More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[Greg Jennings]

Spin, deception:


Translated: Even if abortion is immoral, let us kill the unborn, let the mother kill the innocent, and that is not evil, because that would be an imposition on the poor mother, and I will, in deception, then accuse those evil pro-lifers of "force(ing) a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of,"

No "imposition" on the murdered little one, eh?


That is wickeness, and a deceptive argument.



Correct, teenie bop/Dummy. My evidence? Your "posts."




1 I made no such admission, false accuser-Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.


Still not a peep. The punk cannot quote one scripture, to support his assertion. NADA.




Translated: Consensus determines morality.


Ssssssssssssssssssssssss......

Sifting through the vast amount of bs.......

If the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion will kill the fetus but save her, what would you say should be done?

What right do you have to impose an absurd burden on, let's say a teenage rape victim. In your preferred scenario, she has to bear the child. Are you comfortable with forcing (yes, I said it again) a young girl to go through the ridicule of being a pregnant teen when she was just raped? That's a pretty traumatic event, don't you think? That's the kind of psychological damage that a girl may never shake because of the intensity and duration of it. You can't just torture someone indefinitely. Everyone cracks, some more easily than others. And you're going to crack some of the girls you do that to. And that's messed up

Are you ok with forcing her to bear a child she cannot care for without taxpayer aid? Since I'm sure you oppose welfare staunchly, that's an interesting one for you. To potentially change her entire life plan so that she has to care for a child that was forced on her via violent sexual assault?


What does scripture have to do with this? If you follow scripture, then you know that it doesn't mention abortion, and even if it did it's hardly an authority on anything legal today. Scripture does mention mass killings of conquered peoples in Israelite lands though. Take a look:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"

Pro-life indeed :chuckle: Hard to imagine God cares much about every single fetus if He commanded the slaughter of children in the past.

 

[ok doser]

... a teenage rape victim. In your preferred scenario, she has to bear the child.

the what?

 

[Greg Jennings]

the what?

If it gets past 22 weeks, to me it's a child because it's conscious and feels pain. That's my personal line. Birth happens way after 22 weeks, and thus it's a child

 

[Greg Jennings]

Copy

 

[john w]

Sifting through the vast amount of bs.......

If the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion will kill the fetus but save her, what would you say should be done?

What right do you have to impose an absurd burden on, let's say a teenage rape victim. In your preferred scenario, she has to bear the child. Are you comfortable with forcing (yes, I said it again) a young girl to go through the ridicule of being a pregnant teen when she was just raped? That's a pretty traumatic event, don't you think? That's the kind of psychological damage that a girl may never shake because of the intensity and duration of it. You can't just torture someone indefinitely. Everyone cracks, some more easily than others. And you're going to crack some of the girls you do that to. And that's messed up

Are you ok with forcing her to bear a child she cannot care for without taxpayer aid? Since I'm sure you oppose welfare staunchly, that's an interesting one for you. To potentially change her entire life plan so that she has to care for a child that was forced on her via violent sexual assault?


What does scripture have to do with this? If you follow scripture, then you know that it doesn't mention abortion, and even if it did it's hardly an authority on anything legal today. Scripture does mention mass killings of conquered peoples in Israelite lands though. Take a look:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"

Pro-life indeed :chuckle: Hard to imagine God cares much about every single fetus if He commanded the slaughter of children in the past.

Diversion. It is a human rights issue, not economic, Dummy-that is one of my points.

They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Slavery-The south made it an economic issue-slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. Slavery outlawed-the South's economy tanked. Stuff the the economic argument. It is a human rights issue.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Diversion. It is a human rights issue, not economic, Dummy-that is one of my points.

Spin

Sure.....whatever it takes to dodge yet another question, right?

Slavery-The south made it an economic issue-slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. Slavery outlawed-the South's economy tanked. Stuff the the economic argument. It is a human rights issue.

Diversion

Only to you and those like you. But facts are facts, and it's not a living human until at minimum 22 weeks. Prior to that its not viable. It's actually considered a personal privacy issue. But what are facts but more things for you to ignore?

The fact that you can't see the issue with the exact same people calling for forced birthing (higher poor population) AND complaining about welfare for poor people (which the forced birthing creates a necessity for), then you are just not that bright. That....and only that......was the point I wanted to make the entire time.

