The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
The Personhood Debates
Debate 11: The Young Republicans of Alabama
_
After being kicked out of several additional Republican groups on facebook, I have finally decided to publish the following conversations between myself and two of the leaders of the Young Republicans of Alabama. Both of these conversations took place in public forums shortly after my first experience with being banned by the Republicans.
Conversation 1:
Bill:
Hmmmm... Apparently the Young Republicans in Birmingham aren't as conservative as they appear to be. One of their administrators just posted a request for my "garbage" to be removed from their wall; and when I replied by asking if they had found an error in my research, they kicked me out of the group. I've received better responses from the abortionists at NARAL.
Chris:
The Greater Birmingham Young Republicans are a very conservative group. Just because everyone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they aren't conservative. You are quickly becoming Spam on Facebook, Bill. Your constant posting of your opinions on everyone and anybody's wall has been be growing more and more complaints every day. And when ever anyone disagrees with you, you insult their opinions be calling them ridiculous and ludicrous . You and the Personhood Initiative are doing the Pro-Life movement a disservice by taking an all or nothing approach. By targeting birth control pills, you are losing support. Senator Phil Williams' approach is a terrific first step to the ban of abortion in Alabama.
Bill:
Hello, Chris. Thank you for commenting. I appreciate your opinion, but I'm afraid that you must be mistaken. The only person who has complained to me about posting things on their wall is you. If I remember correctly, your exact words were: "Please stop posting your propaganda on my Facebook wall. Thanks." I have honored that request, and I have not posted anything to your wall since then. (And I can't remember posting more than two items to your wall prior to that request anyway.)
You are also mistaken in your insinuation that I am apt to ridicule those who disagree with me. There is a debate section on the Personhood Initiative website where you can read my responses to several people who have disagreed with me. You can also browse through the comments on the Personhood Initiative facebook page and find more of the same. I don't think that you will find a single instance of ridicule. I did mention to you personally that one of the arguments which you put forward in favor of abortion was a ridiculous argument, but you assured me that you took no offense at that particular comment. Nevertheless, if you would be so kind as to point out anyone whom I may have offended, I will certainly do my best to seek their forgiveness.
As for Senator Williams' compromised bill, I have a written five page article analyzing his approach and demonstrating why it is both dangerous and unnecessary. You can read that article at the link below, and as always, I invite you voice your opinion of it.
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/incremental-personhood.html
Chris:
Even Senator Williams said you don't know all of the details, you chastised himl and are confrontational. You reposted his response to you on Senator Beason's wall! I am not the only one. Your tactics and confrontational approach of saying that women on birth control pills are murderers has destroyed your credibility. You are doing the pro-life movement a disservice by being combative and rigid with your position of "You are right and everyone else is wrong"
Bill:
I admit that I am not perfect. If my research is mistaken, then I am more than willing to publish a correction. Have you found a mistake that you would like to point out to me?
Chris:
"My fault is not with your research. It is with your tactics, the attacking nature and tone of your articles and unwillingness to accept that people can have differing opinions with you. It's these actions that do harm to the pro-life movement you hold so dear. If you were truly willing to accomplish something of substance, you would not be so combative and realize that the process takes time and compromise. Senator Williams bill is a step in the right direction to preventing abortions. Your proposals, like the one in Mississippi, is nearly impossible to pass. Mississippi is one of the most conservative states in the country but the voters rejected the Personhood measure overwhelmingly. Governor Haley Barbour is one of the most respected conservatives in the country and he was extremely uncomfortable with it. Would you compare him to a radical pro-choice group like you did the Greater Birmingham Young Republicans? I think not."
Bill:
Would you mind providing some specifics? I am always looking for ways to improve my work, and I would certainly appreciate it if you would copy and paste any statement of mine that you find offensive and offer a suggestion for improving it.
Chris:
When a well respected State Senator claims you sent three "confrontational" emails, I would rethink your tactics. Why must I provide proof when you are the one who posted Sen. Wiliams repsonse it on Sen. Beason's wall?
Bill:
Perhaps I am just dense, but I fail to see why it is unethical for me to publish Senator Williams' response to an open letter. If you recall, I did inform him that I would be doing so. Was there something in his letter that you think should not have been made public?
