There are three of us (four if you count Dan, but for obvious reasons, he can't be included) who have to suffer being inundated with the unjustly arrogant commenting attempts by feo. feo isn't content with being ignored by just one of us. He feels the pathetically desperate need to be ignored by all of us..."us" being Craig, Stan and myself. feo fills our spam folders. Sometimes I read them before emptying the folder of them, because he never fails to entertain. Here's one I found especially amusing:
"RE Stan’s latest:
You: “ Chick-fil-A stores have never discriminated against anyone.”
Facts:
“Chick-fil-A, the Georgia-based fast-food chain known for its juicy
chicken sandwiches — and for its executives’ conservative strain of
Christianity — has continued donating to anti-LGBTQ charities through
its foundation despite claiming it had no political affiliation.”
You’re not the brightest bulb on the moral porch"
The problem here is who is labeling the charities as "anti-LGBTQ"? Most likely, given feo's moral corruption, it would be another enabler/supporter/champion of sexual immorality. That is, a morally corrupt source.
I guess one can say that to be for one thing...say, the true definition of marriage...means that one is against the opposite...fake "same-sex" marriage. But it isn't honest to regard the former by the latter. That is, it would be dishonest to label feo as "anti-honest" because he's so in favor of the lies he spreads. It would be honest to simply call him a liar.
Of course, more importantly is the lie feo tells by the above. Stan stated a fact: Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate. That is, they serve everyone who can pay the tab for a chicken sandwich. They don't refuse service, even to the blatantly sexually immoral or disordered.
Donating to charities who support long-standing, traditional notions of morality and virtue by their actions...such as adoption agencies who acknowledge the best placement of children is with husband/wife marriages...is praise worthy, even if the result of their practices is that the sexually immoral are denied...because they're sexually immoral and therefore, in the moral eyes of the charity, not the best people with whom the children in their charge should be placed.
feo lives to prove he's intellectually superior to those like Craig, Stan and myself. He fails miserably with incredible frequency, but continues in the attempt due to his fragile ego as well as his need to avoid facing his chosen path to perdition...his defense of the immoral. He dared suggest Stan is "not the brightest bulb on the moral porch". feo is the stubby, charred wick of a candle burned to the base which is unable to illuminate at all.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
No One Is Good...
So apparently, despite Jesus saying that there is no one good but God alone (Mark 10:18), I'm admonished for my foolishness for believing it. I'm not given any reason why I shouldn't take His words at face value here, nor are there any indications in the text that He meant it in any but a literal sense. No "hard data" is offered to correct my allegedly poor understanding. It can only be a "hunch" that Jesus meant what He said in this verse for no other reason than I'm told it is so.
You see, if only God is good, what of all those lovely people who do good things all the time? Gosh darn it, they're good, too! Because of all the good things they do! So they're good and no one can say otherwise without being...something!
It all began here where Stan had the audacity to speak on a very basic...as in Christianity For Beginners...concept that we are all sinners with a sin nature and prone toward sinfulness. Dan Trabue immediately was overcome with horror at the very thought and took issue with Stan here. I pointed out that even Jesus backed up Stan's position when He uttered the aforementioned words of Mark 10:18 and was then told I needed to prove that Christ meant what He said, despite there being no reason anywhere in the text to suggest He didn't. Worse, Dan has yet to offer an explanation, complete with "hard data" that would provide a sensible, logical alternative meaning of such a clear statement that there is no one good but God alone. I'm still waiting for that explanation. I don't mean like I'm actually waiting, as if I truly expect Dan to provide that explanation. More like it's a standing invitation I offered but can now put out of my mind knowing it'll never be provided.
But here's a pertinent thought or two. For most basketball fans, no one epitomized "great" like Michael Jordan. He is what a "good" basketball player is. That doesn't mean there are no other "good" basketball players, per se. It means that none of them are good by comparison. He's that far above them all. So very few would argue the point. All others are only "good" relative to each other, but not to Jordan. He's so good, they're not good at all. They're only good when Jordan's taken out of the equation.
Now, the above analogy only works as an illustration of the difference between God and the rest of us. We're simply not "good" because God is what "good" is, and by comparison, we all have fallen short of that glory. It doesn't mean we can't refer to some of us as good. It's a reference that's a matter of relativity. That is, relative to each other. We can't possibly match God for the term, but we can still use the term.
Dan likes to think he's on God's level. Normal people don't do that. Normal people recognize His thoughts aren't our thoughts...His ways aren't ours...we have no idea what it's like to be Him. He's much farther above us than any athlete like Jordan. Think of the "good-est" person you can and that person is not close...not within a universe...to God as far as being "good". The difference is such that what passes for good among humans isn't good at all. It's only good relative to other humans. It's a term we use for convenience.
More than anything, I can't understand what about this concept so troubles old Danny boy. Stan mentioned several verses that speak to our sin natures in contradicting the notion that people are basically good. Christ claims no one is good. Dan wets himself. In the meantime, I'm perfectly "good" with the concept. I get it and it doesn't do anything than to further teach me just how badly I need Jesus to be my Savior. No one is good but God and that's why we need Him. We are all sinners and that's why we need Him. Our actions are the fruits by which others see that we are Christians...not that we are "good". There's a difference. We are Christians because we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior and because of that, the fact that we are not good won't be held against us when our time comes. But still, no one is good but God alone.
Basic stuff. The invitation stands. I wait in vain.
You see, if only God is good, what of all those lovely people who do good things all the time? Gosh darn it, they're good, too! Because of all the good things they do! So they're good and no one can say otherwise without being...something!
It all began here where Stan had the audacity to speak on a very basic...as in Christianity For Beginners...concept that we are all sinners with a sin nature and prone toward sinfulness. Dan Trabue immediately was overcome with horror at the very thought and took issue with Stan here. I pointed out that even Jesus backed up Stan's position when He uttered the aforementioned words of Mark 10:18 and was then told I needed to prove that Christ meant what He said, despite there being no reason anywhere in the text to suggest He didn't. Worse, Dan has yet to offer an explanation, complete with "hard data" that would provide a sensible, logical alternative meaning of such a clear statement that there is no one good but God alone. I'm still waiting for that explanation. I don't mean like I'm actually waiting, as if I truly expect Dan to provide that explanation. More like it's a standing invitation I offered but can now put out of my mind knowing it'll never be provided.
But here's a pertinent thought or two. For most basketball fans, no one epitomized "great" like Michael Jordan. He is what a "good" basketball player is. That doesn't mean there are no other "good" basketball players, per se. It means that none of them are good by comparison. He's that far above them all. So very few would argue the point. All others are only "good" relative to each other, but not to Jordan. He's so good, they're not good at all. They're only good when Jordan's taken out of the equation.
Now, the above analogy only works as an illustration of the difference between God and the rest of us. We're simply not "good" because God is what "good" is, and by comparison, we all have fallen short of that glory. It doesn't mean we can't refer to some of us as good. It's a reference that's a matter of relativity. That is, relative to each other. We can't possibly match God for the term, but we can still use the term.
Dan likes to think he's on God's level. Normal people don't do that. Normal people recognize His thoughts aren't our thoughts...His ways aren't ours...we have no idea what it's like to be Him. He's much farther above us than any athlete like Jordan. Think of the "good-est" person you can and that person is not close...not within a universe...to God as far as being "good". The difference is such that what passes for good among humans isn't good at all. It's only good relative to other humans. It's a term we use for convenience.
