Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
He's also not a hypocrite.
Case in point: He points out Kaepernick feeding the hungry. I believe a value in Christianity. What was your reply? Your reply was in line with your political values.
Also, I believe a liberal political values are in line with Christ's teaching. Conservatism not so much.
But please, continue meet make yourself the martyr. A1 has a bag full of nails. You don't need my help.
His reply was:
Still doesn't deserve to play in the NFL. But good for him.
Seems to me the doesn’t deserve to play in the NFL is related to not having the ability combined with the political nightmare - true enough.
Good for him is the tip of the hat for doing Christian good.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
He's also not a hypocrite.
Case in point: He points out Kaepernick feeding the hungry. I believe a value in Christianity. What was your reply? Your reply was in line with your political values.
Also, I believe a liberal political values are in line with Christ's teaching. Conservatism not so much.
But please, continue meet make yourself the martyr. A1 has a bag full of nails. You don't need my help.
If you cant debate the topic without making it personal with the debater stay out of the thread.
This goes for all. This forum is for topics not attacks on fellow posters so clean it up or leave.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
He's also not a hypocrite.
Case in point: He points out Kaepernick feeding the hungry. I believe a value in Christianity. What was your reply? Your reply was in line with your political values.
Also, I believe a liberal political values are in line with Christ's teaching. Conservatism not so much.
But please, continue meet make yourself the martyr. A1 has a bag full of nails. You don't need my help.
As A1 pointed out, I commended Kap for doing it. What's the problem?
As for Maroon, he thinks that we should be allowed to kill children in the third trimester of their development. I can guarantee you that there's something about THAT in the Bible... yet (again) I've never heard you say anything to him about it. So... is it my supposed "hypocrisy"... or is it my politics?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@
I love debating with folks I disagree with. Especially if they make valid points. But when it gets silly and stupid I typically bail because it drives me crazy and I don't have time for it.
Case in point: infanticide. Stupid. It's already illegal. There isn't anyone who would argue that it shouldn't be. But I'll debate late-term abortion with you. That's why I did that. I wanted to reach down, pull you out of the crazy pit and give you an opportunity to make your case on something that IS a legit debate. And you're all "answer my question, answer my question."
What questions are you talking about? Kermit Gosnell? Yes, he was a demented serial killer. And I'm pretty certain he's in jail. So what is there to answer? What shall we debate next, Jeffery Dahmer? Aborting gay babies? C'mon.
I had one question for you that you didn't answer: if a woman went in for an abortion... and the child survived the procedure... and then, after having seen her son, the mother changed her mind and wanted the child to live: should her wish be honored? Should the clinic provide any medical care (or get medical care) for the boy... or should they allow the injured child to die?
I'm thrilled to be able to discuss this topic with you. After you answer the question, I'll be happy to present the case for "life". I look forward to our exchanges.
PS: Gosnell was sentenced for killing newborns; yet if he had done the exact same thing to those children while any part of their body was still in the womb (as a form of third trimester abortion) there are many who would say that it was legal / moral. It was really just a matter of seconds... and inches. Seems like a strange way of determining the value of life... but I'll save that for later. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this! We may not be able to change each other's minds... but maybe some other folks will benefit from our civil discourse.
Have a blessed evening!
Oh Pumpf, with all due respect, you’re back in the crazy pit. This whole “born-alive execution” stuff is a Trump-winded myth meant to fire up the activists and go after the doctors who provide women’s health services.
What you don’t realize is that the more that you go after the doctors, and the more difficult you make it for women to get safe and legal abortions, the more Kermit Gosnells you’re going to get.
So I guess this is your way of bowing out of that "conversation that you would love to have with people who disagree with you"? I asked you 2 questions that were completely civil in nature... and not at all "crazy" (1. What if a woman's abortion was botched and her child was born alive... and then she wanted to keep it? Should she have the right to do that? and, 2) What would it take for me to make those "valid points" that you require in order for a discussion to take place?) I paraphrased the questions to fit with your follow-up response... but the gist is the same.
I'm very interested in having this discussion... but I guess I need to find out from you what will qualify as "valid points". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... so I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@
I love debating with folks I disagree with. Especially if they make valid points. But when it gets silly and stupid I typically bail because it drives me crazy and I don't have time for it.