Chris:
Its not the reposting, dude! it's the fact that he said his dealings with you were confrontational!!!!!!
Bill:
Senator Williams was incorrect in arriving at that conclusion. I did not send him three confrontational emails. I sent him a single, polite email requesting an explanation of a comment that he had made to the media. Do you think that it is confrontational for a citizen to ask a legislator to explain a public statement?
Chris:
I have come to the same conclusions in dealing with you, Bill. So maybe you should rethink they way you communicate. I know for a fact that others complain about your constant posting on the their Facebook walls but just politely delete them.
Bill:
I understand that you have arrived at that conclusion, and I am asking you for your help. If you would be so kind as to point out a specific statement that you find to be confrontational, I would greatly appreciate it.
Chris:
I have offered it several times. and asked you to tone down your rhetoric and approach. has that not been clear?
Chris:
I offered some opinions on how to make your argument stronger. And then you wrote an op ed saying my position was ludicrous. You post an article on the Young Republicans page that women on birth control bills are baby killers. I guess you dont see where the line is.
Bill:
My exact statement was:
"The only scientific support for this first argument comes from studies of the successful implantation of embryos created through the process of IVF. However, there are a number of factors affecting implantation r ates in IVF treatments that do not occur in natural pregnancies. Such factors as the day on which the embryo is transferred into the mother’s body[1] and even the depth at which the embryo is inserted[2] have been shown to significantly affect the outcome of the IVF treatment. It would be ludicrous to assume that these factors are present in natural pregnancies. Therefore, it is equally ludicrous to use calculations of average implantation rates for IVF as a statistic for the number of failed implantations in natural pregnancies."
This comment was not directed at you personally. Surely you do not think that you are the only one who has ever presented that particular argument in favor of abortion. Perhaps I could have used a different word besides "ludicrous," but if you recall, you did tell me that you did not find my comment offensive. To quote you exactly, you said: "You didn't offend me at all. No worries." Why is it that you take offense now?
Furthermore, I have never posted anything which referred to ladies as being baby killers or murderers. All I did was publish the results of my research into the abortifacient effect of oral contraceptives. To quote you again, you stated: "My fault is not with your research." I am at a loss then to explain your comments. Why do you take such offense at something which you admit to be true?
Chris:
Its no use discussing it with you. The purpose of the Young Republicans is to bring young republicans together. By criticizing women who use birth control as killing innocent children, you were damaging our attempts to grow the club with women. Your position is not main stream and it is not the correct place for you to promote your views on the YR fan page. We would have taken down any post that alienated anyone from growing our group. Your latest article just went too far and over the line. But you can not see it because you are too close to your personal jihad of passing something your way and only your way. You are free to take whatever position you like, but the Young Republicans are not a one issue organization, like you are a one issue person.
Bill:
I suppose then that I must remain confused. How was my article over the line? I made no accusations against anyone at all. (Not even Dr. Johnston found my article offensive by the way.) I just presented a bit of research relevant to a bill being introduced by a republican Senator.
If anyone has a right to be offended here it is me. I devote an average of 10 hours of painstaking research for every page that I write, and it is not unusual for me to spend two or three days editing each article. Yet you and the Young Republicans have referred to my work as mere propaganda and garbage. I have been lied about and falsely accused of many things, and now you refer to my efforts as being a personal jihad. You accuse me of being confrontational, but I challenge you to read through this public conversation and write down all of the confrontational statements that you find. Who's name do you think will be next to the majority of them?
That's not to say that I am offended. Just take a look at the debates on my other website http://www.increasinglearning.com/, and you will see that I am quite used to being ridiculed and rejected. In fact, I would be concerned if my positions did not generate some very strong attacks, for that would mean that I am just going with the flow rather than waving the standard of truth for all to see. As Christ said to His disciples, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19)
conversation 2:
Personhood Initiative Status Update:
Bill has now been banned from all of the Alabama Young Republican groups on facebook for simply posting a link to the Personhood Initiative website. We were informed by one of the leaders of the Young Republicans that our position is not mainstream and that the YR page should not be used to promote a "personal jihad."