More than anything, I can't understand what about this concept so troubles old Danny boy. Stan mentioned several verses that speak to our sin natures in contradicting the notion that people are basically good. Christ claims no one is good. Dan wets himself. In the meantime, I'm perfectly "good" with the concept. I get it and it doesn't do anything than to further teach me just how badly I need Jesus to be my Savior. No one is good but God and that's why we need Him. We are all sinners and that's why we need Him. Our actions are the fruits by which others see that we are Christians...not that we are "good". There's a difference. We are Christians because we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior and because of that, the fact that we are not good won't be held against us when our time comes. But still, no one is good but God alone.
Basic stuff. The invitation stands. I wait in vain.
Friday, October 04, 2019
The Principle Argument
What follows is the result of disagreement between me and a couple of guys with whom I am normally in agreement on most issues. I will touch on issues I feel are important for consideration by all, but are directly related to the division between us. The division regards whether or not to vote for Trump in the next election.
To begin, I state once again that I was a fairly staunch Ted Cruz supporter. Still am for the most part, and think he'll make a fine president some day. He's extremely solid in his understanding of the US Constitution, and that's what I felt was most needed as we considered the choices back in 2016. Like most people, I was amused by the campaign of Donald Trump and never thought there was any chance he'd win the nomination, much less the election itself. Frankly, I still still can't believe it when I think of those days. But as he gained momentum, and as the idiot John Kasich let his ego override reason that I believe resulted in Cruz being denied the votes he would have gotten had Kasich drop out, Trump did win the nomination. Now my path was clear..crystal clear...despite my own personal desire that I not have to choose between two such people.
That is to say, I did NOT want to vote for Donald Trump. I opposed him for all the reasons so many others did. His character flaws were well known. His philandering and womanizing seemed to him to be a badge of honor. I didn't want to vote for a boastful horndog who seemed no more than a self-promoting clown.
Worse, however, the thought of a President Hillary Clinton was too much to bear. There's no way I could pretend she was "the better man", morally, politically, or as a human being. Trump was just a wise ass. Clinton was reprehensible.
So I looked at the promises. I knew full well what Clinton brought to the political table. I had always felt the only difference between her and Obama (in the previous elections) was that she had an actual pair of testicles. Everything else about the two of them were pretty much the same, politically speaking. Four more years of what the last eight brought us was a horror I didn't wish to endure. Nor did I think the nation could or should.
So I voted for Trump. He was an unknown quantity, but his promises aligned with what I hoped to see. I took a chance knowing he might turn on us.
And whaddya know? He's been doing a really great job! For the first year or so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but he continued to impress. I'm not talking perfection...that's what the left demands from all center-right figures while they allow all manner of transgression from their own...but strong conservative policies and achievements!
So at this point, I stop to point out the difference between myself and those two I mentioned at the outset. It has to do with principle. The two did not vote for Trump because of his character flaws. They saw doing so as a compromise of their Christian principles. I, on the other hand, saw allowing Clinton to win as a major and more serious compromise of my Christian principles. We all prefer our president to be a person of high moral character, while recognizing that none exist who are perfect. Where we differ is in the reality of the situation. They thought it the moral option to vote third party/write in, trust in God and hope the nation survives. I saw the moral option was to deny the evil inherent in Hillary's platform which was one of the only two likely outcomes, thereby bringing greater harm to our nation than simply having a boor like Trump as our president.
Wayne Grudem did a few articles that appeared at Townhall.com, in which he addressed the morality of voting for Trump back in 2016. After his first, he backtracked when he came across more details about Trump's history that he frankly should have known before writing the first. Then he did a third that was a more reasoned, objective consideration. In it, linked here, he responds to pretty much every objection to Trump, and I present it here because this third piece is very relative to the current situation, as we are again faced with the choice of Trump or someone else. I encourage everyone to read it, especially the two "NeverTrumpers" referenced at the beginning.
Among Grudem's many valid points is the idea that the choice is not one of the candidate's character...though he doesn't suggest it in the least that it isn't important...but of the policies of the candidate, because that's what it's really all about. The principle of how those policies will affect the nation against the principle of voting for a low character guy. But that's not all. That was truly the choice back in 2016. Now, the character issue is of FAR, FAR less importance, given that it has not been much of an issue throughout his presidency thus far. That is to say, the worst aspects of Trump's flawed character have played absolutely no role. He's still boorish, doesn't concern himself with precision and accuracy when speaking. That's really about it. Nothing about his infidelity has been an issue. There's nothing akin to a sex scandal or anything like that. No "perversion" as some fake Christians like to go on about.
Thus, what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation...serious benefits that we'd never have seen had he not won. These go beyond his economic policies that have led to the best employment numbers, expansion, and all that...beyond great judicial appointments...beyond so many things, to include pushing back against the horrid attitude of the leftists who mock everything Christian, American, family, etc and those who defend them.
And as to his character flaws, which of them does he promote as a moral good, either in policy or in any other way? He may defend his bad behavior, but has he done a damned thing to promote it? No. In fact, he seems to promote really good and moral things, even if he does so clumsily.
I still don't love the guy. I just don't know him well enough for that, anymore than his most vitriolic detractors don't know him well enough to hate him as they do. I simply don't see that there is any "principle" that justifies refusing to vote him to a second term. On the contrary, I believe principle...yes, Christian...principle demands support for his re-election, especially given how much worse his opposition has become.
There is no Christian principle that justifies risking a Democrat or socialist victory in 2020. None whatsoever, and pretending one that says Trump's character is bad enough to take that risk is shameful.
To begin, I state once again that I was a fairly staunch Ted Cruz supporter. Still am for the most part, and think he'll make a fine president some day. He's extremely solid in his understanding of the US Constitution, and that's what I felt was most needed as we considered the choices back in 2016. Like most people, I was amused by the campaign of Donald Trump and never thought there was any chance he'd win the nomination, much less the election itself. Frankly, I still still can't believe it when I think of those days. But as he gained momentum, and as the idiot John Kasich let his ego override reason that I believe resulted in Cruz being denied the votes he would have gotten had Kasich drop out, Trump did win the nomination. Now my path was clear..crystal clear...despite my own personal desire that I not have to choose between two such people.
That is to say, I did NOT want to vote for Donald Trump. I opposed him for all the reasons so many others did. His character flaws were well known. His philandering and womanizing seemed to him to be a badge of honor. I didn't want to vote for a boastful horndog who seemed no more than a self-promoting clown.
Worse, however, the thought of a President Hillary Clinton was too much to bear. There's no way I could pretend she was "the better man", morally, politically, or as a human being. Trump was just a wise ass. Clinton was reprehensible.
So I looked at the promises. I knew full well what Clinton brought to the political table. I had always felt the only difference between her and Obama (in the previous elections) was that she had an actual pair of testicles. Everything else about the two of them were pretty much the same, politically speaking. Four more years of what the last eight brought us was a horror I didn't wish to endure. Nor did I think the nation could or should.
So I voted for Trump. He was an unknown quantity, but his promises aligned with what I hoped to see. I took a chance knowing he might turn on us.
And whaddya know? He's been doing a really great job! For the first year or so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but he continued to impress. I'm not talking perfection...that's what the left demands from all center-right figures while they allow all manner of transgression from their own...but strong conservative policies and achievements!