Case in point: infanticide. Stupid. It's already illegal. There isn't anyone who would argue that it shouldn't be. But I'll debate late-term abortion with you. That's why I did that. I wanted to reach down, pull you out of the crazy pit and give you an opportunity to make your case on something that IS a legit debate. And you're all "answer my question, answer my question."
What questions are you talking about? Kermit Gosnell? Yes, he was a demented serial killer. And I'm pretty certain he's in jail. So what is there to answer? What shall we debate next, Jeffery Dahmer? Aborting gay babies? C'mon.
I had one question for you that you didn't answer: if a woman went in for an abortion... and the child survived the procedure... and then, after having seen her son, the mother changed her mind and wanted the child to live: should her wish be honored? Should the clinic provide any medical care (or get medical care) for the boy... or should they allow the injured child to die?
I'm thrilled to be able to discuss this topic with you. After you answer the question, I'll be happy to present the case for "life". I look forward to our exchanges.
PS: Gosnell was sentenced for killing newborns; yet if he had done the exact same thing to those children while any part of their body was still in the womb (as a form of third trimester abortion) there are many who would say that it was legal / moral. It was really just a matter of seconds... and inches. Seems like a strange way of determining the value of life... but I'll save that for later. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this! We may not be able to change each other's minds... but maybe some other folks will benefit from our civil discourse.
Have a blessed evening!
Oh Pumpf, with all due respect, you’re back in the crazy pit. This whole “born-alive execution” stuff is a Trump-winded myth meant to fire up the activists and go after the doctors who provide women’s health services.
What you don’t realize is that the more that you go after the doctors, and the more difficult you make it for women to get safe and legal abortions, the more Kermit Gosnells you’re going to get.
So I guess this is your way of bowing out of that "conversation that you would love to have with people who disagree with you"? I asked you 2 questions that were completely civil in nature... and not at all "crazy" (1. What if a woman's abortion was botched and her child was born alive... and then she wanted to keep it? Should she have the right to do that? and, 2) What would it take for me to make those "valid points" that you require in order for a discussion to take place?) I paraphrased the questions to fit with your follow-up response... but the gist is the same.
I'm very interested in having this discussion... but I guess I need to find out from you what will qualify as "valid points". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... so I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
Oh knock it off, Pumpf. I don't have debates with flat earthers, climate deniers, Qanoners and folks who think there are doctors executing babies.
Yes, this is me bowing out. I don't deem this a worthy conversation, or you a worthy adversary. Choose to do with that what you want.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
So I guess this is your way of bowing out of that "conversation that you would love to have with people who disagree with you"? I asked you 2 questions that were completely civil in nature... and not at all "crazy" (1. What if a woman's abortion was botched and her child was born alive... and then she wanted to keep it? Should she have the right to do that? and, 2) What would it take for me to make those "valid points" that you require in order for a discussion to take place?) I paraphrased the questions to fit with your follow-up response... but the gist is the same.
I'm very interested in having this discussion... but I guess I need to find out from you what will qualify as "valid points". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... so I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
Oh knock it off, Pumpf. I don't have debates with flat earthers, climate deniers, Qanoners and folks who think there are doctors executing babies.
Yes, this is me bowing out. I don't deem this a worthy conversation, or you a worthy adversary. Choose to do with that what you want.
Sounds to me like you DON'T like to debate with people with whom you disagree. instead, you simply make absurd comparisons so that you don't have to. Let's face it: you KNOW that you were never going to win a debate about third trimester abortions. I even gave you the opportunity to set the ground rules for the discussion. But you won't have it, because you know- like everyone else does- that a child in his/her third trimester of development has all kinds of legal protections- if he/she is wanted... and that they have a high viability rate. That's why Scott Peterson (and others) have gone to prison, charged with 2 killings, when they have killed pregnant women.
Then there is the fact that children in the third trimester have developed to the point of looking exactly like a "born" child,except smaller.
You probably also know that a third trimester abortion is NEVER necessary for the health of the mother, as the child actually DOES have to be delivered. It's not like the abortion is preventing the delivery; it's only preventing the live birth.
And you probably also know that abortion providers have been video-taped admitting that they do, in fact, have situations where the child is born alive; in fact, it is a great money-maker for them. But it is illegal to kill those kids; so they have to "look around" (direct quote) to see who's watching. Meanwhile, companies like "Stem Express" are paying big bucks for "tissue" that is as developed as possible. Then there are the videos of the actual procedure, which- if I posted them- would have people DEFINITELY questioning this barbaric practice.