Jackie:
Bill, the Young Republicans in Alabama are made up of people from all different backgrounds between the ages of 18 and 40. We are always looking for more people who share our core principle that smaller government is better government. I felt, along with other members of the Young Republicans, that some of the language you use (along with some of the extreme positions you take) is not something we want to promote from our facebook pages. We do not want to scare away prospective members to our club because you continue to post links to our page about controversial issues such as a woman's right to oral contraceptives. We respect your beliefs and admire the fact that you are so passionate about this topic. We are not arguing with your science. We just do not want to provide a platform for your beliefs from our pages.
I have only seen you at one Greater Birmingham Young Republicans meeting. It is not fair for you to characterize our club or our members as "not that conservative" before you spend time with us and get to know the beliefs of our individual members. We have lots of members with lots of different opinions.
Bill:
Hello, Jackie. I appreciate your comments, but I must respectfully disagree. I have read both the national and the state level constitutions for the Young Republicans, and I do not recall reading anything about a core principle regarding smaller government. I do, however, remember reading something about the Personhood Initiative in both documents.
In the constitution of the national organization, I noticed Article II, Section 4 which stated that "The purpose of the YRNF is to support the principles, objectives and platform of the Republican Party." And in the Alabama YR constitution I found a similar statement: "The objects of the Federation are: ...To support the principles, objects and platform of the Republican Party."
One of the primary purposes of the Young Republicans is the support of the platform of the Republican Party, and the 2008 platfrom included the following proclomation:
"Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."
Here are a few of the statements from the Human Life Amendments that have been introduced in Congress by the Republican Party:
"Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception, of life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."
"With respect to the right to life, the word ‘person’, as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applies to all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency."
"The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."
The state level Personhood Amendment being recommended to the Alabama legislature by the Personhood Initiative is:
"The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law."
As you can see, this state level amendment shares the same principles as the national amendments put forth by the Republican Party and is supported fully by the Republican platform. Therefore, if this position is extreme, then it can only be so if the position of the Republican Party is also extreme. If it scares away prospective members, then it only does so because they are afraid of the principles of the Republican Party. If the Personhood Amendment does not fit with the character and beliefs of the Young Republicans of Alabama, then that can only mean that those beliefs are inconsistent with the Republican platform.
It is my sincere hope that the Young Republicans of Alabama will return to the strong stand proclaimed and endorsed by the Republican Party.
Jackie:
I have never heard the Republican Party take a stand against birth control pills, IUDs, ectopic pregnancies, etc.
Bill:
Perhaps you are simply not aware of everything which has transpired within the Republican Party in regards to the Human Life Amendment. The articles that I presented on those topics provide documented, scientific answers to challenges that have frequently been brought against the Human Life Amendment on a national scale as well as the state level Personhood Amendments. Those challenges are an integral part of any discussion of either amendment, and the lack of solid answers to those challenges has proven to be very damaging to Republican efforts in this field. The articles which were so drastically rejected by the Young Republicans have received the praise and thanks of Republican pro-life leaders all across the nation.
Besides which, those two articles were entirely scientific in nature, and you said that you had no argument against my science.
Jackie:
You and I do not have the same beliefs. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. I did not comment because I wanted to debate with you; I commented so the people that read your post understand why you were blocked. You were removed because you spammed our pages over and over again with links to your articles. We are not a platform for your personhood beliefs. You have your own facebook page for that.
Bill:
If I recall correctly, I only posted two or three articles over the course of several weeks. Those articles were very much apropos to a bill which was sponsored by at least 39 republicans last legislative session, and which has already been pre-filed for the upcoming session. Those articles provided important answers to specific challenges which were brought against that bill when it was debated in the legislature. Every one of those articles was consistent with the constitution of both the national and the state Young Republican organizations, and the information presented in those articles is factually correct. I fail to see why you consider them to be spam. Would you mind explaining in more detail so that I may be more careful in my future posts?
Jackie:
I do mind. I have said what I need to say in relation to your post and I do not feel that explaining myself or the actions of the Young Republicans any further is an adequate use of my time.
Bill:
That is indeed unfortunate. I am sure that those following this conversation would have appreciated a little more clarity on what kind of content they are permitted to post in the Young Republican groups.
Jackie:
If there are any concerns, I hope that they will ask us directly.
Bill:
Yes, I also hope that others will learn from my error. I assumed that the Young Republicans were as conservative as their founding documents, and I failed to seek permission before posting content consistent with that assumption. I am sure that your efforts here have demonstrated the need for others to be more careful.