So at this point, I stop to point out the difference between myself and those two I mentioned at the outset. It has to do with principle. The two did not vote for Trump because of his character flaws. They saw doing so as a compromise of their Christian principles. I, on the other hand, saw allowing Clinton to win as a major and more serious compromise of my Christian principles. We all prefer our president to be a person of high moral character, while recognizing that none exist who are perfect. Where we differ is in the reality of the situation. They thought it the moral option to vote third party/write in, trust in God and hope the nation survives. I saw the moral option was to deny the evil inherent in Hillary's platform which was one of the only two likely outcomes, thereby bringing greater harm to our nation than simply having a boor like Trump as our president.
Wayne Grudem did a few articles that appeared at Townhall.com, in which he addressed the morality of voting for Trump back in 2016. After his first, he backtracked when he came across more details about Trump's history that he frankly should have known before writing the first. Then he did a third that was a more reasoned, objective consideration. In it, linked here, he responds to pretty much every objection to Trump, and I present it here because this third piece is very relative to the current situation, as we are again faced with the choice of Trump or someone else. I encourage everyone to read it, especially the two "NeverTrumpers" referenced at the beginning.
Among Grudem's many valid points is the idea that the choice is not one of the candidate's character...though he doesn't suggest it in the least that it isn't important...but of the policies of the candidate, because that's what it's really all about. The principle of how those policies will affect the nation against the principle of voting for a low character guy. But that's not all. That was truly the choice back in 2016. Now, the character issue is of FAR, FAR less importance, given that it has not been much of an issue throughout his presidency thus far. That is to say, the worst aspects of Trump's flawed character have played absolutely no role. He's still boorish, doesn't concern himself with precision and accuracy when speaking. That's really about it. Nothing about his infidelity has been an issue. There's nothing akin to a sex scandal or anything like that. No "perversion" as some fake Christians like to go on about.
Thus, what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation...serious benefits that we'd never have seen had he not won. These go beyond his economic policies that have led to the best employment numbers, expansion, and all that...beyond great judicial appointments...beyond so many things, to include pushing back against the horrid attitude of the leftists who mock everything Christian, American, family, etc and those who defend them.
And as to his character flaws, which of them does he promote as a moral good, either in policy or in any other way? He may defend his bad behavior, but has he done a damned thing to promote it? No. In fact, he seems to promote really good and moral things, even if he does so clumsily.
I still don't love the guy. I just don't know him well enough for that, anymore than his most vitriolic detractors don't know him well enough to hate him as they do. I simply don't see that there is any "principle" that justifies refusing to vote him to a second term. On the contrary, I believe principle...yes, Christian...principle demands support for his re-election, especially given how much worse his opposition has become.
There is no Christian principle that justifies risking a Democrat or socialist victory in 2020. None whatsoever, and pretending one that says Trump's character is bad enough to take that risk is shameful.
Friday, July 19, 2019
Another Word Redefined
As almost everyone knows, our president had recently posted a few tweets that the lunatic left now insists is racist. Let's look at them. Here they are all together:
""Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worse, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it's done. These place need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to work out free travel arrangements."
Where's the racism? Please, lefty lunkheads. Point it out specifically. Is the skin color of the any Congresswomen mentioned anywhere in these tweets? Of course not. You know why? Because it isn't freaking racist in any way, shape or form regardless of how badly the Trump haters want it to be.
Trump not only didn't mention race in the tweet, he didn't even mention the Congresswomen he had in mind!! Indeed, there's a great meme I saw on Facebook of a smiling Donald Trump with the words, "I didn't use any names in my tweet and four morons stood up!" Hilarious! It is rather funny that these four idiots assumed he was talking about them. I tend to agree with one pundit who believes he was referring specifically to Ilhan Omar, the anti-semite terrorist defender, but chose to pluralize the target of his comments in order to avoid distracting from his point. But we're talking about lefties here, and distracting from the point is what they do. This damned story is proof of that. No one is talking about the point at all, in fact, but instead choose to lie about the tweet being proof of racism.
And here we see another example of what racism means to the left these days. It's another example of redefining a word or term to further their evil agenda (yeah..."EVIL"). To the Trump haters, this tweet is racist because of the race of the target of the tweet. By that standard, Trump would be racist if he singled out these women for praise. I mean, you can't have it both ways. To the left, if one speaks negatively about ANYTHING regarding a person of a different race, it's racist. WAIT!!! Let me clarify that and be more specific: If a white person, in this case more than any other, Donald Trump, says anything negative in relation to a non-white person, it's racism. Idris Elba could drive badly and if Trump points it out, it's more evidence that he's a racist.
The left needs racism. They love racism. Without racism, they'd have to focus more on actual positions and issues and the real underlying components of how things are. While the left whines about these women being attacked in a racist manner, two of them are known for their seriously hateful and fact-free anti-semitism. Another rejects any black or brown person that fails to be "a voice" for that which SHE insists are the causes a black or brown person should support. That makes Candace Owens, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and a host of other conservative black people racist against their own race, or self-loathing or some such nonsense, when in fact, the problem is in the fevered imaginings of this Ayanna Pressley idiot.
These women, each in their own way, are reprehensible. That would be true if they were descendants of Scandinavian people but with the same warped and evil positions. And the only point of Trump's tweets are reflected in another really good meme, the jist of which is as follows: "So many insisted they would leave the country if Trump won the election. Now that he's president, the same people are whining because he's letting them know they can leave." This is another sentiment a great deal of the population holds. It's not racist at all. We'd love to see Bernie Sanders leave and take up residence in, say, Venezuela or Cuba.
Criticizing the nation and its government is no sin...no crime. It's a right, actually. But the vile crap that we hear from the left these days is an abuse of the right, just as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is. But while we can defend the right of any lefty bonehead to say stupid crap, we have the right to suggest they get their ticket and go illegally cross over some other nation's border and live their twisted version of utopia. That's not racist at all. The real racists in this case, as always, are the leftists and Trump-haters.
""Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worse, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it's done. These place need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to work out free travel arrangements."
Where's the racism? Please, lefty lunkheads. Point it out specifically. Is the skin color of the any Congresswomen mentioned anywhere in these tweets? Of course not. You know why? Because it isn't freaking racist in any way, shape or form regardless of how badly the Trump haters want it to be.
Trump not only didn't mention race in the tweet, he didn't even mention the Congresswomen he had in mind!! Indeed, there's a great meme I saw on Facebook of a smiling Donald Trump with the words, "I didn't use any names in my tweet and four morons stood up!" Hilarious! It is rather funny that these four idiots assumed he was talking about them. I tend to agree with one pundit who believes he was referring specifically to Ilhan Omar, the anti-semite terrorist defender, but chose to pluralize the target of his comments in order to avoid distracting from his point. But we're talking about lefties here, and distracting from the point is what they do. This damned story is proof of that. No one is talking about the point at all, in fact, but instead choose to lie about the tweet being proof of racism.
And here we see another example of what racism means to the left these days. It's another example of redefining a word or term to further their evil agenda (yeah..."EVIL"). To the Trump haters, this tweet is racist because of the race of the target of the tweet. By that standard, Trump would be racist if he singled out these women for praise. I mean, you can't have it both ways. To the left, if one speaks negatively about ANYTHING regarding a person of a different race, it's racist. WAIT!!! Let me clarify that and be more specific: If a white person, in this case more than any other, Donald Trump, says anything negative in relation to a non-white person, it's racism. Idris Elba could drive badly and if Trump points it out, it's more evidence that he's a racist.
