Citing Charlie Kirk murder, Tennessee pastor demands removal of 'Hate Has No Home' signs

RocksInMyHead said:

I said why.

Care to address my actual point though? About your deliberately misleading characterization?

Click to expand...

What's my misleading characterization?

MASSACHUSETTS’ GRADE Massachusetts received a “D” this year. Most notably, Massachusetts received poor marks for:
-Massachusetts does not mandate sex education in public schools. If taught, sex education must include information on healthy relationships.
-Massachusetts bans abortion at 24 weeks and requires parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion.
-Massachusetts received a “plus” because it has a state fund that helps patients pay for abortion care.


Is it because I left out the fact that they also received negative marks for not having specific sex education mandates?

If anything, adding that would've only strengthened my argument that some of this advocacy movement has become inflexible to any sort of reasonable compromise.

They're dinging Minnesota a pretty significant number of points because, while there are virtually no restrictions on abortion and they don't block access to contraception for minors, they're give the doctors the option (not mandated) of parental notification. And even though they mandate sex education, because they don't delve into the subjects to the degree advocacy org would like, that's evidently a 0/20?




(they ding'd Oregon of all places on that last one was well... 2.5 points knocked off because doctors merely have the option to notify)

Their overall grading system would indicate that their position is:
You have to let us do whatever we want with no limits
You have to make it mandatory to teach sex ed in schools (but it has to be in a way that we deem sufficiently LGBTQ inclusive)
You have to allow minors access to all of this stuff - and you have to mandate that doctors keep it secret from the parents
You have to provide public funding for

Anything less, we're knocking off points...



These sort of "my way or the highway" grading systems aren't unique to reproductive freedom advocacy either... HRC has one for their causes, the gun control groups have theirs, etc...

ThatRobGuy said:

So the pro-choice advocates here would be okay with an 18 week cap on elective abortions, and any beyond that would be subject to a medical review board? I'm guessing no.

Click to expand...

Not like that, no. It would still be a tough sell, so you'd have to package it like the Europeans do--health care, birth control, comprehensive sex ed, family leave, child day care.

ThatRobGuy said:

There are other legal proceedings that need to happen for outlier scenarios like that.

In virtually no other area of society do we give 14 year olds the same full rights as adults simply based on their parent's criminality and/or negligence.

The the scenario you describe, guardianship should be transferred to another responsible adult or entity, and that responsible adult can be the one who is provided notice, and giving the consent.

Click to expand...

And as all that drags on the poor child has the baby.

ThatRobGuy said:

What's my misleading characterization?

MASSACHUSETTS’ GRADE Massachusetts received a “D” this year. Most notably, Massachusetts received poor marks for:
-Massachusetts does not mandate sex education in public schools. If taught, sex education must include information on healthy relationships.
-Massachusetts bans abortion at 24 weeks and requires parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion.
-Massachusetts received a “plus” because it has a state fund that helps patients pay for abortion care.


Is it because I left out the fact that they also received negative marks for not having specific sex education mandates?

If anything, adding that would've only strengthened my argument that some of this advocacy movement has become inflexible to any sort of reasonable compromise.

They're dinging Minnesota a pretty significant number of points because, while there are virtually no restrictions on abortion and they don't block access to contraception for minors, they're give the doctors the option (not mandated) of parental notification. And even though they mandate sex education, because they don't delve into the subjects to the degree advocacy org would like, that's evidently a 0/20?

View attachment 370852


(they ding'd Oregon of all places on that last one was well... 2.5 points knocked off because doctors merely have the option to notify)

Their overall grading system would indicate that their position is:
You have to let us do whatever we want with no limits
You have to make it mandatory to teach sex ed in schools (but it has to be in a way that we deem sufficiently LGBTQ inclusive)
You have to allow minors access to all of this stuff - and you have to mandate that doctors keep it secret from the parents
You have to provide public funding for

Anything less, we're knocking off points...



These sort of "my way or the highway" grading systems aren't unique to reproductive freedom advocacy either... HRC has one for their causes, the gun control groups have theirs, etc...

Click to expand...

Right. Now you know their opinion and the basis for it. You're free to accept it or reject as you see fit.

ThatRobGuy said:

What's my misleading characterization?

MASSACHUSETTS’ GRADE Massachusetts received a “D” this year. Most notably, Massachusetts received poor marks for:
-Massachusetts does not mandate sex education in public schools. If taught, sex education must include information on healthy relationships.
-Massachusetts bans abortion at 24 weeks and requires parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion.
-Massachusetts received a “plus” because it has a state fund that helps patients pay for abortion care.


