About a month ago, the people of the state of Ohio voted 56%-44% to enshrine the ability to commit abortion up to 21 weeks and six days into their state constitution. In other words, in Ohio, one has the "right" to murder their own child, so long as that child is still in the womb. This is consistent with leftist ideology. The modern progressive regards it as...well...both "modern" and "progressive" to regard human life so malleable as to assume the authority to dictate when a person is eligible for equal regard.
This abhorrent election result is a consequence of the recent Dobbs decision which overturned the unconstitutional Roe v Wade ruling of the early 1970s. Leftists panicked at the thought they might have to reassess and regulate their carnal desires. It would force them to recognize and accept the factual connection between the procreative act and procreation. Denial/rejection/feigned ignorance of that connection allowed them to put forth all manner of cheap rationalization as legitimate reasons to off one's own child. They could pretend to anguish over the decision, as if they are truly concerned about the human being they're going to murder.
The Ohio vote was one of the worst manifestations of the unintended consequence of the Dobbs decision. I don't know that too many who celebrated the overturning of Roe actually thought there would be no state which wouldn't protect the ability of the immoral to engage in infanticide. But it's always stunning to realize just how evil the left is when it manifests right before our eyes.
The lying left has always tried to frame opposition to this infanticide as a "war against women". It's what the left does. Perverting language is essential to achieving their agenda goals. But if it is truly a war against women, then it's a war against women who demand the liberty to murder their own children. I'll continue to fight that war in defense of the most innocent, defenseless and vulnerable of our species. What honorable person wouldn't?
Good question. The answer is there are none, though there are those who worry that Democrats will forever rule if true conservatives of the GOP don't soften their opposition to infanticide. This brings to mind the Scriptural adage which I'll alter here to drive home the conundrum: What does it profit a party if they gain the legislative majority but lose their soul? And to those members of the party insisting we must "be reasonable", I ask, how do you decide what number of innocent lives are expendable in order to win elections?
The modern progressive doesn't care. They're more than willing to let them all die in order to win. They don't do jack shit to appeal to whatever remnant of a better nature resides in the black hearts of their constituency. While we on the right struggle with this question, we're accused of "getting into the bedrooms" of the population by merely encouraging all adults to be masters over their sexual desires. "Who are YOU to tell me how to live?" they demand of us. "I'm among those who do not want to see you murder your child when your appeasement of desire leads to the conception of that child." But to the left, the appeasement of desire is more important than the consequences of doing so, and this is an example of the most heinous abdication of personal responsibility they seek to protect by legislative and/or judicial measures. That's how corrupt they are. As such, and contrary to what their leader Joe Biden says, it is the left who are the greatest threat to our existence.
One more thing: This vote in Ohio demonstrates the major flaw in democracy. It's an example of how the majority can be responsible for avoidable suffering. And when the left is the majority, suffering of all sorts will follow as it always does. A leftist majority will always result in the suspension of true and constitutionally protected rights of others.
YET ONE MORE THING:
Few are better examples of death lovers than Dan's troll, feo. In an attempt by him to post a comment here, he mentioned the passing of Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice. In that attempt he quoted her thusly:
“Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic
principles of morality, but that can't control our decision," O'Connor
said in court, reading a summary of the decision in Planned Parenthood
v. Casey. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to
mandate our own moral code.”
The problem here is lost on the lovers of infanticide. O'Connor's position is greatly flawed in denying to the conceived that obligation of which she speaks. They are granted no liberty and their right to live is of no consequence to those who would pretend the defense of their murder is not a manifestation of a moral code. All law is a reflection of morality otherwise a given law is unnecessary to codify. Abortion is a rejection of the notion of equal application of the law and it's shameful that this woman rejected that notion in rationalizing so cheaply her support of the practice. It never fails to disturb me that so many are so willing to diminish the humanity of others when it's convenient to do so. Another bit of Scripture tells us "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." All a woman need do is sacrifice nine months at most.
As if that isn't enough, the lefty will further pervert the issue by bringing up other issues as if they are exact parallels. Two which come easily to mind are capital punishment and war.
In our society, only those guilty of murder are sentenced to death. This tells us how valued human life is that such a sentence would be handed down to one who doesn't value it at all. To defend the lives of the conceived, therefore, is not a hypocrisy while also supporting capital punishment. That support seeks justice for the victims of murderers. Denying the "right" to abort defends those who are intentionally victimized by murderous intent.
feo also tried to do similar in bringing up dead Gazastinian civilians, as if I want to see more of it. That's not quite accurate. I want to see the murderers and those who support them justly rebuked. If it means they all die to get to that point, that's just punishment for all those who support the actions of their most savagely violent. Those civilians who suffer are victims of their own people they put in authority over themselves. They weren't intentionally killed by the IDF, but were intentionally put in a position to be collateral damage by Hamas. Lefties hold the wrong people accountable willfully and intentionally, because they're immoral. But they are indeed the death cult.
105 comments:
It isn't just the Molech-worshiping ghouls on the Left -- though they are the biggest abusers and child-killers. Plenty who check the "Christian" box refuse to admit that they murdered their children, so they pretend that abortion should be legal.
I'm not sure that returning the issue of abortion to the states was an unintended consequence, that was the only possible result. The fact that one state chose to go to the extreme position of Ohio seems inevitable. The good news is that the fight is now against a law that was passed, and can be overturned. One problem with Roe was that it couldn't be legislatively overturned or modified.
Returning the issue to the states was absolutely the intent of the Dobbs decision, and that it robbed states of the rights and authority over the issue was the main problem with the Roe decision. What I meant was the degree to which this evil would be protected as if a legitimate right. The Ohio situation is an obvious example, and I don't think that was intended by overturning Roe. As I stated, I doubt anyone believed there would be no states which allowed abortions when the authority over it was returned to them. I'm not sure anyone believed it would be put in a state constitution.
What I see as the biggest fraud in this issue, is the pretending there's any doubt about what the conceived are. They totally pretended they had no idea when Roe was decided and it was an abject and vile lie back then. We're allegedly more scientifically informed today, and to pretend there's any doubt the conceived are fully human beings...PEOPLE...and thus endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life, just as we all claim we are, is a greater lie than it was back then. The shameless left will continue to walk around as if it's still a great mystery so they can f**k with abandon and no consequences or need for restraint and maturity.
A civil, moral society doesn't murder their own children. The left gives no more than lip service to such traits. The modern progressive "Christian" is the most heinous in this regard.
Ok. But the fact that any time you vote on anything one side is going to lose, that's just how it is. I realize that it might be difficult to believe that people see things so differently, but it's how it is. I suspect that in Ohio, and elsewhere, if you drilled down that you'd see that 85% of those who voted for the abortion law are pretty much sheep. They've had it drilled into their heads that there is no alternative other then to support legalized abortion, and they do. Then you have the 15% who are the hard core pro abortion, Peter Singer types who have done a great job manipulating the sheep. It'll be interesting to see what a couple of years of this new law actually look like, and whether or not people change their minds.
Unfortunately, there are some very persuasive people who have put a lot of effort into selling the narrative that the child is not a person, and redefining person to make their case. It's going to take significant persuasion to change minds. Fortunately, those on the pro abortion side are killing their offspring, or encouraging them onto paths that limit or eliminate reproduction. So their replacement rate is low.
Before I respond to Craig, I had to present the following from Dan's troll. It's just so stupid it's hilarious, in his notoriously pathetic way:
"The “right to life” thugs thrill to Israel’s attempted ethnic cleansing even of the Israeli-enforced open-air prison that has been Gaza for 2 decades."
First, the use of the word "thugs". Apparently Dan hasn't told this guy with the imaginary black wife just how insulting that term is to black people everywhere. It could mean he's referring to those among the pro-life movement who are black people are thugs. I don't know. Dan's troll is as moronic as Dan.
Second, the notion that there actually are right to life "thugs", when those who protest abortion or pray in front of abortion mills or in the presence of abortion proponents are routinely physically attacked by members of the pro-infanticide modern progressives. Rarely, if ever, do we hear of cases of pro-lifers assaulting abortion lovers like Dan or his troll. Yet those who pray for the lives of the conceived yet unborn, their "mothers" and even the miscreants like Dan and his troll who defend the heinous practice as if its a life-saving necessity are even arrested for caring. No doubt the troll will begin scraping barrels to find such cases of confirmed pro-lifers attacking helpless and hapless defenders of infanticide, because one's a "thug" for defending their victims, not the infanticidal vermin themselves...because that's how modern progressives roll.
Third, this notion that Israel is engaged in anything akin to ethnic cleansing of the muslims in gaza and the west bank who are engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Jews is astoundingly modern progressive-like. What this means is that this cancerous pig's ass is defending two groups who murder innocent people...the more defenseless the better, especially regarding the cowardly gazastinians. No...wait...abortion lovers are cowards, too. Their victims are totally non-threatening innocent, defenseless and vulnerable targets of disregard. Just as is true of Dan, this thug insults Christ any and every time he lies about being Christian.
Fourth, if Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing of the gazastinians, they're doing an incredibly poor job of it. Never has a population victimized with ethnic cleansing grown every year they've existed. These frauds who falsely call themselves "Palestinians" as if that's a nationality have never been at risk of being "cleansed". EVER. That's because no one has yet sought to better the planet by such a plan.
Fifth, gaza is no "open air" prison, except for hamas assholes preventing fellow gazastinians from leaving, because they need civilians to hide behind. Aside from having to scrutinize those who seek entry into Israel (though gaza and the west bank is actually Israel as well) from gaza, legal border crossing happens all the time. Prisoners don't get to leave their prisons and Israel doesn't...or until Oct 7...deny border crossing. In fact, there are over a million "Palestinians" who are Israeli citizens today. What security is aimed at regulating the flow of gazastinians crossing into Israel is the result of the murderous savagery of the gazastinians.
Dan's troll, like Dan, thrill to the constant and unrelenting thuggery of the people of gaza and the west bank, and likely of Iran and any other Jew hating muslim controlled nation. They and the Jew haters they defend are scavenger birds of a feather. This troll thinks Derek Chauvin murdered a black dude.
First, there is no "ethnic cleansing" by Israel. If there was, Gaza would be a barren wasteland, Israel would have killed it's own hostages, and there would be almost zero casualties. If "ethnic cleansing" was the goal Israel is horrible at accomplishing that goal. Hamas, on the other hand, is absolutely in the "ethnic cleansing" business.
If there really is an "open air prison", it was certainly a nice one. But by pretending that Egypt doesn't have equal access to Gaza and more than equal ability to absorb the citizens of Gaza, is simply choosing ignorance rather than knowledge.
Craig,
Getting to your comment on December 4, 2023 at 3:14 PM.
I was not confused about how voting results in some people being on the losing side. When bright people chose Trump over Hillary, his SCOTUS nominees resulted in lefties losing on several issues, and the Dobbs decision was just one of them. There was no doubt some states would stiffen their righteous restrictions on abortion, while others would stiffen their heinous support for infanticide. My point was to point out just how entrenched the vile left is in that support by the recent Ohio action to protect the practice in their state constitution. That's some extremist shit right there!!
I don't believe there is any real confusion about what the conceived yet unborn are in the minds of lefties who actually have any experience with human biology texts. They simply lie, because the pleasure of intercourse is their god. They are like children who have absolute liberty to choose what to eat, and with that liberty choose ice cream and other treats because it's pleasurable to eat that stuff anytime they're hungry. The troll sees it much differently and I've a comment of his in the queue I may allow for the sheer entertainment of its stupidity. But it's also illustrative of the self-serving nature of the leftist.
As to your last comment, the troll also fails on those points as well. Another comment of his I already deleted from the queue was an attempt to assert Israel is responsible for the sorry conditions in the occupied territory of Israel known as gaza and the west bank. He quoted an exchange from some interview for which he didn't have the courage to provide a link, as if the exchange couldn't have been just invention and must be accepted as truth because he presented it. But on reflection, it also was entertaining in its falsehoods and I wish I didn't delete it now. One point was referencing Jewish settlers fighting the IDF's actions to remove them from gaza as it was ceded to the savages. Somehow, I guess, this was cited to make the case the Jews are the aggressors. But who would want to be removed from their own land because the government made a deal with animals to which they didn't make a personal concession? Gaza and the West Bank never "belonged" to the interlopers who now live there. Certainly not as an ancestral claim.
Art,
That's great. My point then would be that at least one state making abortion law that you don't like is a foreseeable and appropriate consequence of repealing Roe. So far, I guess the fact that there hasn't been an avalanche of states jumping on the abortion at any time for any reason bandwagon has been small.
I agree that I don't think confusion is the problem as much redefinition. Although I've heard some on the left dispute what the science tells us. Obviously the things of this world are the gods of those people, and it shouldn't strike us as strange that they do what they do. They merely follow their nature. Paul addresses this pretty clearly, again we shouldn't be surprised or angry. It's similar to chimps throwing feces. They do it because they're chimps and it's natural that they do it.