The left needs racism. They love racism. Without racism, they'd have to focus more on actual positions and issues and the real underlying components of how things are. While the left whines about these women being attacked in a racist manner, two of them are known for their seriously hateful and fact-free anti-semitism. Another rejects any black or brown person that fails to be "a voice" for that which SHE insists are the causes a black or brown person should support. That makes Candace Owens, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and a host of other conservative black people racist against their own race, or self-loathing or some such nonsense, when in fact, the problem is in the fevered imaginings of this Ayanna Pressley idiot.
These women, each in their own way, are reprehensible. That would be true if they were descendants of Scandinavian people but with the same warped and evil positions. And the only point of Trump's tweets are reflected in another really good meme, the jist of which is as follows: "So many insisted they would leave the country if Trump won the election. Now that he's president, the same people are whining because he's letting them know they can leave." This is another sentiment a great deal of the population holds. It's not racist at all. We'd love to see Bernie Sanders leave and take up residence in, say, Venezuela or Cuba.
Criticizing the nation and its government is no sin...no crime. It's a right, actually. But the vile crap that we hear from the left these days is an abuse of the right, just as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is. But while we can defend the right of any lefty bonehead to say stupid crap, we have the right to suggest they get their ticket and go illegally cross over some other nation's border and live their twisted version of utopia. That's not racist at all. The real racists in this case, as always, are the leftists and Trump-haters.
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
(Not Necessarily the Top) Ten Reasons Dan Is An Ass.
In what is at present his most recent blog post, Dan Trabue writes of his Top Ten Reasons Not to Be An Ass. Unfortunately...mostly because Dan's perspective on life and Christianity is hopelessly skewed in a most delusional manner...Dan is the ass by his typically nonsensical notions of the issue he believes he is defending. Here I will respond to his top ten points and show how in each case he is indeed the ass, by virtue of his misrepresentations and distortions.
As an aside, be it known that due to a more recent post at Craig's, I feel it may be likely that to respond at his blog post would result in my comments being deleted, so rather than take the chance, I respond here. More and more it seems this is how things must be.
Refer to each point at his blog to understand my responses here:
1. Here he tries to cite Scripture to accuse those who believe in the concept of national sovereignty and security. But nothing in Scripture suggests we should welcome the immigrant on the immigrant's terms. Old Testament mandates were rather clear that all were to abide God's Will in the Promised Land. That is, visitors must obey the laws of Israel...and of God, which at the time is pretty much the same thing. One couldn't, for example, just start planting his own field as he doesn't have a field yet, nor could one continue to build altars to Baal or sacrifice their kids to Molech. And the very concept of "welcoming the immigrant" suggests rather plainly that the people have the choice to do so or not on the basis of it being the citizens' land, not the immigrant's. If this were not so there'd be no welcoming required as the immigrants could just pitch a tent wherever. It isn't land that belongs to anyone. But that wasn't the case then anymore than it is now. Israel was a nation and the land of Israel belonged to God's Chosen. Welcoming is a courtesy and the other side of that coin is gratitude. Gratitude in this case would include abiding the laws of the nation doing the welcoming. Crossing the border covertly, or overstaying a visa, doesn't show gratitude and certainly doesn't show respect for the laws of the land into which the migrant seeks entry.
It is also helpful to remember that the United States accepts about a million new people per year...a number that includes visa holders who take the oath. So we're already "welcoming" and we welcome quite a bit. We also accept a good number of actual refugees every year, even though the amount has been decreased in recent years, for good reason. So only an ass would pretend our actions are in conflict with Christian teaching.
2. We are in no way treating those in detention in the same manner as prisoners of war, even though so many of them are actual and literal invaders by definition. Here also, Dan joins with the elite of stupid, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in referring to detention centers as "concentration camps". This is world-class assholery here of a type we've seen before. I recall a not too recent discussion at his incredibly fascistic blog wherein he railed against the use of the term "enemy of the people", citing the connection to communist dictators who used the term and thus, by golly, one can only be a dictator himself who uses such a term. Now, he has no problems with using the term "concentration camp" which has a connotation that conjures images of 70lb Jews in Auschwitz and Dachau in the minds of most every American who isn't an idiot lefty. And of course again, this is done to disparage as much as possible this president and administration when nary a word was said against the guy who employed them in the last administration. Some of these "concentration camps" were housing military people at one time, and now they're "concentration camps" because our government is using them to house the throngs of people who have been led to believe they can swarm into the country in whatever manner of their choosing. The purposeful, deceit in using terms like this is Dan being an ass in a post about reasons not to be an ass.
3. This one is a new one that likely gave Dan a tingle up his thigh. "OH GREAT!! Another thing I can use to show how evil our government, president and laws are!!!" Who drags their kids for hundreds of miles without bringing these basic supplies? It's another lame argument by the left, another chance to exploit something to disparage our government, president and just and righteous immigration laws. And of course, there's this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/as_pelosis_democrats_yell_about_soap_and_toothbrushes_migrants_empty_out_western_unions.html
4. "Self-determination" doesn't justify ignoring the laws of the land or national sovereignty. This BS argument also ignores the self-determination of the American people, who through their elected representatives, enacted laws regulating immigration into our country. As with other "rights" the left insists exist, here Dan ignores the obvious conflict between what one group sees as their "right" versus the rights another group must subordinate as a result. The right to defend our borders against invaders, to determine just how much generosity we are obliged to provide...these and other considerations are dismissed to put forth this lame "self-determination" argument Dan believes is a mature and legitimate defense of those who ignore our own "self-determination". This is another way Dan shows he's an ass.
5. Only an ass would try to equate the border crisis to the Holocaust or Japanese internment. There is no parallel here, as we have policies that welcome both immigrant AND actual refugees. Dan refuses to put a number on how many we're obliged to allow entry, defaulting to the typical childish response of simply "more". Yet, even with the overwhelming of our systems and the personnel tasked with implementing our policies, we're still eventually getting to find out who is legitimately seeking refuge according to what our just and righteous policies for doing so mandates. For Dan, it's never enough and we must assume the stories told by asylum seekers are truthful and legitimate. Dan claims he's all for vetting, but when vetting is taking place...and those not yet vetted must be detained until they can be...Dan once again lies about the unjust nature of our laws and policies...like an ass.
6. This is one of the worst points, and truly indicates what an ass Dan is. One can "if" until the cows come home and that doesn't have a damned thing to do with what is. The crisis is not as Dan pretends it is. Interviews with caravaners indicate very few are "fleeing danger", but instead simply want a better gig. Fine. Wait in line. Apply for a visa in the manner one is supposed to from home instead of knocking on the door as if law-abiding hopefuls aren't here already doing things the right way. We just saw the sad story of the man and his little girl drowned trying to line jump. As usual, people like Dan try to blame our president, government and laws for this guy's impatience in trying to get what he might not even be entitled to have. But to Dan, wanting is all that our government must consider and by that wanting entry must be allowed. That's idiotic.
So how many lives are truly threatened? Hard to say. Dan won't agree to dissuade the rest from crowding them out from our ability to address their claims. So, if my family was being threatened directly and I sought refuge elsewhere, I'd be freaking pissed that I can't get through the tens of thousands of people who aren't fleeing danger at all, but instead insist they are once caught breaking the law. So I turn the question back on Dan. How would YOU feel if your attempt to seek refuge was inhibited in this way? Don't be an ass. Support our nation in this crisis and you'll be better serving those who truly need our help. Or, continue being the ass and lie about how evil we are.
