Many times those on the left (like Dan) will tell us we need to adopt the laws of other nations when it comes to their pet issues. So, let’s look at how other nations regulate abortion.
Abortion on-demand laws:
—Greece: 12 weeks
—Austria: 12 weeks
—Germany: 12 weeks
—France: 12 weeks
—Italy: 12 weeks
—Spain: 14 weeks
—South Korea: illegal
—Ireland: illegal
—Poland: illegal
—Sweden:18 weeks
—Norway: 12 weeks
—Denmark: 12 wks
Dems oppose 20 weeks. Who is extreme?
So, we’ve got liberals saying stuff like this.
I always find these pro-life vs pro-choice hilarious because both sides are egregiously wrong. The only sane man's position is pro-eugenics. How much money has been funneled out of the middle and working class to pay for genetically defective burdens in the last century?”
While Dan insists that it’s just a “bad choice” to abort the potentially disabled.
Let’s take a look at how the enlightened European’s handle their disabled adults, but it’s not devaluing them at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-many-botched-cases-would-it-take-to-end-euthanasia-of-the-vulnerable/2018/01/24/bf311400-0124-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.
9 comments:
“And at what point is a fetus a living human? What defines a living human? The ability to think for itself? What about a disabled child? Are they not human enough, then? You aren't making any compelling or new arguments here.“
More liberal wisdom.
Of course the irony is that people like Dan insist their defense of the indefensible is concern for women, as if no females are among the aborted and as if pregnant women aren't routinely harmed. More specifically, Dan respects THIS difference of opinion without describing with terms like "vulgar" and "ugly" and other terms of endearment he reserves for those who don't abide his hate speech rules.
It’s just pathetic that his passion to keep from devaluing those with disabilities doesn’t extrnd any further than is politically necessary.
Apparently his new speech codes mean that on topic comments get deleted.
Since Dan has chosen lies, fear, and deletion over grace and truth, I’ll just post this here where he’s clearly afraid to engage outside of his little fiefdom.
1. I did not make that claim, until you can find my quote to demonstrate otherwise it’s clear that your just lying.
2. Thanks for demonstrating that your whole speech code is complete and utter bullshit.
Dan has completely lost all regard for truth, honestly, or consistency. He’s demanding I defend a statement I haven’t made, then deleting comments which point out that fact. I guess fear and cowardice are strong motivation.
“How can I admit to an error I didn’t make? Why should I defend something you just made up out of thin air? By what standard do you think it rational to demand things from others that you won’t do yourself?”
Of course, the fact that he’s deleting comments that are on topic and positive lend credence to theories about instability, as does this new tactic of deleting comments, using demands made after the deletion to justify the deletion.
Sad, pathetic little child.
There is the tendency (actually, a conscious intention) to control language. They will redefine as it suits them, as the SSM debate clearly demonstrates, dictate which words are inappropriate while at the same time employ inappropriate words (obscenity and profanity), rationalizing the behavior all the while. They do this sort of thing while telling us most people agree with them, when there is no evidence that this is true...no consensus but consensus among those of like mind, not the entire population. Then somehow, if one doesn't abide,if one won't be suitably cowed by such fascism, one is marginalized as immoral for refusing to take part in defending the immoral, or the "cause" of the day.
Dan is a worst case example of this now. He can't explain his positions in a way that persuades, so the fault is with the unpersuaded. You're wrong not because you actually are, but because he says so. You haven't oppressed, assaulted or insulted unknown members of a group in actuality, but only because saying you have and then blocking you until you apologize is far easier than confronting the point you clearly made...that point indicting him as false.
The latest comment that will be deleted.
“I notice that, you acknowledge your false statement, and modify it so it’s less false, you don’t apologize for making it.
I also notice that you’ve chosen to take my responses out of context, which I suspect you’ve deleted, in order to advance your false narrative”
Clearly Dan’s actions contradict his words when it comes to being reasonable.
Dan wants all the “benefits” of an objective moral standard, without having the spine to assert that one exists. That gives him an excuse for his graceless, vulgar, expletive laden, rants of faux moral superiority with the cowardly exit strategy of “its just my opinion”, when he’s pressed.
Then we see the deleting, the lies, the hiding, and the usual cowardly behavior.
Post a Comment