I've seen the video where the IDF is forcibly removing Jewish settler from Gaza when Israel gave Gaza to the "palestinians". The point of that video is that Israel went to extreme lengths to get it's citizens out of Gaza to allow it to be for those who were there. The fact that those Jews would have been dead in hours, and in heinous ways, was probably a factor as the IDF was making it clear that they wouldn't be in a position to protect them from the violence guaranteed to follow. Again, the point being that Israel was scrupulous in giving Gaza away under the agreement they made. Israel doesn't want Gaza as it's currently constituted, of course neither does Egypt because Hamas has been quite clear that they consider Egypt to be as bad or worse than Israel and would fight Egyptian control similarly.
Again, from a 1948 boundaries point of view, Gaza and the West Bank were parts of Egypt and Jordan engaged in an unprovoked attack on Israel (1967) when Israel kicked the ass of both Egypt and Jordan as conquered those territories an heroic effort to defeat overwhelming forces attacking them. Throughout history, territory conquered in warfare has been left to the winner to decide how they want to handle. In fact, Israel was forced to give up vastly more land won on the battlefield than the small areas of Gaza and the West Bank.
Ignorance coupled with certainty can be a powerful thing.
I'll continue to fight that war in defense of the most innocent, defenseless and vulnerable of our species.
Unless they are Palestinians of course. Then you will merely find their deaths "regrettable."
Craig,
Israel was forced to cede all that land by a misplaced and unsupportable belief that doing so would bring peace. I don't think they'll ever get any.
The infanticidal left will always seek to legitimize infanticide. The Ohio move shows just how determined they are to preserve their legal ability to off their own. That was my point in referencing that vote.
Oh, Vinny! Now you're taking even more lessons from both Dan and his troll!!
The fight to defend innocent lives does indeed those alleged "innocent" gazastinians. The problem is there is no way to do that without first making sure actual innocent lives in Israel are protected and those who seek their murder are destroyed once and for all. In order to achieve that worthy and righteous goal, collateral damage will occur as it always does in war. Assuming anyone in Gaza is truly "innocent", it is thus indeed regrettable that they might suffer and/or die. It's regrettable because it can't be helped if one wishes to end the murderous assault on the whole of Israel. Do you have a better plan for ending the murder, torture, rape and other nastiness against truly innocent Israelis without all that occurring in the meantime? No. You modern progressives never do. You content yourselves with pretending Israel is the aggressor and oppressor and thus responsible for any gazastinian harmed as they try to defend themselves. Then you whine that such stupidity invites terms like "jackwagon", "shithead", "vermin", "lunatic" and "moron", none of which are used pejoratively. You prove they're simply apt descriptions. You don't like being called a shithead, I recommend you stop acting like one. Just as with Dan and his troll, I have no expectation of that ever happening.
Art,
Absolutely Israel agreed to cede the land, under duress, because everyone but the Arabs wanted peace. The Arabs, merely wanted a few years to rearm from the Soviets and try again.
Despite that, I can't see the value to Israel in keeping the entire Sinai peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza were held for strategic reasons at the time. I can't believe that holding all of the land was ever really going to be tenable for Israel. Especially given the population and military size at the time.
Craig,
While a larger area of land means more resources are required to defend it, they're somewhat less surrounded with an ocean on one border. It's helped us having one on each side of our country, so even having one side would be helpful in my opinion. And since they have decent relations with Egypt, they would be even more easily defended not having to worry about the same degree of threat from that direction.
It's their land as has been the case for centuries. It was never arab land unless one wants to go back to that time in history when Egypt enslaved the Israelites. But it's a stretch to say those who might have lived there back then are actual direct ancestors of the interlopers living there now. That's just part of the fraud the Jew-haters perpetuate to portray themselves as victims of fictitious Jewish oppression.
I haven't give a great deal of thought and research into how it would or could work out for gaza and the west bank devoid of the Jew-haters who now control it with the help of western money, but I believe it's a good move in the long run and best for the region as well.
Assuming anyone in Gaza is truly "innocent", it is thus indeed regrettable that they might suffer and/or die.
The Palestinian fetuses are guilty, too?
Then you whine that such stupidity invites terms like "jackwagon", "shithead", "vermin", "lunatic" and "moron", none of which are used pejoratively.
I'm not whining at all. I find your name-calling amusing. I just wonder how Anonymous figures that I'm the one who is full of hate and anger when you are the one spewing bile.
I really don't care to engage with Marshal much anymore... he's too far gone. But just a bit of fact checking on at least this one comment. Marshal...
"when those who protest abortion or pray in front of abortion mills or in the presence of abortion proponents are routinely physically attacked by members of the pro-infanticide modern progressives. Rarely, if ever, do we hear of cases of pro-lifers assaulting abortion lovers..."
Reality...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence.
The reality is that violence against abortion providers is its own category of violence. Bombings, death threats, murder, assaults... all in the name of "pro-life..."
Dan
Art,
I agree that there are times when more land is strategically good. The problem for Israel is that they have a small population, and a relatively small military. In the '67 and '73 wars they were able to use this to their advantage to rapidly redeploy assets where needed. If you were to add all of the Sinai, and the large chuck of Jordan they held, they would be unable to defend that much space effectively. I completely agree that they were pressured into giving up land for peace, yet even with that pressure they held on to the areas they considered strategically vital. the real problem with the deal was the fact that they gave up the land, but they didn't get the peace they were promised. In effect, the Arabs negotiated in bad faith and Israel got a crappy deal. Pretty much like the recent cease fire/hostage release.
I'll note that Dan's source is Wikipedia, which isn't exactly neutral, and that his search was specifically one sided. I guess the mobs hurling death threats outside SCOTUS justices homes don't count.
I'll also note that the vast majority of this violence was over 25 years ago, and the page lists incidents of "suspected arson" and "minimal property damage", one committed by an "unknown individual", as if they were equal to some of the older more violent incidents in the past.
Not exactly a credible, unbiased source.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers
But hey, this lengthy list from the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is much less valuable and informative than Dan's Wiki page.
https://theintercept.com/2023/06/15/fbi-abortion-domestic-terrorism/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/15/abortion-rights-clinics-violence/
This doesn't even take into account the recent rise in criminal prosecutions for peaceful protesters outside abortion clinics.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, Dan. You seem to be pretty far gone yourself.
"I really don't care to engage with Marshal much anymore... he's too far gone."
An intentional lie from Dan, whether he actually believes it is true or not. The truth is that he doesn't care to engage with someone who so easily exposes his falseness, his lies and his corruption. I'll do it again here, as what I will present exposes his attempt to "fact check" as the crap sandwich it is. I posted some of it at Craig's, so I won't summarize any of them, with maybe one or two exceptions. I don't expect Dan to read any of them, because he doesn't read any he posts in an attempt to rebut truth presented by me or other conservatives. So in no particular order:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/anti-abortion-violence-is-not-surging/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/leftist-straw-man-pro-lifers-condone-vigilante-violence/
https://www.liveaction.org/news/media-pro-life-movement-violent-pro-abortion-terrorists/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oQCDiSBCEGU&si=c-tpV7Y4Y2pOJ0GD
https://www.foxnews.com/us/data-show-there-have-been-22-times-more-attacks-on-pro-lifers-pro-choice-groups-since-supreme-court-leak
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/01/30/fbi-investigating-attacks-on-anti-abortion-centers-in-oregon-nationwide/
This last one I present because yours didn't provide anything specific though it's seems to be the same link I found on my own:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
If the above what you intended (assuming it opens as I expect it to rather than how yours did for me), it doesn't really make your case. Most interesting is the totals listed in the article for murders, bombings, etc., but goes back to the 1970s to get those totals. Hardly a significant amount regardless of how abhorrent the actions are. Thus, to pretend your link was a debunking "fact check" doesn't in any way debunk my use of the term "rarely". Indeed, it supports it nicely, so thanks for that. You're a pip.
In order to more fully rub your face in your own poop, this Wiki piece was last edited (as stated therein) on month ago. Thus, based on the dates of various crimes, there were .36666 murders of pro-aborts by anti-aborts per year since in the USA. That feels "rare" to me. Among other criminal acts, the site mixes the US and Canada and I'm trying to focus on America, because that's what I was referencing in my original comment. Indeed, my post speaks of your kind and your defense of the practice.
But what you're too sick and twisted to admit...if you have the honesty to consider it at all, which you don't...you're comparing those who attack abortion proponents while I'm speaking of abortion opponents. There's no way an honest person can set aside all those actually murdered by abortionists on behalf of their mothers and try to pretend abortion proponents are somehow overwhelmingly victimized more than anti-abortion proponents. Are the victims of abortion willing victims? Any sonogram of an abortion would clearly indicate the intended murder victim is opposed to the practice.
Unlike you, Dan, you foul piece of shit, I won't ignore the humanity of the unborn in these equations. But even if I did, there's far more violence perpetrated by your kind than mine against our opponents. That's just a fact.
Art,
Its' interesting that Dan is applying what are essentially pro-life arguments in favor of those in Gaza, while denying the validity of those arguments as they apply to children in the early stages of development.
I do not know why you are persecuting me. I am not a foul piece of shit but a Christian. Jesus is love. Why do you hate me so much?
Dan
Dan,
Who are you addressing with your victimhood lamentation?
Art,
Dan doesn't seem to like it when he gets a dose of his own medicine, so to speak. Just remember, Jesus spoke harshly to the Pharisees, therefore you are justified in speaking harshly to Dan.
I have a feeling that the last Anonymous isn't Dan,
Glenn,
You could very well be right. I have a troll who hasn't the stones to actually engage in serious conversation. That's likely because the troll hasn't the capacity to do so.
But Dan does post under "Anonymous" and then sign his name at the bottom, so who knows? A troll would take advantage of that.
I'm preparing a sequel to this post, but before I do, I wanted to post some comments Dan's troll thought would be indicative of his towering intellect, but instead are in direct conflict with his sweetheart, Dan:
"You may not know it, but thugs is a real word. There are real thugs. You think it has to do with skin color."
This is, as I said, in direct conflict with what Dan told me. According to Dan...and I'm surprised a self-loathing white boy like feo wouldn't know this..."thug" is a sign of racism. It's akin to using the dreaded "'N' word". I never regarded the word as having anything to do with skin color until Dan told me it did. Never mind black people who've used it...like the Hodge twins, for example. So now I'm confused. feo...the boy with the imaginary black wife and who wishes he was a black boy from the 'hood instead of the disgusting white privileged boy he is...insists Dan is wrong.
"thugs are people who hate with brutality. Like you and Hamas."
This is funny. Abortion defenders have far more in common with Hamas than I ever could. I would never dream of intentionally seeking out innocent children for destruction, as do Hamas and abortion defenders like feo and Dan. Few are more "brutal" than those like feo and Dan and Hamas.
"And “right to life” is in quotes because it’s a lie you and Craig and the other thugs tell yourselves. In a free democracy, you won’t let women of child bearing age determine their life."
It takes a vile thug like feo to presume a woman is incapable of determining her life if she's deprived of the ability to murder her own child in utero. I guess Hamas is merely determining their lives by targeting Israeli civilians, including children.
feo brings so much understanding and enlightenment, doesn't he?
"Because you don’t care about life."
Says another defender of infanticide.
"Evangelicals didn’t care about life until they needed a better political plan than opposing desegregation.
Do yourself a favor and learn something for the first time in 40 years: look up Paul Weyrich."
feo then goes on to cite some unknown source...unknown because like his sweetheart, Dan, feo hasn't the courage to provide citation.
But I did look up Paul Weyrich and found that which feo lacks the honesty to provide. Weyrich operated in a period where there were few true conservatives in Congress...likely less than now. And while Roman Catholics have an irrational percentage of Dem voters among them and the church favored at that time much which is socialist in nature...if not outright marxist...they at least stood nearly alone in their opposition to abortion. That is, they were absolutely correct on at least one social issue in regarding the unborn as fully human with the same unalienable right to life scumbags like feo abuse.
Yet here again feo is in conflict with his favorite babe, Dan. Dan bores with lamentations about "modern conservatives". Yet a study of Weyrich reveals that conservatism all but began with him in his day. Conservatives have always been the morally and intellectually superior group, while those modern progressives like Dan and feo have always been those who have brought moral and intellectual corruption to our once great nation. They proudly continue to do so choosing to arrogantly, but incredibly unjustly, believe themselves our betters. And when it comes to Dan and feo, that's outright laughable!
Glenn...
I have a feeling that the last Anonymous isn't Dan,
Ah, so you all CAN read for understanding. Of course, the last "Dan" comment wasn't me. But very good, Glenn.
Craig...
Just remember, Jesus spoke harshly to the Pharisees, therefore you are justified in speaking harshly to Dan.
The difference, of course, is that Jesus spoke harshly towards the religiously intolerant who abuse the poor and marginalized with their rules and legalism and gracelessness. While you may disagree with me, that description does not apply to me.