Face it: when it comes to this issue, you don't have a moral, philosophical, scientific or Biblical leg to stand on. Third-trimester ("partial-birth") abortions are never necessary... and the child can feel it when their bodies are- literally- being ripped apart. You know, the old D&E procedure, in which a child's limbs are grabbed with an instrument and then twisted until they break off from the torso... until all of the limbs are broken off. Then the the rest of the child is "extracted". That's one way it's done (while this is done during the third trimester, it is usually done later in the 2nd trimester... either way, the procedure is done well past the age when the child can feel, sense and respond to pain).
The main form of third trimester abortion is described by the American Pregnancy Association: "This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion." In "English", it means that an unborn child is partially "born" (delivered breach / feet first) and while the head is still inside the mother, it is punctured at the base of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. After that, the rest of the child is brought out. Considering that this is requires an even more difficult delivery than a "normal" one, it's kind of disingenuous to say that it must be done to save the mother's life. If she's still delivering the child- and in a more difficult manner- how in the world can it be "saving" her life to kill the child, rather than just deliver it and put it up for adoption? It's not. And anyone who's done any research on the matter (and isn't a complete ideologue- like the folks who say that men are women just because they put on a dress and feel like it) knows it.
It's no wonder you don't want to have this debate with me. You might be able to convince yourself that you're right about alot of things. But you know you're wrong about this; and that you have no way to even argue your points (whatever they may be).
PS: The governor of Virginia was OK with infanticide. He admitted it. So, no: this isn't some crazy, made-up thing. Here's the quote, "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he continued. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” So, what we have is a living, born child... that a DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR said could be allowed to die (comfortably, thank goodness!) if that's what the parents wanted. If I leave my newborn outside tonight, he will die. Would I be liable for that? You bet I would. So how is it any different if a child is left on a stainless steel table to die... or thrown (ALIVE) into a bucket of water (or saline solution) until it drowns? I've got links to those things actually happening, if you want to see them.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@
I love debating with folks I disagree with. Especially if they make valid points. But when it gets silly and stupid I typically bail because it drives me crazy and I don't have time for it.
Case in point: infanticide. Stupid. It's already illegal. There isn't anyone who would argue that it shouldn't be. But I'll debate late-term abortion with you. That's why I did that. I wanted to reach down, pull you out of the crazy pit and give you an opportunity to make your case on something that IS a legit debate. And you're all "answer my question, answer my question."
What questions are you talking about? Kermit Gosnell? Yes, he was a demented serial killer. And I'm pretty certain he's in jail. So what is there to answer? What shall we debate next, Jeffery Dahmer? Aborting gay babies? C'mon.
I had one question for you that you didn't answer: if a woman went in for an abortion... and the child survived the procedure... and then, after having seen her son, the mother changed her mind and wanted the child to live: should her wish be honored? Should the clinic provide any medical care (or get medical care) for the boy... or should they allow the injured child to die?
I'm thrilled to be able to discuss this topic with you. After you answer the question, I'll be happy to present the case for "life". I look forward to our exchanges.
PS: Gosnell was sentenced for killing newborns; yet if he had done the exact same thing to those children while any part of their body was still in the womb (as a form of third trimester abortion) there are many who would say that it was legal / moral. It was really just a matter of seconds... and inches. Seems like a strange way of determining the value of life... but I'll save that for later. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this! We may not be able to change each other's minds... but maybe some other folks will benefit from our civil discourse.
Have a blessed evening!
Oh Pumpf, with all due respect, you’re back in the crazy pit. This whole “born-alive execution” stuff is a Trump-winded myth meant to fire up the activists and go after the doctors who provide women’s health services.
What you don’t realize is that the more that you go after the doctors, and the more difficult you make it for women to get safe and legal abortions, the more Kermit Gosnells you’re going to get.
So I guess this is your way of bowing out of that "conversation that you would love to have with people who disagree with you"? I asked you 2 questions that were completely civil in nature... and not at all "crazy" (1. What if a woman's abortion was botched and her child was born alive... and then she wanted to keep it? Should she have the right to do that? and, 2) What would it take for me to make those "valid points" that you require in order for a discussion to take place?) I paraphrased the questions to fit with your follow-up response... but the gist is the same.
I'm very interested in having this discussion... but I guess I need to find out from you what will qualify as "valid points". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... so I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
Oh knock it off, Pumpf. I don't have debates with flat earthers, climate deniers, Qanoners and folks who think there are doctors executing babies.