7. Here Dan simply asserts that we're the asses simply because we choose to abide the law and desire the law be enforced, since the law is for OUR benefit...immigration is for OUR benefit. Dan is also an ass for lumping together "seeking a decent life" with those truly fleeing direct harm, as if all those who are showing up at the border have been harmed at all, have been threatened with harm or were ever in any danger at all except in danger of not making enough money. The vast majority of those at the border are NOT running for their lives. Dan is an ass for pretending otherwise.
8. Dan claims data does not support the claim that illegals are taking jobs from Americans. Yet, he offers none of the data he says contradicts the claim. Just like an ass. What's more, the reality is more along the lines of jobs not being offered because some businesses can get away with paying really low wages to illegals because they won't complain and risk being deported. Americans won't work for those low wages, so those jobs are no loner open to Americans. Without the illegals, the businesses would be forced to pay better to get the help they need, or pay to automate where they can. That's pretty basic stuff.
He also likes to pretend that illegals working here spend their money here. While that may be true, they don't spend all of it here. They send a great deal of it back to their home countries.
https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do
https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do
9. Here, like an ass, Dan relies on skewed and incomplete info to insist "data" proves immigrants commit less crime. And this is after he pretends the "rapists and murderers" argument is worthy of dismissing outright. But assuming...just because I understand graciousness and how and when to apply it...that even illegals, who have broken the law just by being here, commit less crime than Americans once they get here, the very notion that there would be less crime had they not come should be obvious even to a liar like Dan...if he chose to be honest. The "argument" is more about importing criminals when we have quite enough of our own, thank you very much.
Properly vetted immigrants granted access are typically quite law abiding. But we're not talking about such people. We're talking about illegal aliens.
https://truepundit.com/do-immigrants-really-commit-less-crime/
10. Only an ass would bring up the amount of space we have to legitimize the idiotic notion of total welcome of any and all who wish to enter. Space isn't the issue, and not all areas of the country are conducive to easy living without displacing the wildlife these same idiot lefties believe are more important than people. It's amazing how there is no one or nothing that can't displace actual Americans in the disordered minds of the "progressives". The issue is how many can our economy support without burdening it to the point that we become the very situation these people came here to escape...for whatever reason? We are not a bottomless pit of wealth. And there is no way an intelligent person can believe that everyone who comes here will be a productive and beneficial addition. I would submit that the likelihood would be that more than not would be a burden.
Finally, Dan insists we're engaging in "a great national sin". Bullshit. We're dealing with a situation compounded by idiocy from idiots like Dan...non-thinking, self-satisfied posers pretending to be Christian on the dime of another...and then daring to take credit at the same time! And like the complete ass he is, he claims he's workign for basic human decency. One cannot do so by acting unlawfully, which is what those like Dan are doing in enabling the unlawful.
Dan doesn't provide reasons "not to be an ass". He provides instruction in how to be one.
During the course of putting this post together, Dan has gone on to provide more proof that he's an ass. There may be a "Part Two" to this post soon.
As an aside, be it known that due to a more recent post at Craig's, I feel it may be likely that to respond at his blog post would result in my comments being deleted, so rather than take the chance, I respond here. More and more it seems this is how things must be.
Refer to each point at his blog to understand my responses here:
1. Here he tries to cite Scripture to accuse those who believe in the concept of national sovereignty and security. But nothing in Scripture suggests we should welcome the immigrant on the immigrant's terms. Old Testament mandates were rather clear that all were to abide God's Will in the Promised Land. That is, visitors must obey the laws of Israel...and of God, which at the time is pretty much the same thing. One couldn't, for example, just start planting his own field as he doesn't have a field yet, nor could one continue to build altars to Baal or sacrifice their kids to Molech. And the very concept of "welcoming the immigrant" suggests rather plainly that the people have the choice to do so or not on the basis of it being the citizens' land, not the immigrant's. If this were not so there'd be no welcoming required as the immigrants could just pitch a tent wherever. It isn't land that belongs to anyone. But that wasn't the case then anymore than it is now. Israel was a nation and the land of Israel belonged to God's Chosen. Welcoming is a courtesy and the other side of that coin is gratitude. Gratitude in this case would include abiding the laws of the nation doing the welcoming. Crossing the border covertly, or overstaying a visa, doesn't show gratitude and certainly doesn't show respect for the laws of the land into which the migrant seeks entry.
It is also helpful to remember that the United States accepts about a million new people per year...a number that includes visa holders who take the oath. So we're already "welcoming" and we welcome quite a bit. We also accept a good number of actual refugees every year, even though the amount has been decreased in recent years, for good reason. So only an ass would pretend our actions are in conflict with Christian teaching.
2. We are in no way treating those in detention in the same manner as prisoners of war, even though so many of them are actual and literal invaders by definition. Here also, Dan joins with the elite of stupid, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in referring to detention centers as "concentration camps". This is world-class assholery here of a type we've seen before. I recall a not too recent discussion at his incredibly fascistic blog wherein he railed against the use of the term "enemy of the people", citing the connection to communist dictators who used the term and thus, by golly, one can only be a dictator himself who uses such a term. Now, he has no problems with using the term "concentration camp" which has a connotation that conjures images of 70lb Jews in Auschwitz and Dachau in the minds of most every American who isn't an idiot lefty. And of course again, this is done to disparage as much as possible this president and administration when nary a word was said against the guy who employed them in the last administration. Some of these "concentration camps" were housing military people at one time, and now they're "concentration camps" because our government is using them to house the throngs of people who have been led to believe they can swarm into the country in whatever manner of their choosing. The purposeful, deceit in using terms like this is Dan being an ass in a post about reasons not to be an ass.
3. This one is a new one that likely gave Dan a tingle up his thigh. "OH GREAT!! Another thing I can use to show how evil our government, president and laws are!!!" Who drags their kids for hundreds of miles without bringing these basic supplies? It's another lame argument by the left, another chance to exploit something to disparage our government, president and just and righteous immigration laws. And of course, there's this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/as_pelosis_democrats_yell_about_soap_and_toothbrushes_migrants_empty_out_western_unions.html
4. "Self-determination" doesn't justify ignoring the laws of the land or national sovereignty. This BS argument also ignores the self-determination of the American people, who through their elected representatives, enacted laws regulating immigration into our country. As with other "rights" the left insists exist, here Dan ignores the obvious conflict between what one group sees as their "right" versus the rights another group must subordinate as a result. The right to defend our borders against invaders, to determine just how much generosity we are obliged to provide...these and other considerations are dismissed to put forth this lame "self-determination" argument Dan believes is a mature and legitimate defense of those who ignore our own "self-determination". This is another way Dan shows he's an ass.
5. Only an ass would try to equate the border crisis to the Holocaust or Japanese internment. There is no parallel here, as we have policies that welcome both immigrant AND actual refugees. Dan refuses to put a number on how many we're obliged to allow entry, defaulting to the typical childish response of simply "more". Yet, even with the overwhelming of our systems and the personnel tasked with implementing our policies, we're still eventually getting to find out who is legitimately seeking refuge according to what our just and righteous policies for doing so mandates. For Dan, it's never enough and we must assume the stories told by asylum seekers are truthful and legitimate. Dan claims he's all for vetting, but when vetting is taking place...and those not yet vetted must be detained until they can be...Dan once again lies about the unjust nature of our laws and policies...like an ass.