Read for understanding, as Glenn just demonstrated that he can do, at least in small doses.
Dan Trabue (actually Dan)
Its' interesting that Dan is applying what are essentially pro-life arguments in favor of those in Gaza, while denying the validity of those arguments as they apply to children in the early stages of development.
1. We are all agreed (except for maybe Glenn and Marshal, who insists on literally demonizing Palestinians in Gaza) that Palestinians ARE PEOPLE. It is a matter of scientific and commonly accepted reality outside the conservative Christian extremist subset.
2. We are not all agreed that fetuses have all the rights of born human beings. As a point of reality. We have no way of proving that fetuses have all the rights of born human beings.
Yell at reality all you want, but it doesn't change reality. You can INSIST that people MUST agree with YOUR human philosophies. That doesn't mean we must agree with your hunches.
3. One key difference between our positions is that I do not support a policy that insists upon abortion. I support women to make those sorts of medical decisions for themselves. I'm NOT pushing that opinion on anyone else, just defending women's ability to make those choices without conservative Christians trying to push their opinions by weight of law.
On the other hand, conservatives who support policies that cause harm to innocent Palestinians ARE pushing their opinions by weight of law and policy on others.
Understand the difference?
No, of course, you don't.
December 12, 2023 at 7:56 PM
"Of course, the last "Dan" comment wasn't me."
OK, if you say so. But here are some things which would justify mistaking that troll for you:
1. You often post under "anonymous" and then "sign" your name at the bottom of the comment. Is this not true? Yes/No
2. You often whine about being unfairly maligned by me, Glenn and others who've spent years dealing with your comments. Is this not true? Yes/No
3. You often cite your personal paraphrasing of Christ's teachings to stifle criticism of your positions and to bolster your positions as well. Is this not true? Yes/No
4. You often accuse me and others of hating various groups of people and/or individuals. Is this not true? Yes/No
I ask these questions, all of which require no more than a "yes" or a "no". The fact is the correct answers for each is "yes". Each of those points are based on years of examples which would verify that response. Thus, while the wording was especially strange, it does indeed stand as at worst, a parody of your essence and thus, could easily pass as having been submitted by you. That it wasn't was suspected by Glenn and then was also upon further consideration by me.
Despite my opposition to this troll trolling as he does, his comment is very "Babylon Bee"-like in that it nails you perfectly.
"The difference, of course, is that Jesus spoke harshly towards the religiously intolerant who abuse the poor and marginalized with their rules and legalism and gracelessness. While you may disagree with me, that description does not apply to me."
I've spoken once before on a piece I read (by a Jew) who explains that the Pharisees were purveyors of what's known as "Oral Law", which they claim was handed down to Moses despite nothing in the Torah indicates any Oral Law was ever given to Moses or the Israelites. It went on to explain that it was the Pharisees imposing of Oral Law which Christ rejected when rebuking them. Christ never says "It is said...", but always "It is written..." referencing that which is found in the Torah. With this in mind, one must remember that when Christ said "It is written..." He was doing with written law what the Pharisees were wrongly doing with oral law....being legalistic about what God had commanded of Israel.
Dan, with his self-serving exploitation of Scripture, does indeed bludgeon us with his twisted notion of what He prefers is the truth of Scripture and then pretends one is wrong to compare him to the Pharisees, while also pretending we are not following the truth of Scripture which Jesus always also cited to validate His teachings.
Yes, Dan. The description of the Pharisees Christ rebuked is far appropriately applied to you than your falsely applying it to any of us.
one more thing related to my previous comment:
5. It is not uncommon for Dan to justify his behavior by citing a case where Jesus did something similar. Is this not also true? Yes/No
December 12, 2023 at 8:12 PM
"1. We are all agreed (except for maybe Glenn and Marshal, who insists on literally demonizing Palestinians in Gaza) that Palestinians ARE PEOPLE. It is a matter of scientific and commonly accepted reality outside the conservative Christian extremist subset."
First, those who read for understanding clearly understand that to reference the Gazastinians as "animals" is descriptive of their animal savagery in their disregard for human life. That makes them very much like you, Dan.
Secondly, there are very few conservative Christian "extremists" except insofar as those who are extremely devoted to true Christian teaching, which you clearly are not. Indeed, the "modern progressive Christian" isn't even a subset of Christianity as it isn't even Christianity at all.
"2. We are not all agreed that fetuses have all the rights of born human beings. As a point of reality. We have no way of proving that fetuses have all the rights of born human beings."
First, only scumbag modern progressives pretend there's any significant difference between the just conceived and an old dude in a retirement home in Ft. Lauderdale as regards having the unalienable right to life bestowed upon them by their Creator. Honest people understand no such difference exists.
Second, given a human fetus is the product of the very act designed to bring new people into existence, it can't be anything but another person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life the modern progressive abuses and is thus unworthy. It is thus up to them to prove that such a person does NOT have all the rights as one who wasn't murdered by its modern progressive parents while yet in the womb. One who dares claim to be a Christian would thus, if in any way confused about human biology and morality, would err on the side of life rather than equivocate as if he has a rational legit opposing opinion.
"3. One key difference between our positions is that I do not support a policy that insists upon abortion."
If you oppose legislation which outlaws abortion as the murder it is, and punishes those who avail themselves of that heinous practice and those who perform it, then you're supporting a policy which insists upon abortion being available to any who care to get one. Thus, there is no difference anywhere in your position.
"I support women to make those sorts of medical decisions for themselves."
Thus, you support the unjust taking of innocent life on the false premise that it is a medical decision, rather than a decision of convenience. The only decision is, does the woman want to preserve the life of her child or terminate it? The reasons are never medical as no medical justification exists for abortion. I've presented support for this many times with no legitimate, medical proof which rebuts the premise.
"I'm NOT pushing that opinion on anyone else, just defending women's ability to make those choices without conservative Christians trying to push their opinions by weight of law."
You're pushing your opinion via the weight of law by voting for people who campaign on the promise of protecting the ability of modern progressives to murder their own child in utero. Conservative Christians seek to protect the lives of the unborn by just law, given the notion that abortion isn't murder is a modern progressive lie pushed on the nation via cheap rationalizations.
You literally insist on demonizing the unborn as not human/not fully human/not worthy of respect for their right to life/not possessed of full human rights. You're a true scumbag, but not remotely a Christian.
"On the other hand, conservatives who support policies that cause harm to innocent Palestinians ARE pushing their opinions by weight of law and policy on others."
On the other hand, modern progressives support policies which cause harm not only to the innocent in utero, but to those you insist are "innocent Palestinians". By supporting those policies you continue to endanger innocent Israelis, too.
You're a vile piece of shit who hypocritically regards ME as "too far gone". What a moronic you are.
It's always cute when Dan tries to justify his treating people "harshly" while proclaiming himself to be someone who should not be treated harshly.
1. I guess that would depend on how you define "people", and whether or not being "people" is a relevant category. It would also depend on what the magical point that someone becomes "people" is.
2. No one is claiming that the pre-born have "all" the rights of the "born", that is just simply false. However, your use of the term "born" as a dividing point suggests that you see passing through the birth canal as some sort of magical event where one becomes "people", instead of whatever arbitrary category you use to deny the rights of pre-born, living, human beings. Please elaborate on the distinction between "people" and "not people" and where exactly the differentiation point lies. Please include scientific proof of your claims.
3. If you say so. Strangely enough, the only way for your "position" to prevail is through force of law, but by all means pretend like you aren't trying to enforce your hunch by force of law.
I guess I fail to see how "conservatives" somehow have the ability all by themselves to pass laws that somehow harm those in Gaza. I guess if you want to blame people who might be considered "conservative", then the blame lies totally with Hamas. Hamas is completely responsible for the current war that they started, is complexity responsible for the continuation of the war they started, and for their use of "innocent" people as human shields.
FYI,
Dan's inability to consistently post under his actual Blogger account, posting under anonymous either with or without his name at the end of the comments, makes it eminently reasonable to conclude that any anonymous post signed Dan is Dan. The problem seems to be solvable by Dan simply logging in and not posting anonymous comments.
Responding to Craig:
1. Dan has his catch-all "we just don't know/there's no way to prove" escape clause always at the ready. This allows him to refute reason and logic as if reason and logic exists in his rebuttal. I've explained how the biology works many times, that explanation informed by biological texts regarding human procreation. That all who are conceived are people is beyond any honest doubt.
2. Actually, I have indeed been asserting that all conceived are possessed of all rights, because how could they not be given they've been created. Dan needs to again provide something more than wishful thinking to assert there's some point after conception where those rights are actually endowed by the Creator of the conceived. Given that the conceived are created, there must have been a Creator to account for that. There is no argument...scientific, philosophical, religious or otherwise...which isn't a laughable cheap rationalization to protect the legal ability to off one's own child. One has to be "too far gone" to even entertain such an argument.
3. Dan seems to pretend not to realize that he counters his own intentions to enforce by law the legal protection to off one's own child.
I totally reject any attempt to label those like Hamas as "conservative" simply because they assert they're devoted to their "faith". Conservative Christians are not fascistic like Hamas is, and fascism is not at all a conservative ideology.
As to how one posts, I have to allow for the shortcomings of the platform before demanding Dan must post in any particular way. However, it's not like it's impossible to have one's login info handy if one can't wait for the ideal opportunity to comment. And again, the Babylon Bee-like comment submitted by a troll does indeed capture the essence of Dan.
As to the crazy little minor stuff you all worry about gracelessly: It may be a sign of my age and technical limitations, but I find it very hard for reasons unknown to me to log in to blogspot on my phone. I've tried a variety of ways and haven't cracked the code. Now feel free to worry, fret and prattle on and on and on and on and on about that shortcoming I have. I can take it. I joke about my limitations all the time.
But truly, boys, it's nothing. Not one single damned thing but that I am an imperfect human being not holding all knowledge.
You can attack my technical shortcomings if you want, but seriously, there are bigger things in life.
Good God in heaven.
DAN TRABUE
Marshal...
Dan has his catch-all "we just don't know/there's no way to prove" escape clause always at the ready.
It's not a catch-all. It's reality. We have NO WAY of proving objectively if a human being fetus has all (or most or some unquantified part) of the rights of a birthed human being. We can't prove it one way or the other. YOU fellows can't prove it. That's just the fact of it all.
Do you recognize that fact?
Regardless if you do or not, it remains a fact. IF you could objectively prove it, you would have. You haven't precisely because you can't. Period.
Indeed, we humans TEND to agree that human lives have different rights and freedoms at different stages. The newborn absolutely does NOT have a right to drive, to live on their own, to choose their own dinner, lunch or breakfast, to choose to drink alcohol. That's the reality. Birthed children at different stages have different levels of rights and liberties in the real world. While we - you, me, NONE of us - can prove objectively what rights are reasonably given to a one year old vs a five year old vs a 14 year old, we generally agree that there are different levels of rights that children have. And that's for the birthed children.
For the unborn fetus children (at five weeks, at 15 weeks, at 40 weeks...), we STILL have no one authoritative objective voice to tell us what rights they do and don't have and how it compares to the rights and choices of the adult human mother. BUT, some fascists want to act as if THEY have the right to dictate to these adult human beings what THEY must decide about their own bodies and their own fetuses. The arrogance is astounding.
Where do you get off trying to force your religious human opinions off on other people?
You have NO rights to do so.
And that's the reality in the real world.
December 14, 2023 at 9:28 PM
"It's not a catch-all."
Yes it is.
"It's reality."
"We have NO WAY of proving objectively if a human being fetus has all (or most or some unquantified part) of the rights of a birthed human being. We can't prove it one way or the other. YOU fellows can't prove it. That's just the fact of it all."
You have NO WAY of proving objectively that YOU have any rights. It's an assumption. The founders regarded it as "self-evident", that is, they "held" it to be so. They presumed that it is so. They didn't prove it. Indeed, the phrase implies it's so obvious that no proof is needed. But it was their opinion that it was self-evident. This was in direct contrast to what the King regarded as self-evident.
It's an opinion with which I agree, but an opinion nonetheless. It is one all citizens of this country should hold, but as you demonstrate, not all do. And what we're dealing with here is the self-evident truth that all are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life...a right you don't deserve given you believe you can fuck around with to whom it does or doesn't apply.
How do we know we are have rights? Because we were created. When we were born, we had already been created well before that date...usually around nine months before. Thus, there are rights with which we were all endowed, among them are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is the first which matters here, as no one suggests a fetus can be allowed to drive, and only a dishonest modern progressive like you would pretend failing to qualify for a license to drive denotes a right denied. Indeed, all your examples of what we deny toddlers are not akin to the right to life and the "right" to drive is not unalienable at all. The toddlers right to pursue a license remains intact even if the state denies one to the kid. The right to pursue one's happiness does not in any way obliged the state to make sure one catches what one pursues.
