As someone who was adopted as an infant, the issue of abortion hits close to home. Given that, I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned would have aborted me without a second thought.
What an idiot. Of course, you almost certainly don't even really think this, given how utterly stupid it is. You just trolling. Shame on me for biting.
So Dan makes demands of me that once again require immense effort of the sort with which he would never comply were the demands made of him...he has run away from FAR LESS demanding rquests as a matter of standard operating procedure...demands that, for very much the most part have already been staisfied so that he now has characteristically raised the bar...and he can't muster the grace to assure me that he won't simply delete my response under the petulant pretense that it fell short. What an incredible coward.
And this is all because he's so intent on wallowing in hatred for Donald Trump, like the good little fake Christian he is.
I'll do this for my sake, should anyone be reading your ridiculous words and claims.
That you would have encouraged my mother to abort? Of course you would have...
As a matter of fact, I've never in my life encouraged anyone to have an abortion. Not one time. What makes you think I would start just for your mother? How is that not just insane?
I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned would have aborted me without a second thought.
I have been pretty clear that I think, personally, that I'm not sure where the line exists where a life begins. Thus, I'd not be inclined to ever have an abortion if it were up to me. So, that's another level of stupid falsity in your claim.
Yet another is the suggest that even those who support keeping the medical procedure of abortion legal would choose to have an abortion "without a second thought." As a point of reality, the people I've read or heard about having an abortion only did so after much soul searching and reflection. Not frivolously or "without a second thought."
I'm sure it has happened. I doubt very seriously that it happens often and you almost certainly don't have any data that suggests it happens frivolously frequently.
To ask the obvious question: How is believing that women should have the right to make the medical decision on pregnancy and abortion equate to needing to abort a fetus to be consistent? It's like you think we're suggesting that abortions are good things and that everyone should try to have a few in their life time.
It's empty-headed vomitus like that which paints so-called "pro-life" advocates as not being especially interested in life or even human decency.
Of course your right. How dare I express gratitude that my mother didn’t listen to folx like you. How dare I be grateful for life. How much more decent would it be if I’d been aborted.
I do admire your single minded devotion to your interpretation of things, your absolute inability to accept that you’ve missed something and that you might be wrong.
It’s clear that you don’t pay attention to what the folx on your side are actually saying and I kind of admire your ability to remain ignorant of what your allies espouse.
But, just maybe you’ve missed the point in your obsession with self righteousness.
I'll play along. What is it? Do you and Trump like to SAY THINGS that represent you saying one thing, but you REALLY mean something else... even though there's nothing in your words that suggests you're speaking ironically or metaphorically or whatever the hell it is you think you're doing?
Like, all the things that Trump says that are racist and sexist and idiotic sounding on the face of it, are they somehow cleverly disguising THE OPPOSITE meaning? How does that work and how does one know that you two are not just actually being idiots?
For the record, it's NOT "my interpretation" of things. it's what YOU SAID literally. What you said literally was " I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned (including me and Feo and 'the Democrats' as a whole) would have aborted me without a second thought." There is ZERO interpretation involved when I assume that when you say that I would have aborted you without a second thought, that what you cleverly meant was that I would have aborted you without a second thought.
You can't say something straightforwardly and clearly as that and then be surprised that people took your words to be a literal representation of what you meant.
You're so full of shit. (by that, I mean, literally, so full of excrement that you have no room in your brains for rational thought...)
1. The point of the post is that picking stories to “humanize” a debate on a contentious issue, isn’t always helpful. Especially when those stories are cherry picked to try to make rare situations seem less rare.
2. I have zero doubt that if a pregnant woman asked you if she should get an abortion that your response would be reflexively biased towards aborting. I look at what pro abortion folx say, I look at the legislation they propose, and I see folx like you supporting both the legislators and the legislation. So yes, if y’all are consistent in insisting that abortion is simply a “medical procedure”, that the unborn child isn’t “fully human” or that it’s a “clump of cells”, it simply follows that y’all would advocate for something so benign without a second thought.
One of the problems you have is that you are intolerant of opinions that disagree with you, and the only response you have is ad hom attacks.
Yes, I’m glad folx like you weren’t around my mother when she was pregnant. If that’s a problem for you, too bad.
If your last sentence (and the parenthetical fragment) are an example of what you perceive to be rational thought, then you clearly have bigger issues than I can help you with.
