If that’s your position, that’s your position. And I doubt that me or anyone else could convince you that there’s a difference between choosing to end a pregnancy and choosing to walk into a school and open fire in an effort to simply kill as many people as possible just because.
[/quote]
The methodology may be different, but the result is the same. People died because of the selfish actions of another. I love the wording “choosing to end a pregnancy”. It’s a perfect denial of truth. And you must deny the truth to maintain a position such as yours.
You’re not just ending a pregnancy, you’re killing a human being. It’s an undeniable fact. There are no grounds to say otherwise. Things are what they are no matter what flowery language you choose to evoke an image of something less.
White washing with words only works on the stupid.
I was not equaling the two act. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that while the president on one end is trying to save ‘even one life’ he is actively contributing to the murder of millions.
If you are truly into saving lives, start where the most lives are being lost. And that is not in the rare actions of a nut, but the daily actions of cowards.
[quote]
Yeah…uh, no. A new restriction is a new restriction. But if the new restriction is less restrictive than the old restriction, and the point of the restriction has to do with atmospheric pollution, and you name it something like “the clear skies act,” when in reality, it increases pollution, then yeah… yeah, I think I’ve made my point. Bring your ‘A’ game next time. Heck, I’ll settle for your C- game at this rate…[/quote]
You’re right in one thing, all it did was move pollution around from one place to another. While being more restrictive on some, to less restrictive where you cannot see it.
I can see that you are sinking in to ad hominems already. That must be a record. If you think I am that dumb, you have the freedom to ignore my idiotic ramblings.
It just serves the cause of truth. You don’t have to be a genius to be right, you just have to speak the truth.
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[/quote]
One: I know who Kermit Gosnell is. And Planned Parenthood made quite an advertising push about him, in response to his conviction, to show that his methods and procedures and the like were exactly the thing which they want to guard against. Kermit Gosnell is a prime example of the quality of care women seeking abortions could likely get when it was still able to be made illegal.
[/quote]
I certainly prefer my murder to be more sanitary.
[quote]
Two: you have in no way demonstrated that somehow, Obama being pro-choice is a scandal or controversy. AGAIN, it’s just you disagreeing with the position. People are pro-choice. If you’re not, that’s fine. But you’re not outlining a controversy; you’re simply in disagreement with those who hold the position of being pro-choice because you disagree with Roe v. Wade’s basis. You can yell as much as you want, and disagree as much as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re simply in disagreement. I’ve pointed this out over and over to you.[/quote]
I never said it was a scandal, I said, quite specifically that his position on gun control to save ‘even one life’ is hypocritical in light of the fact that he supports the murder of millions every year without even the smallest of restriction one would be required to have for a simple dental procedure.
The attempt at redirecting the point is predictable, but a failure. You’re trying to attack points I did not even make. So let’s get to the point.
How can one say they are interested in saving lives of children, while on the other hand enabling an action that takes more children’s lives than anything else in the history of the world?
You cannot function on the premise that abortion does not kill human lives because that is patently false.
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[/quote]
Since when is stating facts considered devolving the the discussion to the gutter?
Minimum reported deaths is around 190,000. But let’s give you more room. Let’s multiply that by 5 and say a full million people have died in Iraq in the last 10 years.
Meanwhile, from 2010 - 2012 Planned Parenthood killed 995,687 humans.
Please explain to me how presenting facts devolves a discussion.
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[/quote]
Since when is stating facts considered devolving the the discussion to the gutter?
Minimum reported deaths is around 190,000. But let’s give you more room. Let’s multiply that by 5 and say a full million people have died in Iraq in the last 10 years.
Meanwhile, from 2010 - 2012 Planned Parenthood killed 995,687 humans.
Please explain to me how presenting facts devolves a discussion.
Leaving aside the massive derailment of the thread that just happened, I’m still surprised at how NorCal believes that the equivalence between shooting people and abortion is false—it depends directly on the premises of argument and is not false if one believes that fetuses are in fact persons. If you accept that it is an equivalence and relevant, if you don’t accept that premise it is not germane, but I find it surprising that NorCal did not recognize the premise it was built on as the very foundation of the abortion debate. It is not a red herring at all.
I don’t believe it will persuade anybody of anything, that much I agree with him on.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Leaving aside the massive derailment of the thread that just happened, I’m still surprised at how NorCal believes that the equivalence between shooting people and abortion is false—it depends directly on the premises of argument and is not false if one believes that fetuses are in fact persons. If you accept that it is an equivalence and relevant, if you don’t accept that premise it is not germane, but I find it surprising that NorCal did not recognize the premise it was built on as the very foundation of the abortion debate. It is not a red herring at all.
I don’t believe it will persuade anybody of anything, that much I agree with him on.[/quote]
Sure, if you functioning under the motive of changing people’s minds. If a forum discussion can change your mind, your original opinion was not well founded.
The fact that fetus’s are human beings is a scientific fact and cannot be disputed with facts or any kind of honesty. To hold that they are not is simply a denial of fact.
The fact that there were 40 something points in the original post, it seems to me an ‘anything goes’ thread.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Leaving aside the massive derailment of the thread that just happened, I’m still surprised at how NorCal believes that the equivalence between shooting people and abortion is false—it depends directly on the premises of argument and is not false if one believes that fetuses are in fact persons. If you accept that it is an equivalence and relevant, if you don’t accept that premise it is not germane, but I find it surprising that NorCal did not recognize the premise it was built on as the very foundation of the abortion debate. It is not a red herring at all.
I don’t believe it will persuade anybody of anything, that much I agree with him on.[/quote]
Sure, if you functioning under the motive of changing people’s minds. If a forum discussion can change your mind, your original opinion was not well founded.
The fact that fetus’s are human beings is a scientific fact and cannot be disputed with facts or any kind of honesty. To hold that they are not is simply a denial of fact.
The fact that there were 40 something points in the original post, it seems to me an ‘anything goes’ thread.[/quote]
Nah I wasn’t criticizing you, just noticing the sharp change in direction is all
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Leaving aside the massive derailment of the thread that just happened, I’m still surprised at how NorCal believes that the equivalence between shooting people and abortion is false—it depends directly on the premises of argument and is not false if one believes that fetuses are in fact persons. If you accept that it is an equivalence and relevant, if you don’t accept that premise it is not germane, but I find it surprising that NorCal did not recognize the premise it was built on as the very foundation of the abortion debate. It is not a red herring at all.
I don’t believe it will persuade anybody of anything, that much I agree with him on.[/quote]
Sure, if you functioning under the motive of changing people’s minds. If a forum discussion can change your mind, your original opinion was not well founded.
The fact that fetus’s are human beings is a scientific fact and cannot be disputed with facts or any kind of honesty. To hold that they are not is simply a denial of fact.
The fact that there were 40 something points in the original post, it seems to me an ‘anything goes’ thread.[/quote]
Nah I wasn’t criticizing you, just noticing the sharp change in direction is all[/quote]