But life is unassailable. Does an infant's denial of a driver's license make him unworthy of life? Because your argument would suggest such stupidity (given the stupidity of your argument). The only right in question here is the right to life. You claim to have it, but on what basis? Because your Creator endowed you with it. When were you created? On the dates of your birth, or nine months before your hatching?
You muddy the water with all this crap about driving or drinking (or drinking and driving). Neither are "rights" as the founders spoke of "rights". It's absurd to think you actually believe that to be an intelligent, honest argument. But then neither intelligence nor honesty are your strong suits.
So ignore driving and drinking or any of that superfluous crap and focus on the right you think you have any right to deny, or to allow others to deny. Never do we do this in this country aside from denying a murderer his right to remain alive. It's unAmerican as well as unChristian to unjustly take the life of another.
A woman's body is her own. The body which grows inside her at HER invitation is not hers to destroy because that body is the body of another person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life. No child is conceived accidentally. EVER! And lack of consent on the part of the woman to engage in sex does not entitle her to murder her child. THAT is "arrogance", not the defense of the life she intends to snuff as if it's a fucking mosquito.
And assholes like you dare suggest it is the defenders of life who are arrogant, fascists or some other lie you need to perpetuate in order to rationalize the murder of the most vulnerable, defenseless and innocent of our kind. What a vile piece of shit you are (apologies to shit everywhere).
I don't need to be a Christian to recognize murder when I see it. You're not a Christian pretending abortion isn't murder.
Art,
The "All Rights" thing Dan brings up is merely a smoke screen. The reality is that in the US there are certain rights, that are age dependent. So it'd be absurd to claim that the unborn have the right to vote for example. (Dan's has previously tried to use driving as an example of this, but it just demonstrates his shallow understanding of rights).
For the purpose of the unborn, it seems like there are two rights that are the most important. Life and pursuit of happiness. Liberty is tougher because children are (of necessity) not liberated from their parents until they are much older.
The problem, as I see it, is that Dan should be arguing why the unborn should be denied these two inalienable rights, not trying to force us to argue for giving the unborn the right to vote. Obviously, he can't or won't argue for why those two inalienable rights should be denied the unborn.
My problem with your "conservative" take is that "conservative" is a relative term. A "conservative" in MN is not the same as a "conservative" in Idaho. Therefore, it does seem reasonable to acknowledge that Muslims are also on a continuum and that some are "conservative" and some are less "conservative".
I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Dan be required to post in a certain way. I'm merely pointing out the obvious. That his choice to post as anonymous, and sometimes include his name, allows others to potentially post as him. Therefore, it's absurd for him to get upset when people take any post that is anonymous and ends with "Dan" as coming from Dan.
Leave it to Dan to take offense and blame us for his failings when it comes to how he logs in. I could care less how he does it. But as long as he chooses to log in as anonymous, he forfeits the standing to complain if others comment as if they were him. He has the ability to solve this, and no room to bitch at anyone who takes anonymous comments signed "Dan" as if they were coming from him.
"Do you recognize that fact?"
No, I recognize that you are claiming this to be a "fact", yet haven't proven it to be a "fact". By all means, explain how the unborn should be denied the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness. By all means, explain what other rights a parent can unilaterally deny their children. Explain what is so magical about passing through the birth canal. Explain why a child does not have these two basic rights 1 hour before passing through the birth canal, but has them 1 minute after passing through the birth canal. Are you suggesting that some significant ontological change happens at some point in the passage through the birth canal? If so, what is this change, and when exactly does it happen?
I'll wait, although I'm sure that the response/answers will be dome version of "We don't know.".
In which case you are acknowledging that there is a very real possibility that you are complicit in encouraging/allowing parents to deny their children rights with which they are endowed.
"Regardless if you do or not, it remains a fact. IF you could objectively prove it, you would have. You haven't precisely because you can't. Period."
1. The problem is that you can't do so either, and following your lead leads to abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason.
"Indeed, we humans TEND to agree that human lives have different rights and freedoms at different stages. The newborn absolutely does NOT have a right to drive, to live on their own, to choose their own dinner, lunch or breakfast, to choose to drink alcohol. That's the reality. Birthed children at different stages have different levels of rights and liberties in the real world. While we - you, me, NONE of us - can prove objectively what rights are reasonably given to a one year old vs a five year old vs a 14 year old, we generally agree that there are different levels of rights that children have. And that's for the birthed children."
Again with the bullshit smoke screen. Your bullshit does not explain why the unborn should be alienated from their inalienable right to life and to the pursuit of happiness. FYI, driving is not and has never been a right. Of course you still haven't explained what is so magical (in the sense of this discussion) about location. Not that I expect you to, but I'll keep pointing this out.
"For the unborn fetus children (at five weeks, at 15 weeks, at 40 weeks...), we STILL have no one authoritative objective voice to tell us what rights they do and don't have and how it compares to the rights and choices of the adult human mother. BUT, some fascists want to act as if THEY have the right to dictate to these adult human beings what THEY must decide about their own bodies and their own fetuses. The arrogance is astounding."
What in interesting take. This notion that the unborn child is somehow the property of the mother (screw the father, right), to be disposed of as the mother wishes at any point prior to birth, is simply vile. At what point does the child magically stop being property (to be disposed of at any time, for any reason), and become it's own unique person? It's obvious that you choose to ignore the biological reality of bearing children (that conception produces a unique, individual, human being, that is in the earliest stage of the natural process of becoming an adult). But the fact that you seem oblivious that in @ 98.5% of all aborted pregnancies that the woman INVITED the unborn child into her womb. These women CHOOSE to engage in the single behavior that results in pregnancy, yet demand that their unborn child be executed in a brutal and painful manner because of a CHOICE they made.
"Where do you get off trying to force your religious human opinions off on other people?"
I am not trying to "force my religious human opinions off" on anyone. Please point to one example of me doing so. (As usual, I expect the quote and link. I also expect that you'll provide neither.)
Science tells us that an unborn child is a living, unique, developing, individual human. The constitution tells us that anything that is living has an inalienable right to life. How would you possibly justify removing the life (an inalienable right) from that unique, living, developing, human being solely for the convenience of another person? Why does this ability to end the life (an inalienable right) stop at the point of birth? Does it stop at the point of birth, or do you agree that this right, to deprive another of their right, continue on for several years?
If the right to life (inalienable and endowed by The Creator) can be removed at the whim of another, how could it possibly be inalienable and endowed by the Creator? Does the mean that the mother actually endows the right to life, or that the mother is more powerful than the Creator?
A 10-year-old doesn't have the right to drink or drive, so should it be murdered because it doesn't have all rights? As Art said, a pre-born person is s human with the right to life. PERIOD.
"For the purpose of the unborn, it seems like there are two rights that are the most important. Life and pursuit of happiness."
It "seems" to CRAIG and some of his friends. But do you all get to decide for everyone else? ...To hell with any concerns the human being who would birth them might think?
No. Why should you be the ones who decide?
Why should a religious minority force their personal opinions on others?
You shouldn't.
"As Art said, a pre-born person is s human with the right to life. PERIOD."
And YOU ALL can make that personal decision for yourselves. You don't get to foist your religious hunches off on the majority.
Why should you? Because YOU say so? Who cares what you personally think?
Answer: we don't. Get your religious human opinions to yourselves..
Dan
"The constitution tells us that anything that is living has an inalienable right to life. "
No. It literally doesn't.
You are welcome to your own personal opinions. You don't have the right to force it on others, especially when you're a religious zealot minority.
Dan
"A 10-year-old doesn't have the right to drink or drive, so should it be murdered because it doesn't have all rights?"
Nope. Literally no one thinks that. On the other hand, the vast majority of people think that a pregnant woman with a 10, 12, etc week old fetus inside her body should be the one making decisions about her and her fetus.
Why should a minority of religious zealots be allowed to force THEIR personal human and religious opinions upon others...? Because YOU ALL personally have opinions that say it's the right thing to do? Who cares what you all personally think?
You can make those decisions for yourself.
There is a minority of us who think the personal automobile is a dangerous and often deadly mode of transportation and should be limited. Should we get to force our opinions on you all??
What's the difference?
Dan
Dan
To answer some of Craig's questions:
How would you possibly justify removing the life (an inalienable right) from that unique, living, developing, human being solely for the convenience of another person?
I'm not at all in any way in the whole wide world trying to "justify" that. I'm saying that YOU do not get to decide for women what the best choice is regarding a pregancy in THEIR body.
How would you possibly justify forcing your opinion on such a woman?
Why does this ability to end the life (an inalienable right) stop at the point of birth?
Quite simply and obviously: We ALL generally agree that humans can't kill other birthed human beings. Period. As Marshal rightly noted, while we can't prove objectively this right to life of all born human beings, we generally agree upon it, at least in freedom-loving peoples.
But we don't all agree that the pre-born fetus enjoys that right over and against the pregnant woman's will. We just don't. And since we don't all agree on that, then WHO gets to decide and based on what?
Does it stop at the point of birth, or do you agree that this right, to deprive another of their right, continue on for several years?
No, we all generally agree that a woman's ability to end the life of a fetus for reasons of her choice is ONLY for fetuses, not born human babies, and thus, ends at the point of birth. There is no significant contingent of citizens in freedom-loving nations who thinks otherwise. But the same is just not true when we're talking of pre-born fetuses. So, why would one group get to decide for women what they must do regarding their unborn fetuses? Because YOU ALL (a minority, mainly a religious minority) say you have the authority to do so? Who cares what you think?
If the right to life (inalienable and endowed by The Creator) can be removed at the whim of another, how could it possibly be inalienable and endowed by the Creator?
We have no way of proving that the right to life is inalienable and endowed by the Creator. Indeed, for biblical literalists who believe that "god" has historically sometimes decided that SOME people (including innocent children and babies) DON'T have a right to life, right?
Answer, please.
IF it were true that there is a God who thinks that fetuses should not be aborted, then we'd be wrong to do so. But God has not told us this, has God? Indeed, it is SOME human traditions that tell us this, but it's not a given, not in any objectively provable matter. And again, for the conservative biblical literalist, they don't believe that all people have a "right to life" - even AFTER birth, because their image of "god" includes the possibility of historically taking away the life of even born humans, so clearly, they didn't have a right to life according to that "god."
This seems more of a problem for you all than us.
Does the mean that the mother actually endows the right to life, or that the mother is more powerful than the Creator?
No. But it DOES mean that you don't get to tell women that you know best what God wants. You are not the boss of women, nor are you the Lords of Life. Embrace some humility, fellows.
I missed one of Craig's questions:
How would you possibly justify removing the life (an inalienable right) from that unique, living, developing, human being solely for the convenience of another person?
I'm literally not justifying anything. I'm merely stating that Craig, Marshal and other conservative religious extremists (Muslim, Christian, Mormon, etc) can't justify telling women that THEY must birth a fetus in that woman's body, no matter what concerns and beliefs these women may have. I'm merely stating that women do so "for the convenience" is yet another indication of the hubris and arrogance of conservatives deciding for others what is a legitimate medical course to take with THEIR bodies.
IF it's true, as each of you all are saying (maybe not Craig...), that it's "murder" for a woman to have an abortion (in your unproven opinions), does that mean you're going to criminalize having an abortion? If not, why not? If it's murder (in your religious opinion), then why not push for laws that would arrest women, doctors and medical experts for murder?
Is there some part of you that recognizes the arrogance in doing so when you can't prove it is in any sense, "murder," not according to the legal system, to morality or to God Almighty?
I prefer to focus on the only right which matters with regard to this issue: the right to life. As has been mentioned:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Of course we first have to acknowledge that only a modern progressive would be confused by the that which says "that 'all Men' are create equal'". Certainly women were not given the same considerations as were men at the time the DOI was composed and signed. But to suppose they lacked the right to life would be that which only a modern progressive would suppose. So we'll ignore the stupidity of the left on that point and consider that terms such as "mankind" was simply synonymous with "humanity" and move on to what matters here.
I say yet again that all who have been conceived have been "created" and thus endowed by their Creator (the Christian God, as the term was understood at the time of the DOI's composing) with the right to life which was regarded by the founders as "unalienable". That is, beyond the ability and authority of any modern progressive supportive of infanticide to dismiss.
Yet dismiss the rights of the conceived they do under any and all bullshit cheap rationalizations.
Consider the mother alone. How does the location of her child grant her any right or authority over the life of that child? Whether her child is within her or without, the child is still a separate created member of mankind with its own right to life. Because the child exists, it was created. Given it was created, it had a Creator. That Creator endowed His human creation with the unalienable right to life. There's no just cause for a woman to abort. Her life is never in danger by the existence of the child to any extent which justifies intentionally killing the child to resolve the issue. Only lying modern progressives who posture as caring individuals would dare suggest otherwise. But they do so with no evidence whatsoever.
A true Christian...indeed any true person of character...would demonstrate a true example of embracing grace by erring on the side of life...because such people don't bullshit around about what human life is and to what all conceived are deserving. That's the domain of the modern progressive.