Now come on, old timer. Put this young whipper snapper in his place :chuckle:

 

[glassjester]

Anyway, as explained twice previously, "forcing" my views on murder/rape/violent crime is not the same as "forcing" my views on abortion.

If an 8-months-pregnant woman wanted an abortion, would you "force" her to stay pregnant?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If an 8-months-pregnant woman wanted an abortion, would you "force" her to stay pregnant?

Via the law, yes and I agree with that. Unless she had a really good reason why she needs to get it done. Every case is unique, but in most cases I would deny her, yes. The reasons being that she had ample time to get it done previously, while the fetus was not yet conscious. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time.

 

[glassjester]

Via the law, yes and I agree with that. Unless she had a really good reason why she needs to get it done. Every case is unique, but in most cases I would deny her, yes. The reasons being that she had ample time to get it done previously, while the fetus was not yet conscious. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time

Why do you think it's ok for you (or the law) to dictate what goes on inside her body?

Because you "feel" that 22 weeks is enough time?

Who are you to push your morals on others, and force pregnant women to stay pregnant?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why do you think it's ok for you (or the law) to dictate what goes on inside her body?

I didn't. All I did was give her a deadline, prior to which she can do whatever she wants. It's a substantial deadline too.

Because you "feel" that 22 weeks is enough time?

As said earlier, if the woman has a special case then it will be heard out. Otherwise, a normal pregnancy should be detected between 2-6 weeks. That leaves 16 more weeks minimum for the woman to find a time and place to get an abortion.

Who are you to push your morals on others, and force pregnant women to stay pregnant?

It's not based on anyone's morals. It based on when science declares that a fetus becomes a viable human, and therefore feeling and conscious but also worthy of human rights. That time happens to be about 22 weeks

 

[glassjester]

I didn't. All I did was give her a deadline, prior to which she can do whatever she wants. It's a substantial deadline too.


As said earlier, if the woman has a special case then it will be heard out. Otherwise, a normal pregnancy should be detected between 2-6 weeks. That leaves 16 more weeks minimum for the woman to find a time and place to get an abortion.


It's not based on anyone's morals. It based on when science declares that a fetus becomes a viable human, and therefore feeling and conscious but also worthy of human rights. That time happens to be about 22 weeks

Why should she have to give you any reason at all for wanting an abortion at 8 months (or any point)?
It's her body. If she doesn't want her body to be pregnant, at any point, why should the government have any right to force her to remain pregnant?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why should she have to give you any reason at all for wanting an abortion at 8 months (or any point)?
It's her body. If she doesn't want her body to be pregnant, at any point, why should the government have any right to force her to remain pregnant?

Except for after 22 weeks (about 5.5 months) the fetus becomes a viable human, and should therefore be subject to laws regarding human rights. The woman had at least 16 weeks before it was conscious to get it removed from her body.

Why did she choose not to? If it's a good reason then an exception can be made. But waiting until an organism is conscious and can feel pain before killing it is cruel, and especially so if it's a human. That's like not wanting puppies, but instead of neutering your dog you just wait for it to have puppies then drown them all.

 

[glassjester]

Except for after 22 weeks (about 5.5 months) the fetus becomes a viable human, and should therefore be subject to laws regarding human rights. The woman had at least 16 weeks before it was conscious to get it removed from her body.

Why did she choose not to? If it's a good reason then an exception can be made. But waiting until an organism is conscious and can feel pain before killing it is cruel, and especially so if it's a human. That's like not wanting puppies, but instead of neutering your dog you just wait for it to have puppies then drown them all.

You think an unborn fetus is as conscious as a (born) puppy?

 

[marhig]

Why should she have to give you any reason at all for wanting an abortion at 8 months (or any point)?
It's her body. If she doesn't want her body to be pregnant, at any point, why should the government have any right to force her to remain pregnant?

What??? 8 months? Are you for real?

That's murder! That's a fully grown baby at 8 months. If a woman didn't want a baby, then she shouldn't have gotten herself pregnant in the first place. An abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control!

Your talking about the rights of the woman, what about the rights of the child?

 

[marhig]

You think an unborn fetus is as conscious as a (born) puppy?

At 8 months, yes!

 

[Crucible]

Stuff your "force" characterization, you place on pro-lifers, you deceiver. Laws, by definition, are an imposition of morality. You just don't like the pro-lifers's view, and are employing this emotional "force" argument, as subterfuge, that is quite irrelevant.