After being kicked out of several additional Republican groups on facebook, I have finally decided to publish the following conversations between myself and two of the leaders of the Young Republicans of Alabama. Both of these conversations took place in public forums shortly after my first experience with being banned by the Republicans.
Conversation 1:
Bill:
Hmmmm... Apparently the Young Republicans in Birmingham aren't as conservative as they appear to be. One of their administrators just posted a request for my "garbage" to be removed from their wall; and when I replied by asking if they had found an error in my research, they kicked me out of the group. I've received better responses from the abortionists at NARAL.
Chris:
The Greater Birmingham Young Republicans are a very conservative group. Just because everyone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they aren't conservative. You are quickly becoming Spam on Facebook, Bill. Your constant posting of your opinions on everyone and anybody's wall has been be growing more and more complaints every day. And when ever anyone disagrees with you, you insult their opinions be calling them ridiculous and ludicrous . You and the Personhood Initiative are doing the Pro-Life movement a disservice by taking an all or nothing approach. By targeting birth control pills, you are losing support. Senator Phil Williams' approach is a terrific first step to the ban of abortion in Alabama.
Bill:
Hello, Chris. Thank you for commenting. I appreciate your opinion, but I'm afraid that you must be mistaken. The only person who has complained to me about posting things on their wall is you. If I remember correctly, your exact words were: "Please stop posting your propaganda on my Facebook wall. Thanks." I have honored that request, and I have not posted anything to your wall since then. (And I can't remember posting more than two items to your wall prior to that request anyway.)
You are also mistaken in your insinuation that I am apt to ridicule those who disagree with me. There is a debate section on the Personhood Initiative website where you can read my responses to several people who have disagreed with me. You can also browse through the comments on the Personhood Initiative facebook page and find more of the same. I don't think that you will find a single instance of ridicule. I did mention to you personally that one of the arguments which you put forward in favor of abortion was a ridiculous argument, but you assured me that you took no offense at that particular comment. Nevertheless, if you would be so kind as to point out anyone whom I may have offended, I will certainly do my best to seek their forgiveness.
As for Senator Williams' compromised bill, I have a written five page article analyzing his approach and demonstrating why it is both dangerous and unnecessary. You can read that article at the link below, and as always, I invite you voice your opinion of it.
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/incremental-personhood.html
Chris:
Even Senator Williams said you don't know all of the details, you chastised himl and are confrontational. You reposted his response to you on Senator Beason's wall! I am not the only one. Your tactics and confrontational approach of saying that women on birth control pills are murderers has destroyed your credibility. You are doing the pro-life movement a disservice by being combative and rigid with your position of "You are right and everyone else is wrong"
Bill:
I admit that I am not perfect. If my research is mistaken, then I am more than willing to publish a correction. Have you found a mistake that you would like to point out to me?
Chris:
"My fault is not with your research. It is with your tactics, the attacking nature and tone of your articles and unwillingness to accept that people can have differing opinions with you. It's these actions that do harm to the pro-life movement you hold so dear. If you were truly willing to accomplish something of substance, you would not be so combative and realize that the process takes time and compromise. Senator Williams bill is a step in the right direction to preventing abortions. Your proposals, like the one in Mississippi, is nearly impossible to pass. Mississippi is one of the most conservative states in the country but the voters rejected the Personhood measure overwhelmingly. Governor Haley Barbour is one of the most respected conservatives in the country and he was extremely uncomfortable with it. Would you compare him to a radical pro-choice group like you did the Greater Birmingham Young Republicans? I think not."
Bill:
Would you mind providing some specifics? I am always looking for ways to improve my work, and I would certainly appreciate it if you would copy and paste any statement of mine that you find offensive and offer a suggestion for improving it.
Chris:
When a well respected State Senator claims you sent three "confrontational" emails, I would rethink your tactics. Why must I provide proof when you are the one who posted Sen. Wiliams repsonse it on Sen. Beason's wall?
Bill:
Perhaps I am just dense, but I fail to see why it is unethical for me to publish Senator Williams' response to an open letter. If you recall, I did inform him that I would be doing so. Was there something in his letter that you think should not have been made public?
Chris:
Its not the reposting, dude! it's the fact that he said his dealings with you were confrontational!!!!!!