"It "seems" to CRAIG and some of his friends. But do you all get to decide for everyone else?"
It had been decided already. See the above quotation from the Declaration of Independence our founding fathers wrote. There's nothing there which suggests any human being is not possessed of that endowment by their Creator, is there? We only are aware of those endowed yet undeserving...like Dan and modern progressives in general.
"To hell with any concerns the human being who would birth them might think?"
This is ironic. The modern progressive allows for the practice of abortion without any concern whatsoever with the concerns of the human being who will be ripped limb from limb. What assholes the modern progressives are! "To hell with the child and the savage, barbaric demise it faces by a woman with no conscience and a black soul."
"Why should you be the ones who decide?"
Because we're among or striving to be the mature adults of character. Modern progressives are selfish assholes who only posture as giving a damn. You're a particularly vile manifestation of such.
"Why should a religious minority force their personal opinions on others?"
Why should anyone deny the right to life of another human being who hasn't engaged in capital crimes? And don't think one needs to be particularly religious to see the truth about this infanticide you cherish.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights-227462
The above is one of many links I could provide to make the point. You feel a need to think those who defend life are somehow "extremist". You're an asshole who doesn't really care about anyone or anything but making people believe you care about people and things.
All opinions which result in law are opinions forced on the rest of society. At least our opinions reflect regard for human life in Christian ways the modern progressive's never do.
"And YOU ALL can make that personal decision for yourselves. You don't get to foist your religious hunches off on the majority."
Yes we do. That's what laws are. They're the reflection of the moral state of the culture in which the laws arise. Moral people prefer others not kill their own children for selfish reasons, which all abortions are (this allows for the fact that too many don't have a conscience and/or are easily pushed toward offing their kids by others). In the best of circumstances, righteousness prevails over a corrupt majority. You're unequivocally part and parcel of corruption of our culture. You suck.
"Why should you? Because YOU say so? Who cares what you personally think? "
People who prefer morality over corruption. You wouldn't know not being among such people.
"Get your religious human opinions to yourselves."
What an amoral fascist! We're not in any way obliged to keep our religious opinions to ourselves. Assholes like you are obliged to provide an evidence-based argument for why our opinions have no merit. You can't and never even try, because you're assholes.
I say yet again that all who have been conceived have been "created" and thus endowed by their Creator (the Christian God, as the term was understood at the time of the DOI's composing) with the right to life which was regarded by the founders as "unalienable".
Yes, indeed. That is completely factually correct: You DO say and think that. And given that, I fully support you in choosing to never have an abortion, even if you are raped or your life or health are at risk. YOU are free to make that decision FOR YOURSELF, given what you think.
But don't be deceived: You merely saying it does not make it objectively factually correct. It is your personal human opinion and I 100% support you in having your own opinion on the topic.
""The constitution tells us that anything that is living has an inalienable right to life. "
No. It literally doesn't."
Not literally, but it does indeed suggest all living humans do. Have you the testicles to try and defend the premise that women and children were not included? Give it your best shot.
"You don't have the right to force it on others, especially when you're a religious zealot minority."
Once again we see that to the modern progressive, morality is determined by majority vote. Only an asshole would suggest such a thing. Ours is named "Dan Trabue".
In the meantime, he's willing to force all manner of moral corruption and harm upon his fellow Americans. That's what assholes do.
""A 10-year-old doesn't have the right to drink or drive, so should it be murdered because it doesn't have all rights?"
Nope. Literally no one thinks that. On the other hand, the vast majority of people think that a pregnant woman with a 10, 12, etc week old fetus inside her body should be the one making decisions about her and her fetus."
That was the obvious conclusion of your stupid remark about kids not being allowed to drive, given it was submitted in response to defending the God-give right to life possessed by every person created! But vile c**ksuckers like you think a woman has a right to murder her own child so long as it's still within her womb? On what f**kin' basis, asshole? When will you infanticidal Christ-haters explain that?
"Why should a minority of religious zealots be allowed to force THEIR personal human and religious opinions upon others...?"
I most gladly and happily accept the label of "religious zealot" if it's application is the result of my righteous defense of the innocent, defenseless and most vulnerable people still in the womb. And if it's in any way possible for me and those like me to impose that opinion on the nation through state and federal law, our nation will be better off than for the majority of Hamas like baby murderers who seek to impose their will on the nation. Said another way, it's the protectors of humanity against the murderous modern progressive...the former being the side of righteousness while the latter the side of evil.
"Because YOU ALL personally have opinions that say it's the right thing to do? Who cares what you all personally think?"
Moral people do. Vile assholes like Dan Trabue don't...because they're vile assholes.
"You can make those decisions for yourself."
We don't need your permission or approval to not murder our own children. We'll die if it means our child might live. It doesn't even have to be guaranteed. You contemptible c**cksuckers will lie about the humanity of your children so that you don't have to be inconvenienced. You suck like you're paid to suck.
"There is a minority of us who think the personal automobile is a dangerous and often deadly mode of transportation and should be limited. Should we get to force our opinions on you all??"
Limitations are already in place, you lying, dumbass mother f**ker. They've been "forced" upon society and are now a part of the laws of every state. One must certify they're capable of operating an automobile. I had to go further than that to prove I was capable of operation a school bus and a tractor-trailer. If one manages to acquire a license to drive, that license can be taken away for things like drunken driving, which is simply having a blood alcohol level of .08. For me as a CDL holder, it's only .04. I'd feel cirrhosis of the liver before I'd feel impaired with a blood level of .04!!
What's the difference? Asking the question proves what a moron you truly are! The difference is that driving falls under the right to pursue one's happiness. That's miles apart from the right to live.
"December 15, 2023 at 8:14 PM
"To answer some of Craig's questions:"
That is, what passes for "intelligent" answers from an abject asshole.
Craig asked: How would you possibly justify removing the life (an inalienable right) from that unique, living, developing, human being solely for the convenience of another person?
Dumbass replied: "I'm not at all in any way in the whole wide world trying to "justify" that. I'm saying that YOU do not get to decide for women what the best choice is regarding a pregancy in THEIR body."
Dan continues to ignore the humanity of the conceived, suggesting that their rights are not in effect until some point of the "mother's" choosing. He would pretend that being born somehow magically removes that authority from the "mother", as if the child is somehow a different person or being from any point prior to that event. How so? How is the child not fully possessed of the right to life prior to the moment the child is removed from the womb as opposed to the moment immediately after? It's an arbitrary distinction based on nothing but self-serving bullshit. Science clearly indicates from conception one is a unique person distinct from its parents. Dan and assholes like him pretend there's some point beyond conception when they're entitled to be regarded by contemptible jackasses like Dan and the low character women he defends as fully human possessed of the unalienable right to life. He offers no science, no facts, no nothing but leftist assholery to make his case. Then he dares to accuse actual Christians and people of character for extremism for daring to expect parents to protect the lives of their children at any stage of their development. What an asshole!
"How would you possibly justify forcing your opinion on such a woman?"
The same way we justify forcing our opinion on anyone who dares suppose they have a right to murder another human being. Until such time as you can provide any evidence which remotely denies the unborn that status, you must actually act like the Christian you only pretend to be in order to posture as a good person and defend the lives of the unborn, given there's no just cause to abort. EVER!
Craig asked: Why does this ability to end the life (an inalienable right) stop at the point of birth?
Dumbass answered: "Quite simply and obviously: We ALL generally agree that humans can't kill other birthed human beings. Period. As Marshal rightly noted, while we can't prove objectively this right to life of all born human beings, we generally agree upon it, at least in freedom-loving peoples."
Make up your mind, dumbass. Do we all agree or don't we? How can you prove all "freedom-loving" peoples agree with that? Again, you defer to some unknown faction of the human population as if doing so makes your case. It doesn't because it's only other assholes agreeing with your evil. Make your case without speaking of polling data.
And I didn't say WE can't prove we have the right so much as I challenged YOU to make the case that YOU'RE deserving of or are possessed of that right. I think it's crystal clear that anyone created is endowed with that right which no other person has any authority to deny or take away. To me and other actual Christians and people of character, one is possessed of the right to life...a right all others are obliged to respect fully...from the moment of conception, which is the point at which it is clear one has been created. But those who insist they or anyone else has some sort of special privilege to deny or defend the life of another simply because they are of the sex which gestates the newly conceived are not at all deserving of having their right to life respected. It doesn't matter that YOU wouldn't do it. What matters is that you defend the ability of others to do it, which makes you complicit in the murder of millions of people in the womb. You suck. Right out loud with pride. Dickhead.
"But we don't all agree that the pre-born fetus enjoys that right over and against the pregnant woman's will. We just don't. And since we don't all agree on that, then WHO gets to decide and based on what?"
Only assholes don't agree on the sanctity of life for the conceived. Actual Christians and people of character most certainly DO agree the pre-born possesses that right as fully as they do. That's why they don't murder them like your kind does.
Craig asked: Does it stop at the point of birth, or do you agree that this right, to deprive another of their right, continue on for several years?
Dumbass answered: "No, we all generally agree that a woman's ability to end the life of a fetus for reasons of her choice is ONLY for fetuses, not born human babies, and thus, ends at the point of birth."
By "we", Dan means dumbass motherf**kers like him who have no real concern for innocent lives, but only say so for the purpose of drawing praise from the stupid.
"There is no significant contingent of citizens in freedom-loving nations who thinks otherwise."
There's a significant contingent in this very country who believes the conceived are deserving of protection against those who would abort them. Being an asshole, you diminish their number in your fevered imagining.
"But the same is just not true when we're talking of pre-born fetuses. So, why would one group get to decide for women what they must do regarding their unborn fetuses?"
Because there's no difference in the sanctity of life of the conceived in utero and those who have been born, except to murderous motherf**kers like you.
"Because YOU ALL (a minority, mainly a religious minority) say you have the authority to do so? Who cares what you think?"
Moral people do. Vile scum like you murder the most innocent and defenseless and pretend you have good reason to do so. And that "religious minority" of which you speak are actual Christians. They're not posers like you who merely exploit the term to gain favor. We don't care what the world thinks. We care about what is right and just.
Craig asked: If the right to life (inalienable and endowed by The Creator) can be removed at the whim of another, how could it possibly be inalienable and endowed by the Creator?
Dumbass answered: "We have no way of proving that the right to life is inalienable and endowed by the Creator. Indeed, for biblical literalists who believe that "god" has historically sometimes decided that SOME people (including innocent children and babies) DON'T have a right to life, right?"
This was accepted as a self-evident truth. This is something which, unlike your use of the phrase, has some righteous aspect to it.
But then you go and pretend that God doesn't have absolute authority we don't possess to give and take life for whatever reason He deems valid. The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away. There's no authority of an individual to decide for herself who can be whacked. Only the contemptible modern progressive believes that's true
December 15, 2023 at 8:33 PM
"I missed one of Craig's questions:"
But you chose to come back to it and respond in your usual dumbass, moron manner. To wit:
Craig asked: How would you possibly justify removing the life (an inalienable right) from that unique, living, developing, human being solely for the convenience of another person?
Shithead answered: "I'm literally not justifying anything."
Of course you are. You're justifying the murder of innocent people in utero on the false premise there's no other way to deal with whatever bullshit reason is put for the rationalize it. You're pretending there's a medical reason which necessitates the termination of people. There isn't, and there's no pro-life obstetrician who says otherwise. Only pro-abort assholes do because it's a money-maker.
"I'm merely stating that Craig, Marshal and other conservative religious extremists (Muslim, Christian, Mormon, etc) can't justify telling women that THEY must birth a fetus in that woman's body, no matter what concerns and beliefs these women may have."
First, you vile c**ksucker, you once again dare conflate those like use with muslims and mormons as if there's any comparison of worth as regards this issue. You do this purposely to malign people who truly care about humanity in ways you only pretend to in order to posture in a way you believe draws favor of the stupid.
Secondly, you MUST pretend the conceived not yet born are somehow less human and less deserving of their lives being protected in order to defend the practice of abortion, asserting falsely there's any legitimate reason to avail one's self of the murderous option.
We, on the other hand, who do not pretend the yet to be born are any less worthy of having their lives protected, simply assert any who seek to destroy those unborn on the false pretense there's a legitimate need are no better than any other murderer.
"I'm merely stating that women do so "for the convenience" is yet another indication of the hubris and arrogance of conservatives deciding for others what is a legitimate medical course to take with THEIR bodies."
The dumbass says this after having been shown how common it is for the reason of convenience to be a major reason above all others. It's either a convenience for the mother or for the father, but a convenience nonetheless. There's no unplanned pregnancy that comes without a degree of inconvenience. People of character, religious or not, accepts the situation as the gift it is and deals with the difficulties which come with it. Dickheads like Dan do not.
And it can't be said enough, it's not a question of what is done to the bodies of the mothers. That's just another cheap argument put forth to legitimize infanticide.
"IF it's true, as each of you all are saying (maybe not Craig...), that it's "murder" for a woman to have an abortion (in your unproven opinions), does that mean you're going to criminalize having an abortion?"