“An elderly man at a peaceful pro-life prayer vigil outside a San Francisco-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic was physically assaulted by an abortion advocate this month on two separate occasions, one of which was captured in disturbing video footage.“
“Footage of two attacks — both this attack on the elderly man, and one attack on another pro-lifer that occurred just two days prior — was likely captured by surveillance cameras outside the Planned Parenthood facility. But the abortion giant reportedly will not cooperate in this regard with authorities, noted Life News.”
Think about this for a moment, especially the fact that these are your allies. It’s bad enough that this guy is attacking peaceful protesters (Maybe he was scared to attack anyone younger than 85, who knows). But it’s worse that PP (500 million of our tax dollars) actively tried to protect this guy.
When considering the several stories presented by feo at Dan's blog (as usual, without citation) I've no doubt Dan would have left the decision to the mothers. It IS what he claims is his position. But would he say, "If it were up to me, I'd vote 'no'."? Despite his lame loophole of not knowing when life begins, at what point in the pregnancy is he certain enough of the child's humanity to discourage the mother's desire to abort? As an alleged Christian, when does Dan act to save the life of another human being? For if there is some line in Dan's corrupt mind, how could Dan stand back and allow the killing of a person whose development has advanced beyond that line without hiding behind the "it's between a woman and her doctor" copout?
It’s interesting because they attempt to minimize the decision, to make it seem as if it’s just one more “medical procedure”, yet they act differently. Remember “safe, legal, and rare”? If it’s not a big deal, then why rare? There is always talk about how difficult the decision is. But if it’s just a “clump of cells”, a “parasite” or “not a human” or “not a person”, why is it a difficult decision?
What does it say about a society that insists that children under 17 shouldn’t be able to see a movie about abortion without parental consent, but emcourages those same aged children to have abortions without their parents knowledge?
I question the source of those stories in the first place, particularly given who posted them. Did he take them directly from the Planned Parenthood website? If so, they are even less credible than the fact that feo posted them. What's more, what would other OB/GYN professionals say about those stories? Would they agree that no other choice was available? Would they agree there was justification?
One thing that immediately came to mind upon seeing those stories (I didn't waste time doing more than the slightest skim, the point and purpose of them being more obvious than the clear humanity of the unborn): Is there anywhere in Scripture (because we're dealing with two guys who claim to be Christian while they support the "right" to murder one's own child) that so much as hints that physical suffering is justification for taking a human life? What was Christ's response to those who asked about why one was afflicted? "Did he sin or did his father?" I would suspect His response applies to those tales of "anguish" and "soul searching".
The strategy is to set up a situation that is incredibly rare in real life then try extrapolate the response out to a broader set of circumstances.
The reality is, that there could be an interesting conversation there, but interesting conversation isn’t the point. The point is to win rhetorical points and use imperfect responses as weapons.
It’s like the crap we did in school around situational ethics, it’s about trying to normalize what might otherwise be considered aberrant.
You could set up the situation differently. Mom and 1 week old infant are caught in a fire, mom is unconscious and the fireman can only save one, which one do you save. But as long as the point is to accumulate ammunition instead of conversation, what’s the point.
It’s like Feo’s idiotic refusal to post his detailed, defined plan. It’s not that he’s incapable of formulating (or simply plagiarizing) a plan. It’s not that he’s incapable of posting it. It’s that he values his self appointed victimhood more than he values the conversation. He values being able to lie about why his comments don’t get published and build up his self esteem as a mistreated victim, above civil conversation.
Dans absurd demands and Feo’s victimhood are just ways to try to “win” in their battle against evil.
Indeed, and feo is pushing that victimhood narrative by suggesting his obligation to present his arguments in a complete package, rather than in parts spread around the comments section of three different blogs is somehow an actual burden. At the same time, his boss Dan chided me for encouraging he can find answers at my blog to questions I already answered, but he deleted. It's the kind of irony Dan loves.
Dan’s not self aware enough to realize that virtually everything he does at his blod is irony.
Poor pathetic little Feo, the horrible burden of having to produce what he claimed he had in one piece. He’s like She Guevara and friends whining about how “poor” they were growing up.
First world problems.
Feo’s problem is that he has to manufacture victim hood because he wasn’t born black and refuses to renounce his heterosexuality, so he’s left out.
19 comments:
Please elaborate.
As someone who was adopted as an infant, the issue of abortion hits close to home. Given that, I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned would have aborted me without a second thought.
What an idiot. Of course, you almost certainly don't even really think this, given how utterly stupid it is. You just trolling. Shame on me for biting.