Bill:
Senator Williams was incorrect in arriving at that conclusion. I did not send him three confrontational emails. I sent him a single, polite email requesting an explanation of a comment that he had made to the media. Do you think that it is confrontational for a citizen to ask a legislator to explain a public statement?
Chris:
I have come to the same conclusions in dealing with you, Bill. So maybe you should rethink they way you communicate. I know for a fact that others complain about your constant posting on the their Facebook walls but just politely delete them.
Bill:
I understand that you have arrived at that conclusion, and I am asking you for your help. If you would be so kind as to point out a specific statement that you find to be confrontational, I would greatly appreciate it.
Chris:
I have offered it several times. and asked you to tone down your rhetoric and approach. has that not been clear?
Chris:
I offered some opinions on how to make your argument stronger. And then you wrote an op ed saying my position was ludicrous. You post an article on the Young Republicans page that women on birth control bills are baby killers. I guess you dont see where the line is.
Bill:
My exact statement was:
"The only scientific support for this first argument comes from studies of the successful implantation of embryos created through the process of IVF. However, there are a number of factors affecting implantation r ates in IVF treatments that do not occur in natural pregnancies. Such factors as the day on which the embryo is transferred into the mother’s body[1] and even the depth at which the embryo is inserted[2] have been shown to significantly affect the outcome of the IVF treatment. It would be ludicrous to assume that these factors are present in natural pregnancies. Therefore, it is equally ludicrous to use calculations of average implantation rates for IVF as a statistic for the number of failed implantations in natural pregnancies."
This comment was not directed at you personally. Surely you do not think that you are the only one who has ever presented that particular argument in favor of abortion. Perhaps I could have used a different word besides "ludicrous," but if you recall, you did tell me that you did not find my comment offensive. To quote you exactly, you said: "You didn't offend me at all. No worries." Why is it that you take offense now?
Furthermore, I have never posted anything which referred to ladies as being baby killers or murderers. All I did was publish the results of my research into the abortifacient effect of oral contraceptives. To quote you again, you stated: "My fault is not with your research." I am at a loss then to explain your comments. Why do you take such offense at something which you admit to be true?
Chris:
Its no use discussing it with you. The purpose of the Young Republicans is to bring young republicans together. By criticizing women who use birth control as killing innocent children, you were damaging our attempts to grow the club with women. Your position is not main stream and it is not the correct place for you to promote your views on the YR fan page. We would have taken down any post that alienated anyone from growing our group. Your latest article just went too far and over the line. But you can not see it because you are too close to your personal jihad of passing something your way and only your way. You are free to take whatever position you like, but the Young Republicans are not a one issue organization, like you are a one issue person.
Bill:
I suppose then that I must remain confused. How was my article over the line? I made no accusations against anyone at all. (Not even Dr. Johnston found my article offensive by the way.) I just presented a bit of research relevant to a bill being introduced by a republican Senator.
If anyone has a right to be offended here it is me. I devote an average of 10 hours of painstaking research for every page that I write, and it is not unusual for me to spend two or three days editing each article. Yet you and the Young Republicans have referred to my work as mere propaganda and garbage. I have been lied about and falsely accused of many things, and now you refer to my efforts as being a personal jihad. You accuse me of being confrontational, but I challenge you to read through this public conversation and write down all of the confrontational statements that you find. Who's name do you think will be next to the majority of them?
That's not to say that I am offended. Just take a look at the debates on my other website http://www.increasinglearning.com/, and you will see that I am quite used to being ridiculed and rejected. In fact, I would be concerned if my positions did not generate some very strong attacks, for that would mean that I am just going with the flow rather than waving the standard of truth for all to see. As Christ said to His disciples, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19)
conversation 2:
Personhood Initiative Status Update:
Bill has now been banned from all of the Alabama Young Republican groups on facebook for simply posting a link to the Personhood Initiative website. We were informed by one of the leaders of the Young Republicans that our position is not mainstream and that the YR page should not be used to promote a "personal jihad."