There's no legitimate reason you could muster to deny that punishment for the willful and unjust taking of innocent life. We do it for murdering known assholes, actual criminals even. But Dan and other piles of shit (Dan's not merely a "piece" of shit. He's a heaping pile of it. He's the pile made from villagers who need a place to dump their shit.) pretend it's OK to murder the most vulnerable, defenseless and innocent of our kind.
"If it's murder (in your religious opinion), then why not push for laws that would arrest women, doctors and medical experts for murder?"
First, it's murder in my legal opinion. Abortion meets all the criteria for murder under civil law. The victim is never a true threat such that destroying the poor child is ever necessary to resolve whatever issue is claimed as a reason to do such a thing. The fact that the legal definition of murder matches Christian doctrine on the sanctity of life does not make it solely a religious opinion. Dan only needs it to be so as to posture as a "rational" "Christian". But he's neither rational nor Christian. He's a pile of shit.
"Is there some part of you that recognizes the arrogance in doing so when you can't prove it is in any sense, "murder," not according to the legal system, to morality or to God Almighty?"
There's no way it doesn't conform to the definition of murder in any of those categories. Worse than the suggestion is that you don't to jack shit to defend the lying premise that abortion isn't abject murder of innocent people. I may not have said this before, but you really suck. You're a vile manifestation of the worst of humanity.
Trabue
It's not just a religious belief that it is a living, breathing human being in the womb deserving of life, IT'S BIOLOGY!! It's not an opinion or belief, it's a FACT. It is also a separate human being from the mother; nor opinion but FACT. Ergo a woman carrying a baby does NOT have the right to murder it.
If people would keep their pants on or use contraceptives, they wouldn't be looking for abortions later. And don't start the bullshit about rape because, first, it's rare for conception from actual rape and, second, regardless of how the baby is conceived it is still a human.
Glenn,
I find it strange Dan finds it problematic somehow that our position on abortion might be informed in full or in part by our religion. But it's cheap and cowardly to dismiss it on that basis. Especially for one who laughingly claims to be a Christian.
But the reality is that I don't appeal to Christian truth until the question of the humanity of the conceived is established. As we each have said, science has already done that heavy lifting. It is then we see the true cut of the modern progressive's jib, as he seeks whatever cheap rationalization he thinks will stick to mitigate the reality of the true and full humanity of the person in utero. For if he can force upon those of us already born that those who have yet to be are...how do the modern progressives put it?..."less than", then offing the kid is easier and one only has to pretend one has anguished over the choice.
For what anguish should there be if the woman with child is with something other than a child?
But for women with difficult pregnancies, the issue doesn't really change because it isn't the child which is causing the problem. The child is victimized by whatever it is making its development problematic. If the child's existence in the womb is what makes resolving the issue difficult or impossible, it's not at all established that killing the child before its removal is in any way necessary. Indeed, pro-life doctors who specialize in difficult pregnancies insist it never is.
So now we come back to the issue of the unborn's humanity and whether or not there's some legit reason the child can be written off as somehow less important, of less value, than it's "mother". The morally bankrupt evil modern progressive wants to assert without evidence of any kind, that the woman has some ownership or authority which allows her to decide against protecting the life of the child she invited into existence better than 99% of the time, or that it matters whether or not she gave consent to be impregnated. Yet somehow, if the child manages to make it through the birth canal alive, the "mother" loses that authority by magic!!
And has religion entered into this issue yet? No, because we're establishing whether or not a person in utero is endowed by its Creator (given the person in utero has clearly already been created) with the unalienable right to life. Honest people of character...religious or not...high IQ or not...know taking that life by force is no different that someone taking the life of the person hired to rip it apart limb by limb on behalf of the "mother". It's a person, fully human as any other at any stage of development and THAT is all one needs to know regarding whether or not it has the same right to life as someone as vile as a Dan Trabue.
"It "seems" to CRAIG and some of his friends. But do you all get to decide for everyone else? ...To hell with any concerns the human being who would birth them might think?"
No, the US constitution delineates 3 inalienable rights, two of them clearly apply to and should be applied to the unborn. However, your spectacular job of either missing my point entirely or choosing to bullshit your way out of it is impressive.
"No. Why should you be the ones who decide?"
Well, you feel qualified to decide that you can choose which (if any) rights are endowed to the unborn... FYI, I'm not deciding anything. I'm applying the reasonable standard that the inalienable rights of "life" and the "pursuit of happiness", can and should be applied to the unborn. Instead of making a case as to why those inalienable rights should be denied to the unborn, you engage in this bullshit.
"Why should a religious minority force their personal opinions on others?"
You mean like how Muslims have a history of forcing their religion on millions of others? Or is it that you can't defend your apparent position that the inalienable rights of "life" and the pursuit of happiness", should be denied to the unborn?
"And YOU ALL can make that personal decision for yourselves. You don't get to foist your religious hunches off on the majority."
What religious hunches? Do you think that you can redefine reality to suit your narrative? Do you think that if you repeat this lie often enough, it'll magically become the Truth?
"Why should you? Because YOU say so? Who cares what you personally think?"
I've never said that I should (unlike you). I've never offered that as a rationale for anything (unlike you). I don't know and don't care.
Dan still can't defend his denial of one specific inalienable right (life) to the pre born, and chooses to make up this sort of bullshit to divert attention from that fact.
"No. It literally doesn't.
You are welcome to your own personal opinions. You don't have the right to force it on others, especially when you're a religious zealot minority."
Excellent job of contradicting yourself. What a bizarre position to take. To insist that a living, unique, human should be denied the most basic right of all based on the inconvenience of a third party. What other rights can parents unilaterally and permanently deny to their children?
"Nope. Literally no one thinks that. On the other hand, the vast majority of people think that a pregnant woman with a 10, 12, etc week old fetus inside her body should be the one making decisions about her and her fetus."
Actually, this isn't true. But hey, if you want to make the argument that women own their children and that they can dispose of their property any way they choose, go right ahead.
"Why should a minority of religious zealots be allowed to force THEIR personal human and religious opinions upon others...? Because YOU ALL personally have opinions that say it's the right thing to do? Who cares what you all personally think?"
I guess it's possible to make this bullshit up, ignore the science, and impose your personal hunches on others.
"There is a minority of us who think the personal automobile is a dangerous and often deadly mode of transportation and should be limited. Should we get to force our opinions on you all??"
Well, this is an apples and oranges example, so I'll simply ignore the stupidity.
"What's the difference?"
Life is an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator, and enumerated in the constitution. Owning a car is not.
"I'm not at all in any way in the whole wide world trying to "justify" that. I'm saying that YOU do not get to decide for women what the best choice is regarding a pregancy in THEIR body."
1. The unborn child is not a part of someone else's body.
2. You are literally arguing that a woman can unilaterally deny their unborn child the right to life endowed by it's Creator and enumerated in the constitution, at any time, for any reason.
3. Does this mean that you support the "right" of a woman to exercise her choice to abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant and damage or addict the unborn child?
"How would you possibly justify forcing your opinion on such a woman?"
Interesting that you won't justify your position, but demand that I do so. I'll start by saying that society has an interest in protecting the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Or, I could say that I see no justification for one parent unilaterally denying their child the right to life.
"Quite simply and obviously: We ALL generally agree that humans can't kill other birthed human beings. Period. As Marshal rightly noted, while we can't prove objectively this right to life of all born human beings, we generally agree upon it, at least in freedom-loving peoples."
Since we "all" don't agree with your premise, it would seem that your point lacks any validity. But, you still haven't actually answered the question. Try again.
"But we don't all agree that the pre-born fetus enjoys that right over and against the pregnant woman's will. We just don't. And since we don't all agree on that, then WHO gets to decide and based on what?"
Interesting, in what other endeavors is unanimous agreement that standard by which Truth is determines? But thank you for acknowledging that you are arguing that the woman has the unilateral ability to impose her will on her unborn child and deny that unique, individual, living, human, the most fundamental inalienable right of all. What other rights can parents unilaterally deny their children?
"No, we all generally agree that a woman's ability to end the life of a fetus for reasons of her choice is ONLY for fetuses, not born human babies, and thus, ends at the point of birth. There is no significant contingent of citizens in freedom-loving nations who thinks otherwise. But the same is just not true when we're talking of pre-born fetuses."
Again, with the notion that Truth is decided by your opinion of what a majority thinks.
"So, why would one group get to decide for women what they must do regarding their unborn fetuses?"
Are you seriously suggesting that women be completely unrestricted in what they can do to their property? Can they sell it for parts? Can they introduce drugs and alcohol into it's body? Can they dismember it?
"Because YOU ALL (a minority, mainly a religious minority) say you have the authority to do so? Who cares what you think?"
Again with the "religious minority" bullshit.
"We have no way of proving that the right to life is inalienable and endowed by the Creator. Indeed, for biblical literalists who believe that "god" has historically sometimes decided that SOME people (including innocent children and babies) DON'T have a right to life, right?"
Again, what an interesting concept. But, for the purposes of this discussion, regarding the US legal system we could reasonably conclude that per the US constitution that the right to life is the default legal position in the US. Since no one is advancing the argument that abortion should be regulated based on a specific instance of a specific command, to a specific nation, I see no reason to dignify that idiocy with any further response.
"IF it were true that there is a God who thinks that fetuses should not be aborted, then we'd be wrong to do so. But God has not told us this, has God?"
Yeah, because that whole millstone around the neck thing couldn't possibly apply to all children.
"No. But it DOES mean that you don't get to tell women that you know best what God wants. You are not the boss of women, nor are you the Lords of Life. Embrace some humility, fellows."
Interesting that Dan thinks that humanity is demonstrated by supporting the equilateral ending of some human lives for the convenience of others.
Still haven't explained what's so magical about location, have you?
"I'm literally not justifying anything. I'm merely stating that Craig, Marshal and other conservative religious extremists (Muslim, Christian, Mormon, etc) can't justify telling women that THEY must birth a fetus in that woman's body, no matter what concerns and beliefs these women may have. I'm merely stating that women do so "for the convenience" is yet another indication of the hubris and arrogance of conservatives deciding for others what is a legitimate medical course to take with THEIR bodies."
What an interesting stance. Dan insists that women have the unilateral right to end the life of a unique, individual, human (which he seems to regard as her property to do with as she will with no restrictions), but he won't justify the position he vociferously defends. Instead he resorts to bullshit, made up, arguments that ignore the actual arguments we are making.
"I prefer to focus on the only right which matters with regard to this issue: the right to life. As has been mentioned:"
As does everyone except Dan. Because his justification of the ending of the lives of innocent humans is based on his notion that some humans should be deprived of any rights because they don't yet qualify for every right. It's also interesting that Dan, who regularly uses the "It's self evident." argument to avoid proving his claims, chooses to ignore it in this instance.
" even if you are raped or your life or health are at risk."
I don't think that using the exception to prove the rule is a logical fallacy, but it's clearly ridiculous to pretend that you can justify 98% of abortion based on circumstances that occasion only 2% of abortions. I guess ignoring the reality that 98% of abortions are essentially for the convenience of the mother (to hell with the father) makes it easier to justify.
I've got to do some work, before I head to a funeral and job interview. So I'll close by noting that while Dan expects me to answer all of his questions, many of them multiple times, he holds himself to a far less stringent standard of simply choosing "some" questions to (sort of) answer. It's not surprising, but Dan's embrace of double standards is to be expected.
Science tells us (according to the NIH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567767/) that the vast majority of children that are conceived and begin to gestate will proceed throughout the various stages of development that include the fetal stage(s), and the post fetal stage(s). The post fetal stages include infancy, toddler, childhood, teenage/adolescent/adulthood. As we see the continuum of human growth is most often an unbroken advance from conception to death. The question then becomes, by what metric are humans at some stages of development considered less than to the point that others can decide to end their lives for any reason?
Interestingly enough the NIH tells us that "Fetal health has a highly influential role in achieving growth and development. Any stimulus or insult during fetal development causes developmental adaptations that produce permanent changes in the latter part of life.". This is interesting given that the argument Dan seems to be advancing is that it is somehow wrong to infringe on the mother's right to do with her unborn child as she will during this one particular stage. Yet isn't it in the best interest of society to discourage the mother from doing some things to her child during the fetal stage of development? Do we as a society really want to consider children in certain stages of development as the property of their mother?
Further, if we as a society are going to advocate for paternal responsibility for children (child support and the like), then shouldn't the father have a say in the decision to abort? Is it really appropriate to deny the father a role in the decision to end the life of his child, yet expect him to pay for that child until they are 18?
There are so many questions unanswered, in this conversation. I have yet to get an explanation as to why it is completely appropriate to abort a child one hour before birth, yet one minute after birth the child can't be aborted. I have yet to get a good explanation for why abortion for inconvenience is such an important "right". I have yet to get an explanation for why abortion must be completely unregulated and unimpeded up to birth. I have yet to get an explanation as to why an unborn child is treated as property when it comes to abortion.