Don't think what? That you would have encouraged my mother to abort? Of course you would have, as would the majority of the DFL officeholders.
Or, is it possible that I'm making a different point?
It is interesting to see that anytime something hits too close to home, you think it's trolling.
So Dan makes demands of me that once again require immense effort of the sort with which he would never comply were the demands made of him...he has run away from FAR LESS demanding rquests as a matter of standard operating procedure...demands that, for very much the most part have already been staisfied so that he now has characteristically raised the bar...and he can't muster the grace to assure me that he won't simply delete my response under the petulant pretense that it fell short. What an incredible coward.
And this is all because he's so intent on wallowing in hatred for Donald Trump, like the good little fake Christian he is.
I'll do this for my sake, should anyone be reading your ridiculous words and claims.
That you would have encouraged my mother to abort? Of course you would have...
As a matter of fact, I've never in my life encouraged anyone to have an abortion. Not one time. What makes you think I would start just for your mother? How is that not just insane?
I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned would have aborted me without a second thought.
I have been pretty clear that I think, personally, that I'm not sure where the line exists where a life begins. Thus, I'd not be inclined to ever have an abortion if it were up to me. So, that's another level of stupid falsity in your claim.
Yet another is the suggest that even those who support keeping the medical procedure of abortion legal would choose to have an abortion "without a second thought." As a point of reality, the people I've read or heard about having an abortion only did so after much soul searching and reflection. Not frivolously or "without a second thought."
I'm sure it has happened. I doubt very seriously that it happens often and you almost certainly don't have any data that suggests it happens frivolously frequently.
To ask the obvious question: How is believing that women should have the right to make the medical decision on pregnancy and abortion equate to needing to abort a fetus to be consistent? It's like you think we're suggesting that abortions are good things and that everyone should try to have a few in their life time.
It's empty-headed vomitus like that which paints so-called "pro-life" advocates as not being especially interested in life or even human decency.
Of course your right. How dare I express gratitude that my mother didn’t listen to folx like you. How dare I be grateful for life. How much more decent would it be if I’d been aborted.
I do admire your single minded devotion to your interpretation of things, your absolute inability to accept that you’ve missed something and that you might be wrong.
It’s clear that you don’t pay attention to what the folx on your side are actually saying and I kind of admire your ability to remain ignorant of what your allies espouse.
But, just maybe you’ve missed the point in your obsession with self righteousness.
I'll play along. What is it? Do you and Trump like to SAY THINGS that represent you saying one thing, but you REALLY mean something else... even though there's nothing in your words that suggests you're speaking ironically or metaphorically or whatever the hell it is you think you're doing?
Like, all the things that Trump says that are racist and sexist and idiotic sounding on the face of it, are they somehow cleverly disguising THE OPPOSITE meaning? How does that work and how does one know that you two are not just actually being idiots?
For the record, it's NOT "my interpretation" of things. it's what YOU SAID literally. What you said literally was " I can only think that if they are consistent, any of the flox I mentioned (including me and Feo and 'the Democrats' as a whole) would have aborted me without a second thought." There is ZERO interpretation involved when I assume that when you say that I would have aborted you without a second thought, that what you cleverly meant was that I would have aborted you without a second thought.
You can't say something straightforwardly and clearly as that and then be surprised that people took your words to be a literal representation of what you meant.
You're so full of shit. (by that, I mean, literally, so full of excrement that you have no room in your brains for rational thought...)
1. The point of the post is that picking stories to “humanize” a debate on a contentious issue, isn’t always helpful. Especially when those stories are cherry picked to try to make rare situations seem less rare.
2. I have zero doubt that if a pregnant woman asked you if she should get an abortion that your response would be reflexively biased towards aborting. I look at what pro abortion folx say, I look at the legislation they propose, and I see folx like you supporting both the legislators and the legislation. So yes, if y’all are consistent in insisting that abortion is simply a “medical procedure”, that the unborn child isn’t “fully human” or that it’s a “clump of cells”, it simply follows that y’all would advocate for something so benign without a second thought.
One of the problems you have is that you are intolerant of opinions that disagree with you, and the only response you have is ad hom attacks.
Yes, I’m glad folx like you weren’t around my mother when she was pregnant. If that’s a problem for you, too bad.
If your last sentence (and the parenthetical fragment) are an example of what you perceive to be rational thought, then you clearly have bigger issues than I can help you with.