Is it because I left out the fact that they also received negative marks for not having specific sex education mandates?

If anything, adding that would've only strengthened my argument that some of this advocacy movement has become inflexible to any sort of reasonable compromise.

They're dinging Minnesota a pretty significant number of points because, while there are virtually no restrictions on abortion and they don't block access to contraception for minors, they're give the doctors the option (not mandated) of parental notification. And even though they mandate sex education, because they don't delve into the subjects to the degree advocacy org would like, that's evidently a 0/20?

View attachment 370852


(they ding'd Oregon of all places on that last one was well... 2.5 points knocked off because doctors merely have the option to notify)

Click to expand...

The standards those ratings imply seem quite moderate, should be able to get 100% without trouble in any school run by reasonable adults.

ThatRobGuy said:

Their overall grading system would indicate that their position is:
You have to let us do whatever we want with no limits
You have to make it mandatory to teach sex ed in schools (but it has to be in a way that we deem sufficiently LGBTQ inclusive)
You have to allow minors access to all of this stuff - and you have to mandate that doctors keep it secret from the parents
You have to provide public funding for

Anything less, we're knocking off points...



These sort of "my way or the highway" grading systems aren't unique to reproductive freedom advocacy either... HRC has one for their causes, the gun control groups have theirs, etc...

Click to expand...

Sure, it's called free speech. They get to advocate for whatever they want (except for the forcible overthrow of the government) and you get to pay as much attention to them as you want. They can't force you to do anything.

BCP1928 said:

Not like that, no. It would still be a tough sell, so you'd have to package it like the Europeans do--health care, birth control, comprehensive sex ed, family leave, child day care.

Click to expand...

Even with those things it sounds like it'd be a tough sell.


International reproductive freedom groups have provided reviews of Europe, and a lot of them are still receiving negative marks despite having the things you mention.

BCP1928 said:

And as all that drags on the poor child has the baby.

Click to expand...

"secret abortions for minors" isn't the solution to that problem.

If we give an honest look at the numbers

Out of approximately 123,000 abortions reported in eight specific states with available breakdowns, only around 0.4% were due to rape. Around 2% were due to health concerns, 1.2% were due to fetal abnormality. The other ~95% were for elective reasons. (ex: "whoops, I didn't mean to get pregnant, I don't want anyone to find out")

That's a ratio of 1:238

I can't imagine that anyone is honestly suggesting that allowing 238 minors to get abortions and hide it from their parents (and without parental consent in efforts) to facilitate abortion access or that extreme outlier scenario you described of "what about a 14 year old who's drug addicted mother isn't of sound enough mind to sign off on it" is a sensible trade-off.

And I'm probably being generous with that 1:238 ratio... that 0.4% is factoring in all rape scenarios. If you shrank that down to just rapes that occurred involving minors who have parents who are mentally incapable of providing consent (which is the scenario you described), that number is probably so miniscule that I'd need several zeros after the decimal point.

ThatRobGuy said:

Even with those things it sounds like it'd be a tough sell.

https://www.epfweb.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/Abortion%20Atlas%20EPF%20-%202025%20updated_0.pdf

International reproductive freedom groups have provided reviews of Europe, and a lot of them are still receiving negative marks despite having the things you mention.

Click to expand...

Of course they are. As you point out, the European rules are considered strict by pro-choice advocacy groups, but you are not selling to them, you're selling to the voters. Advocating against health care, birth control, comprehensive sex ed, family leave, child day care doesn't help the pro-lifers' case.

ThatRobGuy said:

"secret abortions for minors" isn't the solution to that problem.

If we give an honest look at the numbers

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, this fact sheet was updated on January 14, 2023, and again on May 24, 2024. After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country have enacted laws that limit abortion. Frequently, these state laws make...

lozierinstitute.org

Out of approximately 123,000 abortions reported in eight specific states with available breakdowns, only around 0.4% were due to rape. Around 2% were due to health concerns, 1.2% were due to fetal abnormality. The other ~95% were for elective reasons. (ex: "whoops, I didn't mean to get pregnant, I don't want anyone to find out")

That's a ratio of 1:238

I can't imagine that anyone is honestly suggesting that allowing 238 minors to get abortions and hide it from their parents (and without parental consent in efforts) to facilitate abortion access or that extreme outlier scenario you described of "what about a 14 year old who's drug addicted mother isn't of sound enough mind to sign off on it" is a sensible trade-off.