If it's legal to end the life of your unique, individual, living human child, why isn't it acceptable to sell all or part of the child while it is in utero?
If it's acceptable to end the life of your unique, individual, living, human child why is it wrong to force the child to ingest drugs and alcohol?
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2972&context=ndlr
It also seems germane to note that pregnancy is virtually always preventable, and the the choice aspect should probably be more critically engaged in prior to engaging in the acts that lead to pregnancy (with the obvious exception that women don't choose to be raped, although using the circumstances that lead to 1% of abortions doesn't seem like justification for the other 99%).
Unfortunately we live in a society that glorifies the idea of unfettered sex without consequences. Despite access to multiple forms of birth control and disease prevention, there is a narrative that says that failure to take preventative steps to avoid the negative consequences of sex, should not be a factor it trying to avoid those negative consequences of sex. The fact the our society considers ending the life of a healthy, developing, individual, unique, living, human to be such a highly valued act should shame all of us. Yet some celebrate it.
Marshal knows very well that I am an excellent debater he was never proven wrong. Since he knows I am excellent now, just wait until I complete my evolution. Wait until I reach my final form. I really need to reach my ultimate transformation. I need to draw on some power from the gods. Marshal is scared of my arguiments which is why he always deletes them in moderation. Just you wait and see.
December 18, 2023 at 10:55 AM
OK. Either Dan is the one with a real troll problem, or what I thought was a troll problem here was actually indeed Dan posting under "anonymous" and "signing" his name at the end of the comment. I denied publishing of a comment which mirrored the goofiness of the comment indicated by the emboldened date and time above. Yet this one has Dan's name highlighted indicated it indeed came from Dan, and that name is hyperlinked to his profile page as is typical of most who post from their own computer devices. So what's the deal? Seems Dan has been compromised by more than marxist evil.
No, the US constitution delineates 3 inalienable rights, two of them clearly apply to and should be applied to the unborn.
Actually, it's the Declaration of Independence that delineates unalienable rights, not the Constitution. It's one of those basic historical facts that self-proclaimed patriots never seem to understand.
Dan's arguments against my(our) position relies on several points which are baseless or false or self-serving personal opinion or irrelevancies or simply idiotic. Among them are:
1. That there is any legitimate argument supporting the contention that the unborn at some point of its development is not a "person" as are those who of whose mothers didn't murder us in utero.
2. That there is any legitimate question as to whether or not the unborn is a separate person distinct from it's parents which mitigates its right to life; a right the parents claim for themselves.
3. That there is ever any legitimate reason why an abortion is a moral choice and necessary.
4. That there is ever a need to abort in order to preserve the life of the mother.
5. That because the unborn resides in the womb of its mother, it is therefore beyond the protection of society and that its life is under the sole authority of another human being...its mother.
6. Similarly to point #5, that a woman is entitled to decide whether or not her child is deserving of life simply because the child is yet in her womb, as if that matters.
7. That to oppose abortion one must be a religious extremist, despite my providing evidence non-religious people also oppose the murder of the unborn.
8. That the influence of one's faith is a legitimate reason to reject/dismiss such a person's opposition to abortion, as if one's religious belief automatically is disqualifying.
9. That women are somehow served by having their ability to murder their child in utero protected.
10. That it's somehow "extreme" to protect the lives of the conceived still in utero, but NOT extreme to defend their unjust destruction in the most barbaric manner.
This is really a short list of the many stupid arguments against defending the lives of innocent people Dan finds compelling without any evidence behind them.
Vinny,
Some of us know that, and we also know that it says those rights were given by GOD.
Vinny,
You yet again dig yourself a hole by pretending to be smarter than others. If you wish to say that the DOC speaks of the unalienable rights we have, that doesn't mean the US Constitution doesn't either. Indeed, the rights to life and liberty are covered by the 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and specifically in most of them. For the purposes of this discussion, and the denial of those rights to people in utero by those with no authority to do so, that's all which matters.
For the purposes of this discussion, and the denial of those rights to people in utero by those with no authority to do so, that's all which matters.
Whenever the lies and errors of Trumpers are exposed, they always insist that it is something else that really matters. For example, Giuliani has to pay the price for Trump's lies about election fraud in Georgia (tens of thousands underage voters, thousands of dead voters, election workers stuffing ballot boxes, mysterious vote dumps, thousands of votes "flipped"), but you insist that what really matters is the wrong-county voters and how mean people were to Trump.
There have been no "lies and errors of Trumpers" you've exposed yet, Vinny. And all that matters here is the issue on the table, instead of some diversion you wish to bring up as if you're another feodor, who also does such when he fails to "win" a point.
As to your list, you're the first I've heard make mention of underage voters, though I wouldn't put it past your kind given how leftist cheating in elections is legendary. But what truly does indeed matter is that which has been proven to be true...out of residence voting in Georgia...and the failure of those in charge to respond as Georgia law dictates.
As to Trump being poorly treated, what really matters is by whom, but you lefty lunkheads haven't the honesty or honor to give a rat's ass. YOU morons pretend it's all justified.
By the way...just for your information and for future reference...you're perfectly welcome to say something intelligent when you visit here. No doubt it will take more effort for you, but just the same...
https://gellerreport.com/2023/12/georgia-2020-election-fraud-confirmed-17852-invalid-votes-recorded.html/
I have an email or two which also has a source reporting on this news. I will say that I haven't seen or heard anything about who benefited from these invalid votes, but what really matters is that it has taken this long to "confirm" what the Trump team had already uncovered when it would have really mattered. But Vinny and his ilk don't care about the rule of law, except when they can bend it to their desires. What really matters more than claims of election irregularities, but those irregularities which had been proven true but not addressed by those in authority, so that the results...at least in this state...where clearly flawed and thus unworthy of certification. Would Trump have won Georgia if this issue had been properly addressed? Don't know. It's but one problem they believed they found in that state. So that should have been 16 fewer Electors in the Biden column. Your Joe Biden would still have had 290 Electoral votes. But any of the other "swing states" with irregularities never investigated could have thrown the election to Congress, and Trump would have won as he should have had your kind not cheated in so many ways.
Anyhow, as I've enlightened you about what really matters, I will disregard any off topic comments. The topic here is how your kind digs aborting people.
Vinny,
My bad. Which still doesn't invalidate my point. Dan's "argument" hinges on his claim that since the unborn don't have all of the rights of an adult, that it's impossible to determine of they have any rights. This is a straw man argument, and a device for him to avoid focusing on the one fundamental right, life.
We all know that Dan is a master debater, as this recent post alleging that it's from Dan indicates. Yet, the level of unhinged that we see in this post seems excessive even for Dan. It appears that someone has managed to either take over Dan's blogger account, or that Dan has completely gone off the deep end.
As we see more information coming out of GA and AZ regarding the 2020 vote, I am beginning to think that this will be one more DFL conspiracy theory that will end up having much more Truth to it than anyone thought.
Art,
As far as your list, I'd suggest that #4 would be more accurate if you replaced "never" with "exceedingly rarely".
I have an email or two which also has a source reporting on this news.
Really? You have an email or two? What more proof do I need? People never lie in emails.
Not surprisingly, this is just another Trumper lie. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2023/12/fact-check-georgia-governor-legal-team-did-not-notify-secretary-of-state-that-17-thousand-invalid-votes-counted-in-2020.html
Ah! Vinny employs the Dan Trabue tried and true "Nyuh uh" defense!
First, the emails I reference are from sites which present news stories. You know...like news sources! I get emails from dozens of various sites which provide info on various subjects (health, religion, firearms, etc.), including news stories.
Second, I suspect you chose to cite this "fact-check" site only to see if I would dismiss your leftist wingnut choice simply because its another leftist wingnut site. Not so. But it's clear that aside from its several links I currently haven't the time to peruse (time I'm sure will be wasted once more), it has little more than "Nyuh uh" responses from the very people who should have responded to Trump team claims but never did. Instead, they regard claims as "lies" told again. Well, lies are only lies when proven to be so and that hasn't happened with regard to the number of out of residency ballots in the 2020 Georgia election. Perhaps that proof will be in one of the several links in the "fact-check" article. I doubt it.
Third, you're pulling the same crap you pulled when I spoke of having read several essays on a subject. But it isn't "essays", it's what the essays say and whether or not the info therein is valid. It isn't "emails", it's what the emails deliver and whether or not the info therein is valid. But as it typical of your ilk, you're far quicker to dismiss info, opinions or evidence you don't like on such a lame basis than I've ever done. That's a fact. Got a "fact-checker" for that? Or must one simply take YOUR unreliable word for it?
Fourth, also typical is how you insist on pursuing that which is off topic simply because you think you've got a better chance to "win". You've nothing intelligent to say about the topic of the post, so you bring up something about which you believe you've already succeeded in debunking (though you hadn't) and because you believe so, you think THAT is enough to dismiss my position on the topic of the post. feo does attempts to do this constantly. And this form of deflection and misdirection is common for you lefties who post on the blogs and social sites.
Fifth. So you can continue to cite your lefty wingnut sites while pretending my sources are daft. It's cute and precious that you think so. But you only indict yourself as lacking in character (no surprise...you're a lefty, after all) and integrity. Try actually bringing facts, rather than pretending I reject that which isn't due to the sources you use.
Re: The comment that reports to be from me at December 18, 2023 at 10:55 AM, of course, it's not me. I don't know how it has my name at the top, but if you just look at my actual comments, you can see the difference in that my actual comments show my photo.
To be safe, I changed my password, but good on you all for recognizing when a comment sounds "off," and not like something I actually would say. Would that you could recognize that when you all make ridiculous claims about what I believe.
December 19, 2023 at 9:30 PM
I would not go so far as to insist anyone rejected those comments as not like something you would say, so much as we were focused on how it was said. How it was said was over the top. What was said to be your words seemed simply a parody of what you would say. I take nothing for granted with you. No one makes ridiculous claims about what you believe. What you believe is ridiculous and the conclusions drawn from what you actually say reflect those beliefs well. Again, it's your problem you can't present your goofy ideas in a way that doesn't indict you.
Second, I suspect you chose to cite this "fact-check" site only to see if I would dismiss your leftist wingnut choice simply because its another leftist wingnut site. Not so. But it's clear that aside from its several links I currently haven't the time to peruse (time I'm sure will be wasted once more), it has little more than "Nyuh uh" responses from the very people who should have responded to Trump team claims but never did. Instead, they regard claims as "lies" told again. Well, lies are only lies when proven to be so and that hasn't happened with regard to the number of out of residency ballots in the 2020 Georgia election. Perhaps that proof will be in one of the several links in the "fact-check" article. I doubt it.
Remind me again what evidence your link cited in support of its claim. Never mind. I remember. It was a tweet—that's it. Some dipshit wingnut invents a lie and tweets it, and you call that a “news source.” The fact checkers then did what real journalists are supposed to do: they contacted the parties about whom the claims were made and gave them an opportunity to respond. When they denied the claim for which no evidence had been offered, you dismiss their response on the grounds that it's a "Nyuh uh response.” In other words, you reject their denial on no other grounds than that it is a denial.
This is how the Big Lie has worked all along: some lying wingnut invents crap with no supporting evidence and Trumpers believe the lies. When knowledgeable officials refute the lies, lying wingnuts dismiss them as lefties or never-Trumpers, or they dismiss the refuations as “Nyuh uh responses.” Then the lying wingnut claims that no one ever responded to the lies.
That's why so many of Trump's lawsuits were rejected on procedural grounds. Trump never had any evidence of fraud. All he ever had was crap invented by lying wingnuts. The problem isn't that the courts refused to examine the evidence: the problem is that the lying wingnuts didn't offer any evidence.
And that's not all. Trumpers operate on the principal that they are justified in believing any lie so long as it hasn't been disproved to their satisfaction. No disproof will ever satisfy them, however, because the mere fact that someone with knowledge of the facts opposes Trump's lies makes whatever he says the “Nyuh uh response” of an untrustworthy lefty or never-Trumper.
You keep repeating the lie that no one ever responded to the lying wingnuts claims. The truth is that lying wingnuts don't seek responses to their lie, they don't report the responses to their lies: they simply deny that anyone responded to their lies.
I agree with Art that the comment in question tends to align with other things you've said, but that the way it was said didn't align with how you usually communicate. If was much more direct an specific than you tend to be. I do agree that you are, in fact, a master debater.
The reality is that when I clicked on the link embedded in your name, it took me to your Blogger information page.
None of this changes the reality that you need to figure out how to post in ways that prevent people from posting as you. This also doesn't change the reality that this isn't an excuse for you to focus on something other than the point at hand.
Vinny,
You're really spinning quite a web of bullshit. How typical of you lefty wing nuts.
