Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

[vz71]

The question however is how to change the culture. Surely you are not promoting civil war as the solution?

I do not recall the civil Rights legislation causing a civil war.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

The question about when diagnosis was made was plain and not answered. Then you deflected.

Utterly unsound argument.

With a million babies that may have a million deformities, the diagnosis can be made in a variety of time frames.

Some no diagnosis is made until years AFTER they are born.

If you are attempting to use the diagnosis of “deformities” to be complicit in abortion, someone else can use it to kill off a seven year old child newly diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome.

No dvdjs.

It is YOU that is deflecting. Deflecting by flag waving an irrelevant premise, but deflecting it is.

 

[vz71]

I think that that idea is folly. Laws tend to follow culture is a system such as ours.

Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s says otherwise.

 

[dvdjs]

I do not recall the civil Rights legislation causing a civil war.

The point raised that I responded to was: “At one point, slavery was also supported by a vast majority”.

You defend the choice of an abortion so well one may even reasonably conclude you are actually for abortion.

You have me nearly convinced that you are really pro-abortion and simply trolling pro-life individuals for debate exercises.

I have been explicit and clear in my opposition to abortion.
I do not share an interest in the divisive and uncharitable tactics that some would seem to think is the sine qua non of a pro-life position. Who knows, maybe it is all just a disguise for a political posture.

I am sad that you would take disagreement on tactics and leap to suggested accusations against me personally; that rhetoric is seriously offensive.

 

[Cathoholic]

vz71 . . .

How can one expect to change anyone if you are unwilling to take a stand?

You claim to be pro life.
But all I have seen is a very skilled verbal gymnastics performance to avoid actually saying anything against abortion.

It is always reasonable to clarify.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

If there is other, do you not see how the inflamed rhetoric invites the ignore button andhinders progress?

Whose “inflamed rhetoric”?

Do you mean Planned Parenthood?

How about Northam? Do you mean Ralph?

Maybe Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “inflamed rhetoric”?

 

[vz71]

I am sad that you would take disagreement on tactics and leap to suggested accusations against me personally; that rhetoric is seriously offensive.

My apologies.
If there is some such point in which you are not defending a pro abortion stance or pulling apart a pro life argument that I am unaware of, please clarify that for me.

I would hate to misjudge someone, but all I have to go with is what I see in this thread.

 

[dvdjs]

My apologies.

Thank you.

 

[vz71]

Thank you.

So where are they?

 

[dvdjs]

So where are they?

1. Do you understand the concept of charitable posting?
2. The manner of thinking in your post is not unfamiliar to be, but is, nonetheless, baffling.
   I my agree with someone an an essential point, but I may disagree with that persons logic, their plan, their rhetoric. All sorts of things. And the more important the point, the more important it is to discuss these matters of disagreement. The implicit notions that, in order to avoid suspicion of disagreement on the essential point, there must manifestation of agreement on these other matters is absurd. And,you might consider that it seems like a bully tactic.
   I will ignore what I perceive as bullying.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

So no elaboration on what you think should be done to outlaw abortion. Interesting.

 

[vz71]

The manner of thinking in your post is not unfamiliar to be, but is, nonetheless, baffling.

I am baffled as well.
What exactly is your position?

 

[dvdjs]

So no elaboration on what you think should be done to outlaw abortion.

I have stated before that i don’t have a plan - and welcome a discussion on that - but broadly see the task as healing the culture. Then the rest will be easy. Plans that aim to “outlaw abortion” without healing the culture are, IMO likely to fail and to make the task harder.

Interesting.

No doubt.

What exactly is your position?

That the forum rules on posting be honored.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

He will never say. Because, you know, reasons. How dare you ask.

 

[dvdjs]

He will never say. Because, you know, reasons. How dare you ask.

It would be good t post on the topic, Rather than post about me. I am not the topic.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

That the forum rules on posting be honored.

Asking people to clarify their positions is “dishonoring” forum rules??

When you were asking me over and over about me allegedly not answering your question about “when” a diagnosis of a baby’s “deformity” was made, I guess I never thought to attempt to think you were dishonoring forum rules here dvdjs.

And I showed why the question itself was impossible to answer (because “deformities” can be diagnosed at anytime, including years AFTER a baby is born. See my answer here for those that are interested but might not have seen it yet.)

dvdjs to me earlier . . .

The question about when diagnosis was made was plain and not answered. Then you deflected.

Yeah dvdjs. You made it “plain”. And your point was made and remade by you.

And it was and is impossible to answer.

But your repeating it over and over is mere logical tautology.

 

[vz71]

That the forum rules on posting be honored.

Forum rules do not preclude the question.
But it truly baffles me that there is no answer forthcoming.

You stand against laws against abortion.
Generally speaking, that is the position of one in support of abortion.
But you also claim to be pro life.

So I see words from you that support both positions…and am left wondering.

 

[dvdjs]

Asking people to clarify their positions is “dishonoring” forum rules??

Suggesting that people hold a position that that clearly stated that they do not hold, and imposing an arbitrary standard on what they must to to avoid judgement goes beyond asking for a clarification. Clearly.

When you were asking me over and over …

Sorry. You made an accusation that I was deflecting and issuing irrelevancies. But the point I raised was actually about late-term abortions, as you might have realized had you genuinely considered the question that I raised.

Something I did not do, was to make suggestions about what you think or how your think, in particular on issues of moral gravity, and further imply that the absence of an answer would be considered as evidence against you.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

You made an accusation that I was deflecting issuing irrelevancies.

No. You brought the discussion away from the thread topic and I pointed that out.

Then you made the accusation that I was deflecting. Admittedly that was later in words, but sooner in implication.

The question about when diagnosis was made was plain and not answered. Then you deflected.

That in and of itself was a “deflection” from the real discussion too, and I correctly brought it to light too.

Look. If you don’t want to try to make clear these things you go right ahead and think how ever you want to think.

Unless you have some groundbreaking dimension to me to this issue, I am pretty much done with regard to your arguments here.

Whatever those points you have attempted to make here are, they have not been persuasive. At least to me.

Edited.

 

[dvdjs]

No. You made the accusation that I was deflecting.

This is deflecting away from third trimester abortions

That is the remark that I responded with the question that, had you genuinely aswered tit, would have helped you to realize that I was not “deflecting away from third trimester abortions”.