But bigots like you and the nut in Iran would want to assinate them because they are gay and the Bible is against it. It is also against parents, selectively urging their murder. Moses was directed to do that too, and his direction came after being first told not to kill.

            It matters not to me that Scriptures are Jewish, or Polish or Greek. What matters to me is that they have laid waste the entire world to a fantasy project, a book of fiction, scene creating like a Broadway writer. And you are no more praying for me than your bigoted little brain would let you. If you had said it to me and meant it I would have thanked you because it would have come from your highest thinking, even though I know, and so do you, that prayers are never answered even though Jesus said they would be. Why? It’s all imaginary.

            To deny a woman the right to extract cells from her body, half of which are hers, is an act of barbaric preportions, exceeded only by murder, which we already know you endorse by endorsing the Bible. The cells have no brain or heart. They are not yet life no matter how often you scream they are at the moment of conception, and this can be proved with objective science. But then we know you do not believe in science.

            And let me give you more information. Libertarians value life much more than you Bible nuts. We are for constitutional government and you are not. Why? Because you live in a Bible fantasy land, and this can be proved with objective evidence. You rely on faith–belief without evidence. And then you have the chutzpah to want to deny not just a woman, but rights to two men or two women.

            There is no constitutional right to an abortion, only a natural one, and nothing in the Bible has ever been proven. Why? No evidence. And just in case you think it, trees and mountains are not evidence. They are merely trees and mountains.

            Calling me Jim and ya are a juvenile way to add an apostrophe to an argument known to be false. And here is something even I do not need evidence for. Just because millions of people believe something to be true or false does not make it so. Whatever the religion you support, it is against the natural rights of someone somewhere, and it is bigoted, like you. Sad.

  • Ron F

    I am surprised that a Princeton Journal would find an article on “Creation Ethics: The Moral Status of Early Fetuses and the Ethics of Abortion” scholarly or would have a symposium on whether “It is Wrong to End Early Human Life”.  The great moral issues and philosophy has degenerated to this level.  Princeton University is a private school so I do not care what it does.  It does receive substantial federal funding.  This is just another reason why I think the federal government should not be making any greants to  colleges and universties for resarch or any other purpose.

  • Sassyo

    Sydney O.

    What’s that old saying: “it’s better to appear stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt……”

  • Ron F

    I don’t think the women equated the dopey billboard with public masturbation but equated it with street harassment generally.  As for Professor Harman, I do not see anything inconsistent with her position.  She obvioiusly does not think a fetus is a human being.  Somehow she thinks of it as something that could become a person.  A lot of people agree with her.  I disagree with her and think she is wrong and think it is silly to compare fetuses with plants but do not think that the posistions are inconsistent.