What's most important to keep in mind is that yes, a denial by itself is worthy of rejection because it's no better than "Nyuh uh". The issue at hand is the claim, proven by the Trump team using Georgia's own data, is that there were enough out of residency votes to trigger a withholding of certification. That never happened. No investigation into the claims ever happened. Stonewalling did, but nothing to legitimately "refute" the charge (one of several brought by the Trump team, BTW).
And no, again, there has been no significant legal ruling on fraud claims. Only roadblocks to the litigation of them.
But again, while you continue to prove you're as much a liar as Dan, his troll and any other lefty hack, this post is about something entirely different. You have a blog. If you wish to perpetrate your lying lefty imaginings, do it there or wait until I decide to again revisit the FACT of the stolen election of 2020 against the TRUE BIG LIE that it was the most secure and fair election ever. Either stick to the topic, or go away. I'm sure there are plenty of lies about abortion and pro-lifers you could attempt to run. It's what you people do.
Art,
If one was to summarize Dan's position on abortion and when abortion is justified, it's safe to say that he believes that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of rape and incest. So the question would seem to be as follows. Would Dan support a law which restricted abortion except in cases where the mother's life was in danger, and when the mother was a victim of rape or incest? Since those are the only justifications Dan has offered, one would think that he'd support that, wouldn't you? The rub, I suspect, comes with he repeated statements that the decision lies 100% with the mother. As long as that is the case, then you can "justify" unlimited abortions for any reason and at any time.
For the record, if I was given the opportunity to vote on a law that restricted abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, I would absolutely vote for it.
Given the fact that no woman's life is ever endangered by a pregnancy where ripping to shreds her unborn child is required to save her, "life of the mother" is an acceptable trade-off.
Given the number of cases of rape or incest which result in pregnancy is low, allowing abortions for those two exceptions, despite the necessity also being non-existent, would be preferable to what Dan's kind seeks to expand and/or keep in place. It would be difficult for me to deny that abortions would be dramatically reduced in such a case, and if I can't get no infanticide, then let's get far fewer murdered unborn. That's not to say it's a good thing, but it's clearly a true case of "lesser of two evils" and I'll take the lesser in this case.
But any expression by Dan that it is those three areas he seeks to protect, it's no better than a lie as his overriding opinion is that it's up to the pregnant woman to decide whether or not to murder her own child. So it doesn't matter if he does think those three areas are acceptable (there's a fourth of course...the "hardship" crap he mentioned at your blog). He stands in support of "choice", the consequence of which is no change to the number of abortion or an increase in the number. I don't think he's ever expressed a desire to see any restriction other than the will of the murderous.
Art,
While the endangering of the woman's life is exceedingly rare the chance is not zero. In those exceedingly rare instances, I would opt for saving the life of the mother is possible. The reality is that those three circumstances make up less than 3% of abortions. If it would be possible to eliminate 97% of all abortions (I know there will be some Drs that'll do them illegally, but...) I could absolutely support that. If for no other reason that it would allow focus on persuading that 3% that abortion is not the best option more effectively.
The "hardship" or "mental health" of the mother are simply intentionally vague so as to allow abortion under any circumstances through the loophole. That's why I didn't include it. The reality is that Dan has been very clear that he would support zero restrictions on abortion. I've asked before and haven't gotten a clear answer, but I'm not sure if Dan supports restrictions on abortion based on things like health code compliance. Yes, his use of those three areas in his questions is a bullshit tactic based on using the exceptions to establish the rule. The reality is that the likelihood of him accepting abortion restrictions based on only those three instances is virtually zero. But, as you know, he does this regularly. He'll fixate on some microscopic exception, and use that to justify doing nothing about the vast majority. It's how he rolls.
It is strange that someone who claims to be vehemently opposed to anyone who perpetrates violence against an "innocent" can be so cavalier about a procedure that is so violent. To rip an innocent, sinless, unique, individual, living human limb from limb and crush the skull seems like brutality on the level of Hamas. Yet Dan supports mothers doing this to their unborn children.
We can be gracious and say that Dan supports allowing women to choose whether or not to destroy their children in that manner, but that's really a difference without a significant distinction. However his support manifests, it still makes him complicit in the murder of all those children.
As to the life of the mother question, it isn't that the pregnancy might endanger her, but rather the means by which the danger might be abated. Don't forget, in such situations, the life of the unborn is also at risk. Thus, we're left with determining whether or not murdering the kid in utero is the only means by which the mother's life can be saved. Pro-life obstetricians who specialize in difficult pregnancies insist that isn't the case. The child can be delivered alive, and if it cannot survive outside the womb, that is far more like a natural death than would be having it killed in the womb. I've posted such testimonies some time ago in another abortion discussion. Without question, those like Dan pretend such testimonies by experts who conflict with their position never were presented. But they can be found by anyone honest enough, and compassionate enough about ending unnecessary targeting of innocent people. They can also be easily found by those who only pretend to be either. (I'm looking virtually at YOU, Dan!)
And to be clear, while I don't believe there's ever any honest or medically proven need for abortion, I would feel we're miles closer to the goal of outlawing this most heinous practice by restricting it to only those three "exceptions". Reducing the number of victims is the morally proper choice, if only those two choices are available for a vote.
By the way, delivering the child at whatever point in the pregnancy is always better for the mother than abortion. So there's that. I would also add that if there's some cockamamie reason given why the mother can't be saved without ripping asunder her child in utero, having it done by an actual professional obstetrician in an actual hospital where all available remedies exist should the procedure or the woman's condition go south, must also be mandated. None of these butchers at the standard PP sponsored abortion mills, who too often leave the woman needed an emergency room.
What's most important to keep in mind is that yes, a denial by itself is worthy of rejection because it's no better than "Nyuh uh".
When a lying wingnut tweets a claim with no evidence whatsoever, a “nyuh uh” from a person with knowledge of the facts is more than sufficient basis to reject the lie.
What's really most important to keep in mind is that you think that lying wingnuts like that are “news sources,” and you will believe and repeat anything they tell you.
The issue at hand is the claim, proven by the Trump team using Georgia's own data, is that there were enough out of residency votes to trigger a withholding of certification.
In fact, the Trump team didn't actually prove that there were any wrong-county votes cast. The only evidence cited were change-of-address requests filed with the post office, which (as you may recall) do not prove change of residence for voting purposes. Change of residence is a question of individual intent.
Also, as I recall, your lying wingnut sources didn't say anything about “trigger[ing] a withholding of certification” (probably because the claims were being made months after certification). Your lying wingnuts claimed that a new election was required. Of course, it's ridiculous to suppose that any state would spend hundreds of millions of dollars running a new election in which all the allegedly ineligible voters in the original election would be eligible to vote. That's probably why no state has ever done such a thing.
And no, again, there has been no significant legal ruling on fraud claims.
I know that's what your lying wingnut sources tell you, but it's not true. The courts correctly ruled that Trump failed to produce any actual evidence of fraud.
I agree that Dan's fig leaf of merely supporting a woman's right to choose to end the life of her child isn't much help. The reality is that his support facilitates the violent ending of millions of innocent, sinless, unique, individual, humans for the most ridiculous of reasons. His support facilitates the irresponsible behavior of people who know that if pregnancy happens that they can end the life of their offspring.
As far as the life of the mother, allowing this exception would allow such a minute number of abortions that it is probably statistically insignificant. The reality is allowing the three most common exceptions would take away the most potent arguments for abortion and focus the conversation on the reality that the vast majority of abortions are done for inconvenience.
As far as the specific life of the mother, I am not a doctor, and I would not want to take away that option in the very few cases where it might be appropriate. If, as you claim, there is never any possible situation where abortion might be necessary to save the life of the mother, then it literally makes no difference if it is allowed for some exceedingly rare situation.
My point is and has always been that eliminating 98% of abortions while allowing exceptions for the 2% is a huge win for the pro life side of things. I would much rather put the effort of the pro life movement into persuading those in the 2% that there are better options than trying to convince millions of irresponsible hedonists that the thing inside of them is an actual human child.
I do agree that patient safety is of utmost importance and that there have been altogether too many instances of substandard care at abortion facilities. It's absolutely better to perform them in hospitals. It wasn't that long ago that abortion facilities had less regulation than vet clinics. Not to mention how few abortionists have admitting privileges at hospitals.
As I read through the recent exchange at the cesspool I noticed two things.
1. That Dan has absolutely no problem with someone who blogs behind a pseudonym, when they agree with him.
2. When Dan decides that wooden literalism is the best option to support his narrative, he goes all in on wooden literalism.
One other interesting thought regarding Dan's veneration of Mary. I can't help but wonder if he takes the virgin birth part of the story, let alone the other supernatural parts of the story as literally as he does the exclusivity of her words about the poor.
Art,
If the answer is to deliver the baby, and make a treatment/no treatment decision in appropriate cases, I have no problem with that. I had some friends do that very thing, it was hard but allowed them to deal with it and grieve the loss in an appropriate and healthy way.
Vinny,
Pretty sure I insisted you stick to the topic of the post. You have three options:
1. Take up your vain attempt to dismiss the many examples of election fraud in the 2020 election at your own blog and let me know you have, allowing me to decide whether or not to engage your pathetic dodging of the truth.
2. Stick to the topic of this post and await a time when I might revisit the election fraud perpetrated by your kind in order to win the 2020 presidential election...which I could very wel do without giving you a guarantee it'll happen.
3. Go away.
Pick one.
Craig,
The fig leaf I offered doesn't mitigate Dan's culpability whatsoever. I'm just allowing for the distinction between pulling the trigger himself versus allowing others to do it. The point is of course that he's doing nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocents, and by virtue of his voting choices insuring it continues.
Setting aside the "extremely rare" remarks regarding the "life of the mother" exception, I once again point out that pro-life obstetricians who specialize in difficult pregnancies insist there is never a reason to abort. Death may come to the delivered child, but that different than intentionally ripping it apart in the womb. I would submit that only pro-abortion obstetricians would insist that there are circumstances where it must be done to save the mother's life. They're liars until I can see something compelling to convince me otherwise.
The main problem with the exception as it is put forth is that it allows the vermin to insist it had to be done, even if it didn't. Can it be confirmed after the fact? The pro-life obstetricians of whom I spoke also claim delivery is always less negatively impactful on the mother than is an abortion. So if a deliver does not harm her more than ripping the kid apart, why do the latter and how was she ever more at risk by doing the former?
BUT!!!!! I agree with the desire to eliminate as many abortions as possible and if we can't deny them all, then deny the 98% or whatever which are merely matters of selfish convenience rather than necessity. As for rape and incest, we can work on them later without the needless murdering going on.
Craig,
As to Dan's troll, didn't he insist he "vetted" him before allowing him to comment under his pseudonym? I asked Dan about that and I haven't checked recently to see if he ever responded to my questions. He condescends to me constantly, as if I'm "too far gone", so I don't know if he reads my comments at all when the discussion is at your blog. I want to know how he was satisfied. Did they meet somewhere? I thought the troll is from New York somewhere. I've never seen him have a blog where you could see his real name or email him. How did this vetting take place? I would expect it was less than he would require of someone like Wintery Knight for whom he would impose an anal probe and a list of references.
As to the discussion at Dan's blog-o-lies, I've offered far more compelling and detailed commentary on the use of the word "poor" in the Magnificat and Christ's reading in the temple in Nazareth and I'm pretty sure he deleted the comment which contained it without so much as a veiled reference to it by him. (Not in this specific discussion, but in a previous one on the subject). Here, all I get from him is "many people believe", or words to that effect and that's what passes for support from him, while I'm put the the meat grinder with standards, requirements and demands he never imposed on his troll or himself.
What's most amusing is his insistence that the people of that time would see things Dan's way when hearing Christ speak, while theologians and such don't believe people would understand the original language the way Dan chooses to understand the English of our Bibles rendering. It's similar to the concept of how the Constitution and its Amendments were intended to be understood, and how they were understood by those who ratified them, not how lefties insist we understand them so as to appease their demands.
Craig,
Going through my voluminous saved articles and emails to cull the herd (not necessarily an end of the year tradition, but in my case should be), I came across this article from 2019:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/
No doubt the authors represent 30,000 Christian extremists no different than Hamas (right Dan?), but nonetheless they all stand firm on the position there exists no legit reason to terminate a child in utero in order to save the life of its mother. The article does suggest there are pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother, but they do not come close to suggesting it's because of the infant, but rather are due to other reasons.
Notable also is the reference to the time frame difference in removing the child dead versus alive, with the abortion taking more time. If the pregnancy was indeed fatal risk for the pregnant woman, then why not go with that which reduces the time she is at risk...a live delivery by the normal birthing procedures, than time consuming abortion protocols?
I believe I have (or maybe had) more on the issue of "life of the mother" argument and if I come across anything, I'll post it, particularly if it has more details not presented in the link above. In the meantime, I still agree that the "life of the mother" exception can still be a part of any movement to reduce abortions by 97% as discussed in previous comments. I would hope that this exception should necessitate some legitimate proof that only abortion can actually save the woman's life before snuffing an innocent person.
Post a Comment