Jackie:
Bill, the Young Republicans in Alabama are made up of people from all different backgrounds between the ages of 18 and 40. We are always looking for more people who share our core principle that smaller government is better government. I felt, along with other members of the Young Republicans, that some of the language you use (along with some of the extreme positions you take) is not something we want to promote from our facebook pages. We do not want to scare away prospective members to our club because you continue to post links to our page about controversial issues such as a woman's right to oral contraceptives. We respect your beliefs and admire the fact that you are so passionate about this topic. We are not arguing with your science. We just do not want to provide a platform for your beliefs from our pages.
I have only seen you at one Greater Birmingham Young Republicans meeting. It is not fair for you to characterize our club or our members as "not that conservative" before you spend time with us and get to know the beliefs of our individual members. We have lots of members with lots of different opinions.
Bill:
Hello, Jackie. I appreciate your comments, but I must respectfully disagree. I have read both the national and the state level constitutions for the Young Republicans, and I do not recall reading anything about a core principle regarding smaller government. I do, however, remember reading something about the Personhood Initiative in both documents.
In the constitution of the national organization, I noticed Article II, Section 4 which stated that "The purpose of the YRNF is to support the principles, objectives and platform of the Republican Party." And in the Alabama YR constitution I found a similar statement: "The objects of the Federation are: ...To support the principles, objects and platform of the Republican Party."
One of the primary purposes of the Young Republicans is the support of the platform of the Republican Party, and the 2008 platfrom included the following proclomation:
"Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."
Here are a few of the statements from the Human Life Amendments that have been introduced in Congress by the Republican Party:
"Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception, of life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."
"With respect to the right to life, the word ‘person’, as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applies to all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency."
"The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."
The state level Personhood Amendment being recommended to the Alabama legislature by the Personhood Initiative is:
"The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law."
As you can see, this state level amendment shares the same principles as the national amendments put forth by the Republican Party and is supported fully by the Republican platform. Therefore, if this position is extreme, then it can only be so if the position of the Republican Party is also extreme. If it scares away prospective members, then it only does so because they are afraid of the principles of the Republican Party. If the Personhood Amendment does not fit with the character and beliefs of the Young Republicans of Alabama, then that can only mean that those beliefs are inconsistent with the Republican platform.
It is my sincere hope that the Young Republicans of Alabama will return to the strong stand proclaimed and endorsed by the Republican Party.
Jackie:
I have never heard the Republican Party take a stand against birth control pills, IUDs, ectopic pregnancies, etc.
Bill:
Perhaps you are simply not aware of everything which has transpired within the Republican Party in regards to the Human Life Amendment. The articles that I presented on those topics provide documented, scientific answers to challenges that have frequently been brought against the Human Life Amendment on a national scale as well as the state level Personhood Amendments. Those challenges are an integral part of any discussion of either amendment, and the lack of solid answers to those challenges has proven to be very damaging to Republican efforts in this field. The articles which were so drastically rejected by the Young Republicans have received the praise and thanks of Republican pro-life leaders all across the nation.
Besides which, those two articles were entirely scientific in nature, and you said that you had no argument against my science.
Jackie:
You and I do not have the same beliefs. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. I did not comment because I wanted to debate with you; I commented so the people that read your post understand why you were blocked. You were removed because you spammed our pages over and over again with links to your articles. We are not a platform for your personhood beliefs. You have your own facebook page for that.
Bill:
If I recall correctly, I only posted two or three articles over the course of several weeks. Those articles were very much apropos to a bill which was sponsored by at least 39 republicans last legislative session, and which has already been pre-filed for the upcoming session. Those articles provided important answers to specific challenges which were brought against that bill when it was debated in the legislature. Every one of those articles was consistent with the constitution of both the national and the state Young Republican organizations, and the information presented in those articles is factually correct. I fail to see why you consider them to be spam. Would you mind explaining in more detail so that I may be more careful in my future posts?
Jackie:
I do mind. I have said what I need to say in relation to your post and I do not feel that explaining myself or the actions of the Young Republicans any further is an adequate use of my time.
Bill:
That is indeed unfortunate. I am sure that those following this conversation would have appreciated a little more clarity on what kind of content they are permitted to post in the Young Republican groups.
Jackie:
If there are any concerns, I hope that they will ask us directly.
Bill:
Yes, I also hope that others will learn from my error. I assumed that the Young Republicans were as conservative as their founding documents, and I failed to seek permission before posting content consistent with that assumption. I am sure that your efforts here have demonstrated the need for others to be more careful.