Yes, this is me bowing out. I don't deem this a worthy conversation, or you a worthy adversary. Choose to do with that what you want.
yup heaven forbid someone stand up for the baby. if you cant have a discusion just resort to name calling.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
So I guess this is your way of bowing out of that "conversation that you would love to have with people who disagree with you"? I asked you 2 questions that were completely civil in nature... and not at all "crazy" (1. What if a woman's abortion was botched and her child was born alive... and then she wanted to keep it? Should she have the right to do that? and, 2) What would it take for me to make those "valid points" that you require in order for a discussion to take place?) I paraphrased the questions to fit with your follow-up response... but the gist is the same.
I'm very interested in having this discussion... but I guess I need to find out from you what will qualify as "valid points". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... so I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.
Oh knock it off, Pumpf. I don't have debates with flat earthers, climate deniers, Qanoners and folks who think there are doctors executing babies.
Yes, this is me bowing out. I don't deem this a worthy conversation, or you a worthy adversary. Choose to do with that what you want.
Sounds to me like you DON'T like to debate with people with whom you disagree. instead, you simply make absurd comparisons so that you don't have to. Let's face it: you KNOW that you were never going to win a debate about third trimester abortions. I even gave you the opportunity to set the ground rules for the discussion. But you won't have it, because you know- like everyone else does- that a child in his/her third trimester of development has all kinds of legal protections- if he/she is wanted... and that they have a high viability rate. That's why Scott Peterson (and others) have gone to prison, charged with 2 killings, when they have killed pregnant women.
Then there is the fact that children in the third trimester have developed to the point of looking exactly like a "born" child,except smaller.
You probably also know that a third trimester abortion is NEVER necessary for the health of the mother, as the child actually DOES have to be delivered. It's not like the abortion is preventing the delivery; it's only preventing the live birth.
And you probably also know that abortion providers have been video-taped admitting that they do, in fact, have situations where the child is born alive; in fact, it is a great money-maker for them. But it is illegal to kill those kids; so they have to "look around" (direct quote) to see who's watching. Meanwhile, companies like "Stem Express" are paying big bucks for "tissue" that is as developed as possible. Then there are the videos of the actual procedure, which- if I posted them- would have people DEFINITELY questioning this barbaric practice.
Face it: when it comes to this issue, you don't have a moral, philosophical, scientific or Biblical leg to stand on. Third-trimester ("partial-birth") abortions are never necessary... and the child can feel it when their bodies are- literally- being ripped apart. You know, the old D&E procedure, in which a child's limbs are grabbed with an instrument and then twisted until they break off from the torso... until all of the limbs are broken off. Then the the rest of the child is "extracted". That's one way it's done (while this is done during the third trimester, it is usually done later in the 2nd trimester... either way, the procedure is done well past the age when the child can feel, sense and respond to pain).
The main form of third trimester abortion is described by the American Pregnancy Association: "This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion." In "English", it means that an unborn child is partially "born" (delivered breach / feet first) and while the head is still inside the mother, it is punctured at the base of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. After that, the rest of the child is brought out. Considering that this is requires an even more difficult delivery than a "normal" one, it's kind of disingenuous to say that it must be done to save the mother's life. If she's still delivering the child- and in a more difficult manner- how in the world can it be "saving" her life to kill the child, rather than just deliver it and put it up for adoption? It's not. And anyone who's done any research on the matter (and isn't a complete ideologue- like the folks who say that men are women just because they put on a dress and feel like it) knows it.
It's no wonder you don't want to have this debate with me. You might be able to convince yourself that you're right about alot of things. But you know you're wrong about this; and that you have no way to even argue your points (whatever they may be).
PS: The governor of Virginia was OK with infanticide. He admitted it. So, no: this isn't some crazy, made-up thing. Here's the quote, "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he continued. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” So, what we have is a living, born child... that a DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR said could be allowed to die (comfortably, thank goodness!) if that's what the parents wanted. If I leave my newborn outside tonight, he will die. Would I be liable for that? You bet I would. So how is it any different if a child is left on a stainless steel table to die... or thrown (ALIVE) into a bucket of water (or saline solution) until it drowns? I've got links to those things actually happening, if you want to see them.
excellent, civil response, this is the type of post that this board is looking for from either side of topic. Thanks Pumpf. I expect any responses and follow up to be of a similar nature, thank you in advance.
|