“An elderly man at a peaceful pro-life prayer vigil outside a San Francisco-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic was physically assaulted by an abortion advocate this month on two separate occasions, one of which was captured in disturbing video footage.“
“Footage of two attacks — both this attack on the elderly man, and one attack on another pro-lifer that occurred just two days prior — was likely captured by surveillance cameras outside the Planned Parenthood facility. But the abortion giant reportedly will not cooperate in this regard with authorities, noted Life News.”
Think about this for a moment, especially the fact that these are your allies. It’s bad enough that this guy is attacking peaceful protesters (Maybe he was scared to attack anyone younger than 85, who knows). But it’s worse that PP (500 million of our tax dollars) actively tried to protect this guy.
Yeah, I’m the one with problems.
When considering the several stories presented by feo at Dan's blog (as usual, without citation) I've no doubt Dan would have left the decision to the mothers. It IS what he claims is his position. But would he say, "If it were up to me, I'd vote 'no'."? Despite his lame loophole of not knowing when life begins, at what point in the pregnancy is he certain enough of the child's humanity to discourage the mother's desire to abort? As an alleged Christian, when does Dan act to save the life of another human being? For if there is some line in Dan's corrupt mind, how could Dan stand back and allow the killing of a person whose development has advanced beyond that line without hiding behind the "it's between a woman and her doctor" copout?
It’s interesting because they attempt to minimize the decision, to make it seem as if it’s just one more “medical procedure”, yet they act differently. Remember “safe, legal, and rare”? If it’s not a big deal, then why rare? There is always talk about how difficult the decision is. But if it’s just a “clump of cells”, a “parasite” or “not a human” or “not a person”, why is it a difficult decision?
What does it say about a society that insists that children under 17 shouldn’t be able to see a movie about abortion without parental consent, but emcourages those same aged children to have abortions without their parents knowledge?
It seems ironic that there is a need to use stories to “personalize” the depersonalization of unborn children.
I question the source of those stories in the first place, particularly given who posted them. Did he take them directly from the Planned Parenthood website? If so, they are even less credible than the fact that feo posted them. What's more, what would other OB/GYN professionals say about those stories? Would they agree that no other choice was available? Would they agree there was justification?
One thing that immediately came to mind upon seeing those stories (I didn't waste time doing more than the slightest skim, the point and purpose of them being more obvious than the clear humanity of the unborn): Is there anywhere in Scripture (because we're dealing with two guys who claim to be Christian while they support the "right" to murder one's own child) that so much as hints that physical suffering is justification for taking a human life? What was Christ's response to those who asked about why one was afflicted? "Did he sin or did his father?" I would suspect His response applies to those tales of "anguish" and "soul searching".
The strategy is to set up a situation that is incredibly rare in real life then try extrapolate the response out to a broader set of circumstances.
The reality is, that there could be an interesting conversation there, but interesting conversation isn’t the point. The point is to win rhetorical points and use imperfect responses as weapons.
It’s like the crap we did in school around situational ethics, it’s about trying to normalize what might otherwise be considered aberrant.
You could set up the situation differently. Mom and 1 week old infant are caught in a fire, mom is unconscious and the fireman can only save one, which one do you save. But as long as the point is to accumulate ammunition instead of conversation, what’s the point.
It’s like Feo’s idiotic refusal to post his detailed, defined plan. It’s not that he’s incapable of formulating (or simply plagiarizing) a plan. It’s not that he’s incapable of posting it. It’s that he values his self appointed victimhood more than he values the conversation. He values being able to lie about why his comments don’t get published and build up his self esteem as a mistreated victim, above civil conversation.
Dans absurd demands and Feo’s victimhood are just ways to try to “win” in their battle against evil.
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Indeed, and feo is pushing that victimhood narrative by suggesting his obligation to present his arguments in a complete package, rather than in parts spread around the comments section of three different blogs is somehow an actual burden. At the same time, his boss Dan chided me for encouraging he can find answers at my blog to questions I already answered, but he deleted. It's the kind of irony Dan loves.
Dan’s not self aware enough to realize that virtually everything he does at his blod is irony.
Poor pathetic little Feo, the horrible burden of having to produce what he claimed he had in one piece. He’s like She Guevara and friends whining about how “poor” they were growing up.
First world problems.
Feo’s problem is that he has to manufacture victim hood because he wasn’t born black and refuses to renounce his heterosexuality, so he’s left out.
Post a Comment