Pro-Life Folks In Tx Sing "Amazing Grace," Pro-Abortion" Respond With Chant Of "Hail Satan"

[smac97]

Words fail me.

It's been a very interesting day at the Texas State Capitol. Cahnman's Musings hasn't been following the hearing. Instead, we've been participating in the surrounding events. LetTexasSpeak has been doing a live broadcast from the rotunda where women have been sharing their abortion related testimonies. The pro-abortion crowd has responded with repeated chants of "hail Satan." It's taken us all day to get a video recording, but here it is:

[VID]

For the record: They've been doing this all day, this is just the first time we caught it on video.

The chant is disturbing both because A) the pro-abortion folks were using the chant to try to suppress the speech of their opponents by literally shouting/screaming over them, B) the chant is juxtaposed against the pro-life group which is solemnly singing "Amazing Grace," and C) the chant literally invokes/praises Satan.

"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold..."

-Smac

[Calm]

The age of the ones yelling "hail Satan" indicates that they are just doing it to push buttons.

Perhaps the Amazing Grace guys were singing during the time the pro-choice people were trying to talk so when it was their turn....

Edited July 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I always appreciate Cal's willingness to consider someone else's perspective.

[Damien the Leper]

"Hail Satan"...that makes me chuckle.

[BlueDreams]

They just look like young people being young and stupid. I wouldn't consider much a concern

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

Somethings that make me want to go HUH?

[Garden Girl]

They just look like young people being young and stupid. I wouldn't consider much a concern

With luv,

BD

The only trouble with this is that "young and stupid" are still forming their opinions and views that will follow them when they grow "older and more radical." I'm sure a good portion of the younger protestors will continue when they are older to support abortion of 20-week old fetuses as we have in the news today. (That's five months old... a time when the fetus can literally suck their thumb, cough (my grandma's), etc.

GG

[thesometimesaint]

GG:

20 weeks is really 18 weeks. The medically agreed upon age of viability is 25/26 weeks.

[Garden Girl]

GG:

20 weeks is really 18 weeks. The medically agreed upon age of viability is 25/26 weeks.

That's true, but the discussion I heard recently, which included medical/gyn doctors, was talking about the current law being proposed for allowing abortion at 20 weeks, and the types of development a fetus has reached by 20 weeks.... IIRC the current law allows abortion up to 16-18 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it that's the objection... that the 20 weeks extends the legal time by a week or two).

GG

[thesometimesaint]

GG:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.^[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."^[2]

For all intents and purposes the proposed Texas law of 20 weeks, without regard to the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, clearly violates both Supreme Court decisions.

Edited July 3, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Bikeemikey]

GG:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.^[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."^[2]

For all intents and purposes the proposed Texas law of 20 weeks, without regard to the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, clearly violates both Supreme Court decisions.

Pretty clear cut.

As for a few young kids representing a "pro-abortion" movement... that is a stretch.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have much use for the extremists on either side of the issue. As a long time member of the Church I support and defend the Church's position, and as a US citizen I have no right to force my position on others not of my faith.

[Calm]

Pretty clear cut.

As for a few young kids representing a "pro-abortion" movement... that is a stretch.

The use of the "hail Satan" to mock them sounds like it was less about abortion and more about making a public showing/spectacle of their faith in a place that perhaps the kids felt was inappropriate.

[smac97]

I don't have much use for the extremists on either side of the issue. As a long time member of the Church I support and defend the Church's position, and as a US citizen I have no right to force my position on others not of my faith.

How do you characterize "extremists" on the pro-life side of the debate?

Are the people in the video singing "Amazing Grace" extremists?

Thanks,

-Smac

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It may be simply to mock, but out of the mouth the heart is revealed. Their hearts are full of murder and all manner of iniquity- satan delights in them, even if they don't knowingly serve him.

[Damien the Leper]

How do you characterize "extremists" on the pro-life side of the debate?

Are the people in the video singing "Amazing Grace" extremists?

Thanks,

-Smac

Some could be. But that is both sides and not just one.

[Damien the Leper]

The "Hail Satan" group do not seem to want to be taken seriously, obviously. Getting bent out of shape over a silly phrase like that says more about the person whining about the phrase than the people saying it.

[Garden Girl]

For all intents and purposes the proposed Texas law of 20 weeks, without regard to the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, clearly violates both Supreme Court decisions.

Exactly... and that's what all the to-do has been about... pro-choice wanting the 20 wks vs pro-life opposing the 20 weeks.

GG

[USU78]

Somethings that make me want to go HUH?

Because, of course, no man can possibly have anything to say on preserving wholly dependent, genetically unique, and entirely innocent human life.

[USU78]

GG:

20 weeks is really 18 weeks. The medically agreed upon age of viability is 25/26 weeks.

Because the life of a genetically unique, wholly dependent and entirely innocent human life is worthless until 9 guys say it is.

[Calm]

Because, of course, no man can possibly have anything to say on preserving wholly dependent, genetically unique, and entirely innocent human life.

I think the point is that men don't usually have abortions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't have much use for the extremists on either side of the issue. As a long time member of the Church I support and defend the Church's position, and as a US citizen I have no right to force my position on others not of my faith.

So there are only 2 options? Keep quite or " force my position on others not of my faith."?

Oh well that is all I will say on this matter. Good day. I mean that sincerely

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think the point is that men don't usually have abortions.

Usually? How about never. They never have them. But I am not so sure that picture is giving us the full context of the dude and his back ground story. Edited July 3, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

I think the point is that men don't usually have abortions.

I understand that at first it may seem strange that the activist holding up the sign is male . . . but what of that? For too long I have been hearing men be bullied off the public square on this issue, cal, as though we had no voice. Bad enough a woman can kill my kid and I cannot have any input into the decision. To silence me altogether, however, is something, as Churchill would put it, up with which I shall not put.

[Calm]

Usually? How about never. They never have them.

I was being somewhat sarcastic.