I'm not against pro-life, I'm against the fanatical lobby it has become. Instead of compassion and realistic answers to the abortion issue, you've all resorted to libel and judgements of murder. Fundamentally, you've all gone the same exact route as these liberals who have virtually become fascist.

And you see what became of that- their calling everything bigoted, racist, and so on is no longer works- it is a broken record.
What do you expect to gain from doing the same?

The fact is, abortion being 'murder' is an invention of the 15th century, and it didn't gain much speed because the Reformation came along and pretty much sacked the influence of such declarations by the popes. It was then left largely alone until this current era of pro-lifers.

So really, not only is what you're doing in vain, but it doesn't even really sit on much legitimacy. Abortion, prior to Pope Sixtus V, was seen as a mortal sin, but never seen as actually departing a living soul from it's vessel.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You think an unborn fetus is as conscious as a (born) puppy?

Compared to a developing human at 21 weeks, science says a born puppy is actually more conscious. That shouldn't really be a shock.

Sort of irrelevant to the point though. It was an analogy

 

[ok doser]

i've worked on neonate preemies born at 26 week (6 month) gestational - the resources and money spent to help them survive is staggering

but worth it

 

[john w]

Spin
Sure.....whatever it takes to dodge yet another question, right?

Imitating me now, are you? The great imitator, satan, taught you well.

What was that chapter, verse, devil boy, who would not know the difference between the book of Joel, and Billy Joel, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from the lost, Christ rejectors, such as yourself?

2 days, and not a peep.

Diversion

More imitation. I am honored, but you cannot pull it off, like I can.

Only to you and those like you. But facts are facts,

Wow! How long did it take, for you to come up with that "facts are facts" cliche/stumper/debate ender?

Next up?: It is what it is.

and it's not a living human until at minimum 22 weeks. Prior to that its not viable. It's actually considered a personal privacy issue. But what are facts but more things for you to ignore?

Made up, according to the bible. Of course, you reject the volume of the book as your final authority.


Facts are facts. You taught us that. We learned that from you.

The fact that you can't see the issue with the exact same people calling for forced birthing (higher poor population) AND complaining about welfare for poor people (which the forced birthing creates a necessity for), then you are just not that bright. That....and only that......was the point I wanted to make the entire time.

More satanic "economic" reasons, "Well, inn my opinion"s, for your supporting the slaughter of "little ones," eh Christ rejector?Your great, great grand daddy was a southern black despiser, eh?

Now come on, old timer. Put this young whipper snapper in his place :chuckle:

That's your best shot?Feeling like I am gipping you out of your blow bops, eh teenie bob? Release yourself...free yourself....have another tantrum, Opie......let go....

Take your seat.

 

[john w]

I'm not against pro-life, I'm against the fanatical lobby it has become. Instead of compassion and realistic answers to the abortion issue, you've all resorted to libel and judgements of murder. Fundamentally, you've all gone the same exact route as these liberals who have virtually become fascist.

More emotional grunts, snorts, secular humanism, stock cliches, talk show musings.

And you see what became of that- their calling everything bigoted, racist, and so on is no longer works- it is a broken record. What do you expect to gain from doing the same?

Another "accusation of hate" spam. Such brilliance.

The fact is,...

Another assert, pound the table, declare victory, return to "Facts are facts/It is obvious that.." echo chamber.

abortion being 'murder' is an invention of the 15th century, and it didn't gain much speed because the Reformation came along and pretty much sacked the influence of such declarations by the popes. It was then left largely alone until this current era of pro-lifers.

Another flat earth supporter is exposed-the idea of a flat earth is a recent invention.


Your great, great, great....grand daddy Pharaoh, to Moses:

This LORD God of yours, Moses, is an invention, as it is recent.Therefore, there is no LORD God, the "I Am," as you say.



No, Roman Catholic shill, it is quite irrelevant when objective truth is discovered, or whether you believe it, or not, or whether you understand it.


You take your seat, also.

So really, not only is what you're doing in vain, but it doesn't even really sit on much legitimacy. Abortion, prior to Pope Sixtus V, was seen as a mortal sin, but never seen as actually departing a living soul from it's vessel.

No such thing as a "pope," or "mortal" sin, Catholic drone.


Get saved.