6. This is one of the worst points, and truly indicates what an ass Dan is. One can "if" until the cows come home and that doesn't have a damned thing to do with what is. The crisis is not as Dan pretends it is. Interviews with caravaners indicate very few are "fleeing danger", but instead simply want a better gig. Fine. Wait in line. Apply for a visa in the manner one is supposed to from home instead of knocking on the door as if law-abiding hopefuls aren't here already doing things the right way. We just saw the sad story of the man and his little girl drowned trying to line jump. As usual, people like Dan try to blame our president, government and laws for this guy's impatience in trying to get what he might not even be entitled to have. But to Dan, wanting is all that our government must consider and by that wanting entry must be allowed. That's idiotic.
So how many lives are truly threatened? Hard to say. Dan won't agree to dissuade the rest from crowding them out from our ability to address their claims. So, if my family was being threatened directly and I sought refuge elsewhere, I'd be freaking pissed that I can't get through the tens of thousands of people who aren't fleeing danger at all, but instead insist they are once caught breaking the law. So I turn the question back on Dan. How would YOU feel if your attempt to seek refuge was inhibited in this way? Don't be an ass. Support our nation in this crisis and you'll be better serving those who truly need our help. Or, continue being the ass and lie about how evil we are.
7. Here Dan simply asserts that we're the asses simply because we choose to abide the law and desire the law be enforced, since the law is for OUR benefit...immigration is for OUR benefit. Dan is also an ass for lumping together "seeking a decent life" with those truly fleeing direct harm, as if all those who are showing up at the border have been harmed at all, have been threatened with harm or were ever in any danger at all except in danger of not making enough money. The vast majority of those at the border are NOT running for their lives. Dan is an ass for pretending otherwise.
8. Dan claims data does not support the claim that illegals are taking jobs from Americans. Yet, he offers none of the data he says contradicts the claim. Just like an ass. What's more, the reality is more along the lines of jobs not being offered because some businesses can get away with paying really low wages to illegals because they won't complain and risk being deported. Americans won't work for those low wages, so those jobs are no loner open to Americans. Without the illegals, the businesses would be forced to pay better to get the help they need, or pay to automate where they can. That's pretty basic stuff.
He also likes to pretend that illegals working here spend their money here. While that may be true, they don't spend all of it here. They send a great deal of it back to their home countries.
https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do
https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do
9. Here, like an ass, Dan relies on skewed and incomplete info to insist "data" proves immigrants commit less crime. And this is after he pretends the "rapists and murderers" argument is worthy of dismissing outright. But assuming...just because I understand graciousness and how and when to apply it...that even illegals, who have broken the law just by being here, commit less crime than Americans once they get here, the very notion that there would be less crime had they not come should be obvious even to a liar like Dan...if he chose to be honest. The "argument" is more about importing criminals when we have quite enough of our own, thank you very much.
Properly vetted immigrants granted access are typically quite law abiding. But we're not talking about such people. We're talking about illegal aliens.
https://truepundit.com/do-immigrants-really-commit-less-crime/
10. Only an ass would bring up the amount of space we have to legitimize the idiotic notion of total welcome of any and all who wish to enter. Space isn't the issue, and not all areas of the country are conducive to easy living without displacing the wildlife these same idiot lefties believe are more important than people. It's amazing how there is no one or nothing that can't displace actual Americans in the disordered minds of the "progressives". The issue is how many can our economy support without burdening it to the point that we become the very situation these people came here to escape...for whatever reason? We are not a bottomless pit of wealth. And there is no way an intelligent person can believe that everyone who comes here will be a productive and beneficial addition. I would submit that the likelihood would be that more than not would be a burden.
Finally, Dan insists we're engaging in "a great national sin". Bullshit. We're dealing with a situation compounded by idiocy from idiots like Dan...non-thinking, self-satisfied posers pretending to be Christian on the dime of another...and then daring to take credit at the same time! And like the complete ass he is, he claims he's workign for basic human decency. One cannot do so by acting unlawfully, which is what those like Dan are doing in enabling the unlawful.
Dan doesn't provide reasons "not to be an ass". He provides instruction in how to be one.
During the course of putting this post together, Dan has gone on to provide more proof that he's an ass. There may be a "Part Two" to this post soon.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Loose End Continued
As a result of my last post, Dan has decided to respond with a post of his own, because he's too chicken-shit to engage here, and has some petulant pants-wetting issues that compels him to delete me there, even when I've successfully answered demands he's made of me. Indeed, it's why he deletes me. But I digress.
In his recent post, he takes issue with my position that abortion is never necessary. Thus far, I've only ever been able to find a contrary position by those who perform abortions. In another post, an article was present from some medical experts who were speaking on behalf of many others as well, who insist that there is no medical reason to abort in order to save a woman from a complicated pregnancy. So there's a clear conflict between a number of those who deal with pregnancies on both sides of the issue, but one side is decidedly pro-abortion and my guess is that they aren't above rationalizing their choice any more or less than the women who choose that route. I mean how can so many who have had long careers delivering babies so firmly insist no situation exists whereby abortions must be performed when some form of delivery can be performed instead? Would the pro-aborts try to insist they simply haven't had truly life-threatening situations? That would be an absurd thing to put forth. More likely, it is as I said, that the pro-aborts rationalize their decision rather than the situation truly dictating it. They already are predisposed to believe that it's a "moral" choice, whereas all the others are speaking from experiences dictated by their conviction that it isn't.
Anyway, what follows are responses to Dan's questions put forth as if they are truly exposing flaws in my position. Before I do, however, I will say this: Most pro-life proponents have expressed a willingness to compromise in order to save the most lives as possible, by allowing for those rare and minuscule instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The rejection of this compromise by the pro-aborts proves they aren't concerned with the health of the mother at all, and simply use these excuses so as to protect ANY reason for abortion from legal consequences. So here we go:
"These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots."
Is this supposed to be an insult? If so, it's inaccurate in fact. Truer is "pro-life zealot". That's a good thing and one would think this would be a default position for anyone daring to call one's self a Christian. But as I'm not convinced that there truly is a legitimate reason to ever abort, why would I not deny anyone the legal ability to off their own kid? Then again, as I consider abortion murder...yeah, that might be accurate after all.
Before anyone blows a gasket over a possible contradiction, I do not believe that allowing an exception for "life of the mother" denotes a belief that there are truly such cases where a mother's life is so endangered by her pregnancy that the unborn must be killed. The compromise is simply to save as many lives as possible. To have the pro-aborts muster the humanity to actually agree with such a compromise is not the ultimate ideal, but merely a stopgap until it can be shown there is no such need. The law wouldn't even have to be changed. We can work on those three myths later on.
"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"
Sadly, this is true. In fact, it happens quite a bit in any of those shithole countries with unfortunate regularity. Often, it is simply not seen as wrong. It's a cultural thing.
"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"
Uh...yeah. I do.
"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"
I recognize that this is true for some, but not necessarily true for all. I'd prefer to simply say it's not ideal for any of them. The list in the link I provided in my previous answer clearly states some were "delivered", while others were by C-section. But you pro-aborts pretend the risks posed by abortion to such patients is negligible. They're not. They're about the same.
"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"
I recognize you're purposely overstating this possibility in order to shield the heinous act from objective scrutiny. Guatemala is among those countries where young girls are commonly abused as a matter of cultural acceptance (even if illegal). That is to say that there is a high percentage of girls younger than 14 giving birth, including as young as ten, with unfortunate regularity. To suggest that they all have experienced great trauma simply from being pregnant is just pro-abort hyperbole. More than likely, any trauma is only related to the actual rape if it was particularly violent...not the pregnancy that results from it. My reference to Guatemala stemmed from researching all this. I thought I saved the article that informed me, as it quite clearly showed that these girls commonly go on as if it was no big deal, for a variety of reasons including the fact that they didn't even regard their situation (being preggers) as particularly alarming, and went on to regard their offspring as if a sibling, many having children later on in life.
