Thanks Bob

[Lighthouse]

NO no no! You and lighthouse specifically told me that trying to save both was the only action you would consider. Are you backing out of that? You either save both or none and you told me that.

Are you honestly that ignorant? Really?

Just because you try to save someone doesn't mean that you will save them. That doesn't mean you don't try.

And by the way, your last sentence in that quote is a flat out lie.

Alan Keyes did say "medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child" are permissible to save the mother's life. You have not denied that and you won't. He delicately and politely said the same thing he did ten years ago, that sacrificing the baby (oops!) to save the mother's life is acceptable.

No. What Keyes said was that medical procedures that result in the accidental death of the child are permissible. In other words, we don't prosecute people for accidental deaths in which they are not directly responsible. If the doctor was clean and sober, and he did everything medically possible to save the mother and the child, and one, or both, of them still dies, that is no one's fault, and it is permissible, because it was not intended.

You two are some of the most ignorant people I have ever come across.

 

[PKevman]

Stephen,

Let's be honest here.

This whole discussion really has nothing at all to do with the "Evil" government. That is evidenced by the fact that you repeatedly gloss over my stipulation that the government is evil.

This is about the TYPE of government we have. You could care less if a good and Godly man like Keyes got into office because the TYPE of government is what you are against. You favor your TYPE of government. THAT is why you would support Ron Paul over Alan Keyes. Because you believe Keyes would keep the type of government we have now largely the same, and that Paul would bring in the TYPE of government that you want.

You have never been a big fan of Republicans in the past as I remember it. You were steadfastly against Bush. Ron Paul is the only Republican you would embrace and that is because of his Libertarian background and positions.

So why don't we return this discussion to what it is really about?

And I submit that the Ron Paul, Libertarian TYPE of government is NOT the answer that our country needs right now.

 

[PKevman]

While I wouldn't necessarily call the Stephens ignorant (I've known them too long since they were my neighbors to say that, and they really aren't ignorant else I would tell them that former neighbors or not).

I would, however, say that I cannot fathom how accidentally losing a patient could EVER in ANY LANGUAGE mean deliberately killing a patient.

To me this is definitely an ignorant position to take, and is a big danger when one takes a position that they utterly refuse to let go of.

 

[Granite]

Does anyone really think Keyes would fundamentally change our government as we know it?

 

[PKevman]

Does anyone really think Keyes would fundamentally our government as we know it?

Did you mean to say "Change" our government?

 

[Lighthouse]

Does anyone really think Keyes would fundamentally our government as we know it?

I think you're missing a word.

 

[S†ephen]

Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible.

Lighthouse and Mr. Kevin I pressed both of you asking what should be done when the mothers life is in danger and the baby cannot survive. I asked again and again saying EXCLUDING ABORTION what would we do? should we focus on the mother or baby? And you both said over and over and I quote "try and save them both".

Read the top quote again. Notice where Keys says: except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life

Keys OPENLY states that the death of the child (accidental or otherwise) is permissible if the doctor is focused on saving the mother.

Both of you told me over and over SAVE BOTH SAVE BOTH!!!! But when your favorite candidate says that death is ok when focusing on saving mama you switch your morals.

No he isn't supporting abortion and I know that. But he is focusing on saving the mother over the child and says accidental death would be permissible.

Lighthouse: I expected nothing less from you than to switch your morals at the slightest whim. Shame on you, posting a public apology is the least you can do.

Mr. Kevin: Shame on you. I pressed you over and over and all you said was save both. I even respected that position and left the argument alone. Now when your favorite candidate says he would try and focus on saving the mother allowing the child to possibly die, you up and switch on me.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

 

[PKevman]

Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible.

Lighthouse and Mr. Kevin I pressed both of you asking what should be done when the mothers life is in danger and the baby cannot survive. I asked again and again saying EXCLUDING ABORTION what would we do? should we focus on the mother or baby? And you both said over and over and I quote "try and save them both".

Read the top quote again. Notice where Keys says: except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life

Keys OPENLY states that the death of the child (accidental or otherwise) is permissible if the doctor is focused on saving the mother.

Both of you told me over and over SAVE BOTH SAVE BOTH!!!! But when your favorite candidate says that death is ok when focusing on saving mama you switch your morals.

No he isn't supporting abortion and I know that. But he is focusing on saving the mother over the child and says accidental death would be permissible.

Lighthouse: I expected nothing less from you than to switch your morals at the slightest whim. Shame on you, posting a public apology is the least you can do.

Mr. Kevin: Shame on you. I pressed you over and over and all you said was save both. I even respected that position and left the argument alone. Now when your favorite candidate says he would try and focus on saving the mother allowing the child to possibly die, you up and switch on me.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

:doh: We haven't changed our position in the least. You are ignoring the blatantly obvious that has been pointed out time and again.

ABORTION IS INTENTIONALLY MURDERING A BABY!

Keyes didn't say abortion. It has nothing to do with "My favorite candidate". That is a ridiculous assertion. If you respected the position you wouldn't be trying to insinuate we have changed it. :down:

Unintended means that the doctor DID NOT intend for the baby to die. When you try to save someone and they UNINTENTIONALLY die that is NOT murder! You and your dad can argue about this for the next 50 years and it won't make it so!

 

[PKevman]

I am all for doing whatever it takes to save the life of the mother AND the child excluding abortion or murdering ONE OF THEM!

 

[S†ephen]

:doh: We haven't changed our position in the least. You are ignoring the blatantly obvious that has been pointed out time and again.

ABORTION IS INTENTIONALLY MURDERING A BABY!

