Two things to remember about Stephen Hawking.
1. He has now experienced the ultimate consequences of his worldview, and knows more than he did yesterday.
2. Feo, and those like him would gladly have encouraged his mother to abort him. Dan, would wholeheartedly support his mother had she chosen to kill him. Seems like a distinction without a difference, but...
13 comments:
Actually, I might be more inclined a mother to abort a hard core liar who demonizes others without regards to truth than I would someone who was merely disabled.
Disabilities, we can and do live with.
Petty and dangerous lying stupidity, this is more difficult to overcome.
If facts matter.
So, you clearly and unequivocally oppose abortion of children with disabilities? If so, please state this unequivocally.
If you can do that, I’ll gladly edit the post. However l, the fact that you’ve supported those who choose to abort Dow’s children, and the prevalence of folks who share your view on abortion taking some pretty extreme public positions, I think it’s not unreasonable to group you with folks of like mind.
But please, prove me wrong I’d welcome it.
Although your expressed inclination to encourage an abortion based on potential future behavior isn’t encouraging.
Yeah. We wouldn't support aborting liars, either. Dan's "grace" only goes so far...and usually no farther than to bludgeon opponents with the concept.
Dan has the opportunity to unequivocally state that there are limits to his support of abortion. I’d think he’d object to sex selection and to sexual orientation selection in addition to he apparent agreement that the disabled should not be aborted because of their disabilities. I sincerely hope he takes the opportunity to take a morally principled stand.
I've never said anything that would suggest that I would encourage ANY mother to abort their fetus. Certainly, I would not advocate or encourage a mother with a fetus that will develop to a child with disabilities or girl or gay or even racist idiots to do so.
On the other hand, I would support her in making her OWN decision, as it's not a single bit of my business. If she were to ask me if I would abort a fetus because the child would be blind or otherwise impaired, I would answer truthfully, no, I wouldn't.
Still, I respect the family's right to choose how to handle the lives of those within the family, including unborn children/fetuses.
What I'm objecting to is the suggestion that I would encourage ANYONE to have an abortion. That is a lie.
Of course.
You see, Craig...it's no one's business whether or not someone wants to kill their own child. Dan is willing to pretend killing one's own child is a totally private matter, and he hides behind the false claim that, by golly, we just don't know if that unborn person is a person even though science and common sense knows it can be nothing else. What a wonderful, grace-embracing Christian who cares about "the least of these" he is!
And Dan just can’t do it. He just can’t bring himself to back down from his support for abortion under any circumstances. He’s all about supporting women who kill their children no matter why.
The "I wouldn't do it if I were you" argument is no more than implicit support, if not implicit encouragement. The only legitimate "encouragement" is, "No. Don't do it. It's murder." because that's the truth of it, in 99% of the cases.
It’s also at a minimum implicit support for abortion for any reason, no matter how offensive. Abort because it’s a girl, it’s your decision so go right ahead. Want to abort because it has the genetic makeup that leads to being gay, it’s your choice. Want to abort because you just don’t feel like having a kid right now, your choice.
There’s literally no reason to ever suggest anything except abort the baby.
Which raises the question, “Why let birth limit the choice?”
You falsely claimed that I "would gladly have encouraged his mother to abort him..." I pointed out the false nature of that claim.
It is a lie from the pits of hell and you are a liar, acting on behalf of hell, given that you have been corrected and doubled down on the lies.
That's on you, not me. But perhaps you should remove the rotten log from your gangrenous eye before you worry about specks of dust in others.
Interesting that you've chosen to ignore the fact that I took your input and edited the original post to better reflect your expressed views. Which, then, makes your last comment a...
"It is a lie from the pits of hell and you are a liar, acting on behalf of hell, given that you have been corrected and doubled down on the lies."
That's quite a claim from someone who doesn't appear to hold anything close to an Orthodox view of hell.
If you consider supporting people who choose to kill their children because they might be female, or disabled, or gay as a mere speck...
Really, Dan. Supporting legal abortion, giving women the "right to choose" to kill their own baby...as if there is any legitimate, scientific/biological confusion regarding whether or not the unborn is a person...is implicit encouragement to choose that very option, regardless of any "I wouldn't, but it's your choice" advice. You're basically saying, "It's murder, but go ahead if you think it isn't". That advice works for any other situation in which the victim is born. There's no difference and if you think there is, then you're "I wouldn't, but it's your choice" advice is disingenuous at best. Have a spine if you think personally that it's wrong. It's called "character" to defend truth and righteousness regardless of the cost.
If it’s a valid reason to support a woman choosing to kill a (potentially) disabled child because the child is undesirable or because it would inconvenience the mother to invest some extra effort into raising the child, then why would that reasoning be less compelling after the child is born and a more accurate assessment of the disability can be made?
Post a Comment