"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"
As a general rule, yeah. I'm willing, as are most pro-lifers and most pro-life governments, to hear arguments on a case-by-case basis. There is the unexpected.
"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"
Oh, I'm the worst kind of monster. I'm the kind that doesn't think killing the innocent is necessary and that protecting them does not put an unjust burden on anyone, even if it puts some degree of burden on some. I'm the kind of monster that won't consider the most vulnerable expendable simply because it costs those less vulnerable some hardship. Most importantly, I'm the kind of monster that doesn't deprive one of one's humanity due to one's size, age or location as if I'm some kind of nazi or klansman. I'm the kind of monster who wishes he could be as monstrous as my Lord Jesus Christ...the ultimate Pro-Life Zealot.
"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"
If you could prove that they are more likely to die without an abortion as from one, this question wouldn't be so stupid and presumptuous. It's clear you worship at the altar of abortion, offering up thousands of dead innocents daily. So much so that I can't honestly recall you ever offering to give up that 99% of most abortions in order to save these children. No. You're simply exploiting them like all pro-aborts do. You don't care about these children or any other woman considering death for their unborn.
"Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed."
Absolutely indeed, Dan. Thousands of children per day. You're worse than a Molech-worshiper. You're just wacking kids left and right without the pretext of pagan devotion in defending these pro-abortion laws. Thousands of innocents per day!
"Girls may labor for days; many die."
This is true for women, even in this country, to say nothing of the country your source highlighted.
"Their babies often don't survive labor either."
This is one of the most egregious ploys. feo used a similar angle, which proves it's bad. Sometimes, babies die from difficult pregnancies where abortion wasn't even considered. Sometimes, people die on the operating table. Honorable doctors and surgeons...and obstetricians...lose patients they worked desperately to save. That's no excuse to murder any of them. Imagine someone saying, "He didn't survive the by-pass surgery. Should've just killed him in the first place!" That's what that quote is saying. Because the baby didn't survive, they should have killed it in the first place. Talk about monstrous!! That's pure evil!!
"Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers"
So you'd no doubt like to believe. But you're speaking of three groups of people. The first is the heinous pro-aborts who would grant that ANY example of ANY KIND is sufficient to allow abortion, so this example is just another on an endless list. The second is pro-lifers who either believe that there are actually legitimate reasons to abort that must be considered and permitted. The third is pro-lifers that begrudgingly agree to allow this -1% of examples in order to prevent the murder of the other 99%. The third isn't willing that any should die (where have I heard that before?).
"It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus."
I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there isn't a fundamental difference. However, real Christians argue the difference is only a matter of age, size, and location, not that one is "more human" than the other because of those differences. Only pro-aborts looking for whatever cheap rationalization they can put over on people pretend that is so. Speaking of which:
"Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote."
Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged, geezer. All are people, fully human but at differing stages of human development, as every biology textbook states. Thus, the human zygote is literally a person, fully human, at the zygote stage of human development.
"And that is a significant, significant difference."
No. It's not. It's a cheap rationalization invented to protect the ability to gratify one's self sexually without consequence.
"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?"
The only right of any concern in this discussion is the right to life. Physical differences have no bearing on that right and do not diminish that right for anyone. So the question is stupid, as aside from the question of that unalienable right, all other differences between people of each of those stages of life are irrelevant to the discussion.
"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"
No. A baby can drink hard liquor, but as far as the unalienable right to life, absolutely identical.
"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"
Pure evil would be a more accurate term. This is especially true in this extreme case you want to use to push your evil agenda. Not only are you murdering an innocent for the sins of its father, something you pretend you oppose, you're teaching the girl that such a thing is acceptable. You're teaching her that if someone makes her life more difficult, killing that person is a legitimate option. Or, you're teaching her that she can deny another person's humanity on whatever subjective criteria benefits her to do so. The next thing you know she'll be hating transsexuals.
"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold?"
Do you recognize that you could have made the question much more rhetorically inflammatory if you just exerted a little effort?
Do you recognize that you're presuming her pregnancy is deadly in such a way that abortion is the only possible option when that's most likely untrue? (I'm being generous. I don't believe it's true at all.)
Do you recognize that if all the world favored murdering the unborn for this or any other reason it wouldn't mean jack shit to a true Christian, as numbers don't determine morality?
You getting the point here?
"Can you understand why?"
I think I've already proven that I would understand why. It has nothing to do with compassion for the 10 year old girl, and everything to do with preserving the ability to abort when convenient to do so.
"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"
I recognize that if you truly want to run that crap then you'd be a liar to pretend the reverse wasn't as true. But here's the thing: I don't have to prove it. The onus is on you to prove that there is a scientifically viable excuse to draw your arbitrary line for determining when one becomes a person with the unalienable right to life that is any time after conception. But you can't. I know that it is a full person with that right simply because it is a person, regardless of whatever stage of development to which you choose to point. It's true because it came into existence by the very means by which a person is brought into existence. It can't be anything BUT a person.
The fact is that people like you are inventing reasons to deny that humanity. You damned well know there is no such line of demarcation without you inventing one. But it all comes down to the same reality: that line, wherever you decide to draw it, is to satisfy your convenience...not because it actually makes sense. What's more, your arguments, especially this one, are specious. Use your own bullshit idea and just tell males not to rape. That should do it, right?
In his recent post, he takes issue with my position that abortion is never necessary. Thus far, I've only ever been able to find a contrary position by those who perform abortions. In another post, an article was present from some medical experts who were speaking on behalf of many others as well, who insist that there is no medical reason to abort in order to save a woman from a complicated pregnancy. So there's a clear conflict between a number of those who deal with pregnancies on both sides of the issue, but one side is decidedly pro-abortion and my guess is that they aren't above rationalizing their choice any more or less than the women who choose that route. I mean how can so many who have had long careers delivering babies so firmly insist no situation exists whereby abortions must be performed when some form of delivery can be performed instead? Would the pro-aborts try to insist they simply haven't had truly life-threatening situations? That would be an absurd thing to put forth. More likely, it is as I said, that the pro-aborts rationalize their decision rather than the situation truly dictating it. They already are predisposed to believe that it's a "moral" choice, whereas all the others are speaking from experiences dictated by their conviction that it isn't.
Anyway, what follows are responses to Dan's questions put forth as if they are truly exposing flaws in my position. Before I do, however, I will say this: Most pro-life proponents have expressed a willingness to compromise in order to save the most lives as possible, by allowing for those rare and minuscule instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The rejection of this compromise by the pro-aborts proves they aren't concerned with the health of the mother at all, and simply use these excuses so as to protect ANY reason for abortion from legal consequences. So here we go:
"These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots."
Is this supposed to be an insult? If so, it's inaccurate in fact. Truer is "pro-life zealot". That's a good thing and one would think this would be a default position for anyone daring to call one's self a Christian. But as I'm not convinced that there truly is a legitimate reason to ever abort, why would I not deny anyone the legal ability to off their own kid? Then again, as I consider abortion murder...yeah, that might be accurate after all.