Keyes didn't say abortion. It has nothing to do with "My favorite candidate". That is a ridiculous assertion. If you respected the position you wouldn't be trying to insinuate we have changed it. :down:

Unintended means that the doctor DID NOT intend for the baby to die. When you try to save someone and they UNINTENTIONALLY die that is NOT murder! You and your dad can argue about this for the next 50 years and it won't make it so!

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION!!!

I'm talking about the fact that Keys supports saving one person over the other. This is going against everything you told me! You said save both and Keys is making an exception for one who is focused on saving the mother.

 

[Granite]

I am all for doing whatever it takes to save the life of the mother AND the child excluding abortion or murdering ONE OF THEM!

What do you actually do about abortion?

 

[Lighthouse]

Medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are impermissible.

Lighthouse and Mr. Kevin I pressed both of you asking what should be done when the mothers life is in danger and the baby cannot survive. I asked again and again saying EXCLUDING ABORTION what would we do? should we focus on the mother or baby? And you both said over and over and I quote "try and save them both".

Read the top quote again. Notice where Keys says: except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life

Keys OPENLY states that the death of the child (accidental or otherwise) is permissible if the doctor is focused on saving the mother.

Both of you told me over and over SAVE BOTH SAVE BOTH!!!! But when your favorite candidate says that death is ok when focusing on saving mama you switch your morals.

No he isn't supporting abortion and I know that. But he is focusing on saving the mother over the child and says accidental death would be permissible.

Lighthouse: I expected nothing less from you than to switch your morals at the slightest whim. Shame on you, posting a public apology is the least you can do.

Mr. Kevin: Shame on you. I pressed you over and over and all you said was save both. I even respected that position and left the argument alone. Now when your favorite candidate says he would try and focus on saving the mother allowing the child to possibly die, you up and switch on me.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Unintended means accidental, you twit!

 

[PKevman]

Lighthouse: I expected nothing less from you than to switch your morals at the slightest whim. Shame on you, posting a public apology is the least you can do.

Shame on you for misrepresenting my position and that of Lighthouse. We never switched morals or stopped proclaiming the exact same thing throughout this thread. Shame on you for trying to win an argument and being willing to do whatever it takes to not be wrong. This is just silly!

The correct response would have saved pages of ridiculous argument and said, "Oh, ok, Keyes doesn't believe in abortion, GREAT!" But first you argued that Keyes was making pro-abortion statements and you and your dad went on and on about how could we support him. Then when the utter illogical nature of your argument finally sunk in and you realized how silly it was to try to make UNINTENTIONAL circumstances mean the intentional murder of a baby, you then shifted to say "No, no, no this isn't about abortion." And proceeded to argue the other half of Keyes' statements.

Most following who lack the intelligence to see this shift, might believe you were arguing the same thing all along. But those able to think will know that what's happened has been nothing short of good old classical backpedaling.

 

[PKevman]

What do you actually do about abortion?

Root it out! Stamp it out! Use every last bit of influence and pressure that we can to make sure we are heard that it's time for the murder of innocent babies to come to an end!

 

[PKevman]

Mr. Kevin: Shame on you. I pressed you over and over and all you said was save both.

And shame on you with an even greater measure of shame running over because I never for a moment said that attempting to save both wasn't the standard. Your problem is in trying to force something that isn't there.

 

[PKevman]

Stephen,

Let's be honest here.

This whole discussion really has nothing at all to do with the "Evil" government. That is evidenced by the fact that you repeatedly gloss over my stipulation that the government is evil.

This is about the TYPE of government we have. You could care less if a good and Godly man like Keyes got into office because the TYPE of government is what you are against. You favor your TYPE of government. THAT is why you would support Ron Paul over Alan Keyes. Because you believe Keyes would keep the type of government we have now largely the same, and that Paul would bring in the TYPE of government that you want.

You have never been a big fan of Republicans in the past as I remember it. You were steadfastly against Bush. Ron Paul is the only Republican you would embrace and that is because of his Libertarian background and positions.

So why don't we return this discussion to what it is really about?

And I submit that the Ron Paul, Libertarian TYPE of government is NOT the answer that our country needs right now.

I guess I'll re-submit this since it was ignored.

 

[sopwith21]

Are you being intentionally dense or do you NOT understand the difference between intentionally killing someone and someone inadvertently

I understand that they're dead either way and that your unwavering position on saving both lives has changed.

You're starting to get emotional and insulting again and its clear nothing said here will make any difference, so enjoy your morning and have a great Thanksgiving with your family.

 

[sopwith21]

we don't prosecute people for accidental deaths in which they are not directly responsible

Was the baby dying of natural causes or did it die as a direct result of the doctor's efforts to save the mother's life?

 

[S†ephen]

Shame on you for misrepresenting my position and that of Lighthouse. We never switched morals or stopped proclaiming the exact same thing throughout this thread. Shame on you for trying to win an argument and being willing to do whatever it takes to not be wrong. This is just silly!

The only one who has mentioned winning or losing is you.

The correct response would have saved pages of ridiculous argument and said, "Oh, ok, Keyes doesn't believe in abortion, GREAT!" But first you argued that Keyes was making pro-abortion statements

And according to you he was until you researched him a little bit more. And you even admitted it.

Then when the utter illogical nature of your argument finally sunk in and you realized how silly it was to try to make UNINTENTIONAL circumstances mean the intentional murder of a baby

You certainly aren't referring to me here. I never said such a thing. But I did say and it is obvious that Keys favors in some cases saving the mother over the child. You still haven't touched on that.

 

[S†ephen]

And shame on you with an even greater measure of shame running over because I never for a moment said that attempting to save both wasn't the standard. Your problem is in trying to force something that isn't there.

So you do value saving the mother over the child? This of course hurts your abortion argument terribly.