Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
is that the law? 3rd trimester abortions are only in instances of womens health? if that were the law, i could understand that, how many are due to complications with the baby? I can understand sparing a baby a lifetime of pain if its certain that a birth defect is going to create such an awful existence but what is considered an abortable defect, and who decides that? For the babies sake I think this should go beyond what one woman thinks, at what point does science and a screwed legal system start to rule left handed or green eyed a birth defect or other common unusual things in todays society? what if parents were able to determine that sexual preference is indeed something that is set before birth and its "gene" was identifiable, could that then be an abortable "defect"?
I am sure there are many that are legit health reasons, but I am also sure they all arent and without some sort of limitation then infanticide is being practiced and not for ethical reasons.
Oh fer fuck sake. What the hell world do you live in? "Yes, Mrs Smith, we've been able to determine that little Jonny will in fact be gay. We can't tell you what to do, but we think you should consider ending the pregnancy...."
The same world where girls are aborted... for being girls.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Once again, your personal attacks say more about you than me.
Infanticide: as in, killing a child AFTER he/she is born. No, I wasn't talking about third trimester abortions (although that's pretty evil, too). Legislation was introduced to strengthen the infanticide laws... and every Democratic member of congress voted against it. In fact, I even pointed out in my post that I was talking about the killing of children AFTER they were born (i.e. NOT abortion), but apparently you can't be bothered to read a relatively brief post before you go on the attack. What I posted about infanticide IS the truth. If you would like to debate that, please do. I've got the facts on my side... and I can find and post the link stating such.
So, since that seems to be the thrust of your post: that I was conflating 3rd term abortions with the killing of children after they are born... perhaps you'd like to offer a retraction?
By the way, I don't recall "judging" anyone ("condemning them to hell"). Perhaps, while you're offering up your retraction, you could point out where I passed judgment on anyone's eternal soul?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. The debate is about late-term abortion. Killing healthy babies after they're born is a myth. A Trumpism meant to stir up the crazies. YOU should know better.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Once again, your personal attacks say more about you than me.
Infanticide: as in, killing a child AFTER he/she is born. No, I wasn't talking about third trimester abortions (although that's pretty evil, too). Legislation was introduced to strengthen the infanticide laws... and every Democratic member of congress voted against it. In fact, I even pointed out in my post that I was talking about the killing of children AFTER they were born (i.e. NOT abortion), but apparently you can't be bothered to read a relatively brief post before you go on the attack. What I posted about infanticide IS the truth. If you would like to debate that, please do. I've got the facts on my side... and I can find and post the link stating such.
So, since that seems to be the thrust of your post: that I was conflating 3rd term abortions with the killing of children after they are born... perhaps you'd like to offer a retraction?
By the way, I don't recall "judging" anyone ("condemning them to hell"). Perhaps, while you're offering up your retraction, you could point out where I passed judgment on anyone's eternal soul?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. The debate is about late-term abortion. Killing healthy babies after they're born is a myth. A Trumpism meant to stir up the crazies. YOU should know better.
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
Whippoorwills call, evenin' is nighHurry to my, blue heaven
Turn to the right, there's a little white light
Will lead you to my, blue heavenYou'll see a smilin' face, fireplace, a cozy room
Little nest that nestle while the roses bloom
Molly and me, and the baby makes three
We're happy in my, in my blue heavenYou're gonna see a smilin' face, fireplace, cozy room
And a little nest nestled where the roses bloom
Just Molly and me, and the baby is three
We're so happy in my, blue heavenWe're happy in my, blue heaven
We're happy in my blue heaven
Oh My Kentucky and Virginia and even in Missouri! Even Pence’s hometown the city council went blue. What a night!!!!
Yippee, maybe they can spread the violence, inequity, homelessness, crime, and filth that their peers have accomplished in Chicago, Baltimore, and most of the cities on the West Coast!
The cities with the most violent crime have generations of dnc corruption...so, by that metric, does craving dnc leadership mean a desire for murdered Americans?
Quote: @Zanary said:
@ Mike Olson said:
Whippoorwills call, evenin' is nigh Hurry to my, blue heaven
Turn to the right, there's a little white light
Will lead you to my, blue heavenYou'll see a smilin' face, fireplace, a cozy room
Little nest that nestle while the roses bloom
Molly and me, and the baby makes three
We're happy in my, in my blue heavenYou're gonna see a smilin' face, fireplace, cozy room
And a little nest nestled where the roses bloom
Just Molly and me, and the baby is three
We're so happy in my, blue heavenWe're happy in my, blue heaven
We're happy in my blue heaven
Oh My Kentucky and Virginia and even in Missouri! Even Pence’s hometown the city council went blue. What a night!!!!
Yippee, maybe they can spread the violence, inequity, homelessness, crime, and filth that their peers have accomplished in Chicago, Baltimore, and most of the cities on the West Coast!
The cities with the most violent crime have generations of dnc corruption...so, by that metric, does craving dnc leadership mean a desire for murdered Americans?
I think there is more a defensive reaction here because the Russia hoax didn’t end the way the left wanted and the impeachment deal is also a hoax.