Before anyone blows a gasket over a possible contradiction, I do not believe that allowing an exception for "life of the mother" denotes a belief that there are truly such cases where a mother's life is so endangered by her pregnancy that the unborn must be killed. The compromise is simply to save as many lives as possible. To have the pro-aborts muster the humanity to actually agree with such a compromise is not the ultimate ideal, but merely a stopgap until it can be shown there is no such need. The law wouldn't even have to be changed. We can work on those three myths later on.
"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"
Sadly, this is true. In fact, it happens quite a bit in any of those shithole countries with unfortunate regularity. Often, it is simply not seen as wrong. It's a cultural thing.
"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"
Uh...yeah. I do.
"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"
I recognize that this is true for some, but not necessarily true for all. I'd prefer to simply say it's not ideal for any of them. The list in the link I provided in my previous answer clearly states some were "delivered", while others were by C-section. But you pro-aborts pretend the risks posed by abortion to such patients is negligible. They're not. They're about the same.
"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"
I recognize you're purposely overstating this possibility in order to shield the heinous act from objective scrutiny. Guatemala is among those countries where young girls are commonly abused as a matter of cultural acceptance (even if illegal). That is to say that there is a high percentage of girls younger than 14 giving birth, including as young as ten, with unfortunate regularity. To suggest that they all have experienced great trauma simply from being pregnant is just pro-abort hyperbole. More than likely, any trauma is only related to the actual rape if it was particularly violent...not the pregnancy that results from it. My reference to Guatemala stemmed from researching all this. I thought I saved the article that informed me, as it quite clearly showed that these girls commonly go on as if it was no big deal, for a variety of reasons including the fact that they didn't even regard their situation (being preggers) as particularly alarming, and went on to regard their offspring as if a sibling, many having children later on in life.
"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"
As a general rule, yeah. I'm willing, as are most pro-lifers and most pro-life governments, to hear arguments on a case-by-case basis. There is the unexpected.
"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"
Oh, I'm the worst kind of monster. I'm the kind that doesn't think killing the innocent is necessary and that protecting them does not put an unjust burden on anyone, even if it puts some degree of burden on some. I'm the kind of monster that won't consider the most vulnerable expendable simply because it costs those less vulnerable some hardship. Most importantly, I'm the kind of monster that doesn't deprive one of one's humanity due to one's size, age or location as if I'm some kind of nazi or klansman. I'm the kind of monster who wishes he could be as monstrous as my Lord Jesus Christ...the ultimate Pro-Life Zealot.
"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"
If you could prove that they are more likely to die without an abortion as from one, this question wouldn't be so stupid and presumptuous. It's clear you worship at the altar of abortion, offering up thousands of dead innocents daily. So much so that I can't honestly recall you ever offering to give up that 99% of most abortions in order to save these children. No. You're simply exploiting them like all pro-aborts do. You don't care about these children or any other woman considering death for their unborn.
"Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed."
Absolutely indeed, Dan. Thousands of children per day. You're worse than a Molech-worshiper. You're just wacking kids left and right without the pretext of pagan devotion in defending these pro-abortion laws. Thousands of innocents per day!
"Girls may labor for days; many die."
This is true for women, even in this country, to say nothing of the country your source highlighted.
"Their babies often don't survive labor either."
This is one of the most egregious ploys. feo used a similar angle, which proves it's bad. Sometimes, babies die from difficult pregnancies where abortion wasn't even considered. Sometimes, people die on the operating table. Honorable doctors and surgeons...and obstetricians...lose patients they worked desperately to save. That's no excuse to murder any of them. Imagine someone saying, "He didn't survive the by-pass surgery. Should've just killed him in the first place!" That's what that quote is saying. Because the baby didn't survive, they should have killed it in the first place. Talk about monstrous!! That's pure evil!!
"Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers"
So you'd no doubt like to believe. But you're speaking of three groups of people. The first is the heinous pro-aborts who would grant that ANY example of ANY KIND is sufficient to allow abortion, so this example is just another on an endless list. The second is pro-lifers who either believe that there are actually legitimate reasons to abort that must be considered and permitted. The third is pro-lifers that begrudgingly agree to allow this -1% of examples in order to prevent the murder of the other 99%. The third isn't willing that any should die (where have I heard that before?).
"It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus."
I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there isn't a fundamental difference. However, real Christians argue the difference is only a matter of age, size, and location, not that one is "more human" than the other because of those differences. Only pro-aborts looking for whatever cheap rationalization they can put over on people pretend that is so. Speaking of which:
"Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote."
Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged, geezer. All are people, fully human but at differing stages of human development, as every biology textbook states. Thus, the human zygote is literally a person, fully human, at the zygote stage of human development.
"And that is a significant, significant difference."
No. It's not. It's a cheap rationalization invented to protect the ability to gratify one's self sexually without consequence.
"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?"
The only right of any concern in this discussion is the right to life. Physical differences have no bearing on that right and do not diminish that right for anyone. So the question is stupid, as aside from the question of that unalienable right, all other differences between people of each of those stages of life are irrelevant to the discussion.
"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"
No. A baby can drink hard liquor, but as far as the unalienable right to life, absolutely identical.
"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"
Pure evil would be a more accurate term. This is especially true in this extreme case you want to use to push your evil agenda. Not only are you murdering an innocent for the sins of its father, something you pretend you oppose, you're teaching the girl that such a thing is acceptable. You're teaching her that if someone makes her life more difficult, killing that person is a legitimate option. Or, you're teaching her that she can deny another person's humanity on whatever subjective criteria benefits her to do so. The next thing you know she'll be hating transsexuals.
"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold?"
Do you recognize that you could have made the question much more rhetorically inflammatory if you just exerted a little effort?
Do you recognize that you're presuming her pregnancy is deadly in such a way that abortion is the only possible option when that's most likely untrue? (I'm being generous. I don't believe it's true at all.)
Do you recognize that if all the world favored murdering the unborn for this or any other reason it wouldn't mean jack shit to a true Christian, as numbers don't determine morality?
You getting the point here?
"Can you understand why?"
I think I've already proven that I would understand why. It has nothing to do with compassion for the 10 year old girl, and everything to do with preserving the ability to abort when convenient to do so.
"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"
I recognize that if you truly want to run that crap then you'd be a liar to pretend the reverse wasn't as true. But here's the thing: I don't have to prove it. The onus is on you to prove that there is a scientifically viable excuse to draw your arbitrary line for determining when one becomes a person with the unalienable right to life that is any time after conception. But you can't. I know that it is a full person with that right simply because it is a person, regardless of whatever stage of development to which you choose to point. It's true because it came into existence by the very means by which a person is brought into existence. It can't be anything BUT a person.
The fact is that people like you are inventing reasons to deny that humanity. You damned well know there is no such line of demarcation without you inventing one. But it all comes down to the same reality: that line, wherever you decide to draw it, is to satisfy your convenience...not because it actually makes sense. What's more, your arguments, especially this one, are specious. Use your own bullshit idea and just tell males not to rape. That should do it, right?
Friday, May 10, 2019
A Loose End
While I await Dan's response...or deletion...to my response at his blog following my last post, I now wish to demonstrate how his rectal itch, feo, lies once again. In this case, he had insisted I hadn't provided my definition for what makes one human or a person or whatever term he chooses to use to further pretend he's "winning". The fact is, he continued to make this false claim well after he had received my definition. It is as follows:
It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.
This comment was posted on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM in the comments of this post. By
It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.
This comment was posted on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM in the comments of this post. By
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)