And I'm probably being generous with that 1:238 ratio... that 0.4% is factoring in all rape scenarios. If you shrank that down to just rapes that occurred involving minors who have parents who are mentally incapable of providing consent (which is the scenario you described), that number is probably so miniscule that I'd need several zeros after the decimal point.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point, but never mind. It just scares me to think of any family situation in which a young girl in trouble would not be able to turn first to her mother.

ThatRobGuy said:

What's my misleading characterization? Is it because I left out the fact that they also received negative marks for not having specific sex education mandates?

Click to expand...

Yeah? You don't think so?

If anything, adding that would've only strengthened my argument that some of this advocacy movement has become inflexible to any sort of reasonable compromise.

Click to expand...

Nope, because you were talking about Massachusetts has such liberal abortion laws but they got a D+, when the largest contributors to their grade had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

RocksInMyHead said:

Yeah? You don't think so?

Nope, because you were talking about Massachusetts has such liberal abortion laws but they got a D+, when the largest contributors to their grade had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

Click to expand...

So, the portion of their grading system that actually has to do with abortion directly.




A state that allows abortion up until 24 weeks, (but requires parental consent or notice prior to a minor getting an abortion) is a 5 out of 15 in their view?

Nevada and California both restrict at 24 weeks for elective abortions as well, but they don't have the provision regarding parental notification for minors. They only give those to states a 10 out 15.

Are they actually suggesting one third of the weighting criteria for determining 'who has good abortion access' in contingent on minors being able to keep abortions a secret from their parents?

It sure seems that way, because Maryland doesn't have the gestational limit at all, but does have the parental notification provision, they get 5 points knocked off



And as I noted in my previous reply to another poster, even the most pro-choice states like Vermont and Oregon are getting the points knocked off for giving doctors the option of notifying parents about contraception services.

Maryland got the points knocked off for that too



With the way their grading system is constructed (in terms of the educational requirements they expect states to make mandatory in schools, and the way they weight "what kids can keep secret from their parents for contraception and abortion"), that's a bit telling.


So Oregon allows minors to consent to contraception services, but because the doctor has the option (not being forced, just merely the option) to notify the parents and say "Hey, your 15 year old came in and requested Nexplanon... they're allowed to consent to that on their own so I fulfilled that requests, but just thought you should know because these are some of the side effects and risks associated with it and things to keep an eye on" -- this organization says "welp, you lose half of the possible points in that category"

So what is it? That you don't think this organization should publish reports like that?

BCP1928 said:

So what is it? That you don't think this organization should publish reports like that?

Click to expand...

They should just be honest about their intentions and true goals and not resort to semantic overload as means to coerce the general public into backing them or being afraid to criticize them.

If they called their movement "Sexual liberation for all regardless of age" or "Consequence-free sex" then I'd have more respect for them.

At least, in that scenario, they're not trying to hide the ball and we can have an honest conversation without all the BS.



I've noted this before in other threads, but this is reminiscent of the "medicinal marijuana" legalization advocates of 10-15 years ago (before most states made it legal for recreation) -- you ever notice how after states legalized it for recreation, the talking points about how "it gives cancer patients on chemo an appetite" seemed to fade away and not mentioned much anymore? Weird huh...it's almost like that was never the primary concern.

It was a bunch of people (whose actual goal was "we want people to be allowed to get high if they want because it's fun"), trying to leverage and piggyback of of cancer patients to make their cause sound more noble when we know that wasn't the actual primary focus.

And I'm saying that as a person who was (and still is) a favor or marijuana being legalized across the board and treated like alcohol. (because it's fun)


The "reproductive rights activists" actually want a sexual liberation sort of thing "consequence-free free-love", they're merely leveraging the 3% of abortions that are due to rape/health situations to make their position sound more noble (or at the very least, make people afraid to publicly criticize it)

If you look at their grading criteria and how they weight certain aspects, that's evident.

What they want is for 15 year olds to have the freedom to engage in sexual activity, and the ability to change their gender identity, and avoid consequences and hide it from their parents... and they want the public education system to reinforce that viewpoint. Plain & simple.

So they should just say that, and let's have an honest debate.

Hiding behind cancer patients and rape victims to make one's agenda "criticism-proof" is cowardice.

Stopped_lurking said:

Yes, my interpretation would be that those who put those signs have identified that those that feel represented by those symbols are worried about encountering hate in society, and that they wish say that hate against those who feel represented are absent at that particular location. That seems to me like a straightforward interpretation.