Plus the dem candidates look like a pile of shit - Moodys and NYT among others predict a landslide in 2020.
The house will be back in play.
So - shit against the wall will continue.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Once again, your personal attacks say more about you than me.
Infanticide: as in, killing a child AFTER he/she is born. No, I wasn't talking about third trimester abortions (although that's pretty evil, too). Legislation was introduced to strengthen the infanticide laws... and every Democratic member of congress voted against it. In fact, I even pointed out in my post that I was talking about the killing of children AFTER they were born (i.e. NOT abortion), but apparently you can't be bothered to read a relatively brief post before you go on the attack. What I posted about infanticide IS the truth. If you would like to debate that, please do. I've got the facts on my side... and I can find and post the link stating such.
So, since that seems to be the thrust of your post: that I was conflating 3rd term abortions with the killing of children after they are born... perhaps you'd like to offer a retraction?
By the way, I don't recall "judging" anyone ("condemning them to hell"). Perhaps, while you're offering up your retraction, you could point out where I passed judgment on anyone's eternal soul?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. The debate is about late-term abortion. Killing healthy babies after they're born is a myth. A Trumpism meant to stir up the crazies. YOU should know better.
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
I'm talking about the national debate about late-term abortion. That's the debate. Intentionally killing babies after they are born is already illegal.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
I'm talking about the national debate about late-term abortion. That's the debate. Intentionally killing babies after they are born is already illegal.
OK... but I wasn't. And you used this opportunity to personally attack me, even though I wasn't at all talking about the "national debate". And, yes, it's already illegal... but that isn't stopping dozens of children from being killed anyway.
Now, do you want to answer any of my questions (or maybe apologize for your personal attacks)? Or should we just start talking about third-trimester abortions?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
I'm talking about the national debate about late-term abortion. That's the debate. Intentionally killing babies after they are born is already illegal.
OK... but I wasn't. And you used this opportunity to personally attack me, even though I wasn't at all talking about the "national debate". And, yes, it's already illegal... but that isn't stopping dozens of children from being killed anyway.
Now, do you want to answer any of my questions (or maybe apologize for your personal attacks)? Or should we just start talking about third-trimester abortions?
Like I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't want to consider you a nut who believes there are beautiful bouncing babies being "executed" by doctors after birth. But maybe I was wrong.
Climb off the cross, nobody attacked you. I just tried to remind you how much influence you have on people and that you should be very careful how you characterize things.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
I'm talking about the national debate about late-term abortion. That's the debate. Intentionally killing babies after they are born is already illegal.
OK... but I wasn't. And you used this opportunity to personally attack me, even though I wasn't at all talking about the "national debate". And, yes, it's already illegal... but that isn't stopping dozens of children from being killed anyway.
Now, do you want to answer any of my questions (or maybe apologize for your personal attacks)? Or should we just start talking about third-trimester abortions?
So does this include gun control?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Where? Where was the debate about late-term abortions? I'll be happy to debate that issue with you... but I never brought it up. I talked about children being killed after they were born- and Democrats doing nothing to prevent it. You (apparently) couldn't be bothered to read what I actually wrote... and then argued an issue that I never brought up (in this thread). And, to top it all off, you personally attacked me by comparing me to an evil, false prophet... and then attacked my work as a pastor. How can you not see that any of that was wrong? I wouldn't think of attacking you as a father or husband, just because we disagree on a myriad of topics. Yet you (and others) always make it your goal to- somehow- go after my faith or my calling as a pastor.
Is that what you call civil discourse?
As for killing healthy babies after they're born... my first question is: when did the health of the child matter in the debate as to whether or not to kill her? Is that really the qualifier you wanted to use? Does the fact that the baby have health issues matter in any other situations? Are you really suggesting that a child- who is already born- does not deserve the same rights / medical access as anyone else? This is not about abortion; this is about another human life that is alive outside of the womb. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the "red line" that determined what was a human life with a right to life... and a "clump of cells"?
And what about if the mother changes her mind? What if she saw her son born ALIVE... after a failed abortion... and wanted to keep him? Should she be allowed to do so? Well, it happened... and the abortion clinic refused to call 9-1-1... and they refused to give her any other kind of help. The boy died in the crying mother's arms. What's your opinion on that situation?
One other question, although I doubt you'll actually answer any of the questions I've posed: does Kermit Gosnell belong in prison or not?
I'm talking about the national debate about late-term abortion. That's the debate. Intentionally killing babies after they are born is already illegal.
OK... but I wasn't. And you used this opportunity to personally attack me, even though I wasn't at all talking about the "national debate". And, yes, it's already illegal... but that isn't stopping dozens of children from being killed anyway.
Now, do you want to answer any of my questions (or maybe apologize for your personal attacks)? Or should we just start talking about third-trimester abortions?
Like I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't want to consider you a nut who believes there are beautiful bouncing babies being "executed" by doctors after birth. But maybe I was wrong.
Climb off the cross, nobody attacked you. I just tried to remind you how much influence you have on people and that you should be very careful how you characterize things.
I guess I was the one giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. Now I see that you really aren't interested in any kind of meaningful dialogue. Good to know.
Have a blessed day.
|