Click to expand...

Alright, I can see where you are coming from. But can you see where the confusion is with that sign for many of us here. I we understand it to mean what we thought it meant don't you think thousands of other people would see it the wrong way. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "we identify with this cause". Everybody is happy then.

Tensions are super high everywhere here is the US. Wouldn't it be better to try not to provoke anger in others. We want peace in this country and you want peace in this country. We don't have to agree on everything but let's take extra steps to try and stay calm, cool and collect .

Like I said in my other post, some of us read between the lines better than others.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's not?
View attachment 370841

I would say this is quite similar to the second result that came up on your amazon search


if you go into the HRC merch shop, you'll see some quite similar yard flags/shirts/etc using similar symbolism and language choices.

Click to expand...

That particular one, yes. But how does the amazon results support that the text in and of itself would be so weighed down with meaning even in the absence of the extra symbols? In your defend freedom example, it's perfectly ok to mean it in abolish gun regulations and taxes way in one case, or in a free access to abortion way in another case. It's determined by the other symbols on the sign. Also you if you go out polling people about what they think the rainbow flag means how many start discussing trans participation in sports? When you ask people about BLM, how many starts discussing who should own the means of production? The number of people supporting BLM seem way too high compared to the number of people voting for parties wanting to destroy the capitalist system.
Guardian report of opinion for BLM

Hvizsgyak said:

Alright, I can see where you are coming from. But can you see where the confusion is with that sign for many of us here. I we understand it to mean what we thought it meant don't you think thousands of other people would see it the wrong way. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "we identify with this cause". Everybody is happy then.

Tensions are super high everywhere here is the US. Wouldn't it be better to try not to provoke anger in others. We want peace in this country and you want peace in this country. We don't have to agree on everything but let's take extra steps to try and stay calm, cool and collect .

Like I said in my other post, some of us read between the lines better than others.

Click to expand...

Sure, but to interpret thing in a very dramatic way also add to the tensions.

ThatRobGuy said:

They should just be honest about their intentions and true goals and not resort to semantic overload as means to coerce the general public into backing them or being afraid to criticize them.

If they called their movement "Sexual liberation for all regardless of age" or "Consequence-free sex" then I'd have more respect for them.

Click to expand...

Why not just take them at face value? Isn't their ostensible agenda objectional enough for you?

ThatRobGuy said:

At least, in that scenario, they're not trying to hide the ball and we can have an honest conversation without all the BS.



I've noted this before in other threads, but this is reminiscent of the "medicinal marijuana" legalization advocates of 10-15 years ago (before most states made it legal for recreation) -- you ever notice how after states legalized it for recreation, the talking points about how "it gives cancer patients on chemo an appetite" seemed to fade away and not mentioned much anymore? Weird huh...it's almost like that was never the primary concern.

Click to expand...

Because if it is available for recreational use then medical users have easy access to it. But the arguments have not faded away in states where medical marijuana is not yet available. So what? Did anyone not realize that not-medical users encouraged what was clearly a stepping stone for recreational sale?

ThatRobGuy said:

It was a bunch of people (whose actual goal was "we want people to be allowed to get high if they want because it's fun"), trying to leverage and piggyback of of cancer patients to make their cause sound more noble when we know that wasn't the actual primary focus.

And I'm saying that as a person who was (and still is) a favor or marijuana being legalized across the board and treated like alcohol. (because it's fun)


The "reproductive rights activists" actually want a sexual liberation sort of thing "consequence-free free-love", they're merely leveraging the 3% of abortions that are due to rape/health situations to make their position sound more noble (or at the very least, make people afraid to publicly criticize it)

If you look at their grading criteria and how they weight certain aspects, that's evident.

What they want is for 15 year olds to have the freedom to engage in sexual activity, and the ability to change their gender identity, and avoid consequences and hide it from their parents... and they want the public education system to reinforce that viewpoint. Plain & simple.

So they should just say that, and let's have an honest debate.

Hiding behind cancer patients and rape victims to make one's agenda "criticism-proof" is cowardice.

Click to expand...

15 year olds are already engaging in sexual activity and are not likely to stop just because they can't get contraceptives and real sex ed. They're just more likely to get STDs and or pregnant. At least comprehensive sex Ed tries to teach that it's OK to say "no."

I realised perhaps everybody don't want to create an account to read the Guardian, so I looked up the Pew Research report it was taken from (Views of Race, Policing and Black Lives Matter in the 5 Years Since George Floyd’s Killing)