It's All Our Fault

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

Come on, Richard, this is beneath you.

Actually, it is par for the course.
vern humphrey:

You said they don’t approve killing in utero. I showed that there IS at least one form of abortion which involves not only killing in utero but dismembering the child as well.

How many forms of abortion are there that don’t kill in utero?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

How many forms of abortion are there that don’t kill in utero?

– Mark L. Chance.

There are some in which the child is flushed out alive. In fact, there is a federal law requiring the attending medical personnel to make every effort to save such a child, and not just toss it in the trash. The President has ordered that law enforced – and you can hear the howls of the usual suspects in response.

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

There are some in which the child is flushed out alive. In fact, there is a federal law requiring the attending medical personnel to make every effort to save such a child, and not just toss it in the trash.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that particular horror.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Wolseley]

Richardols:

Oh, I see. It’s balderdash for a liberal like myself to take offense at the notion of incinerating millions of innocents in pursuit of a few thousand terrorists.

No, it’s balderdash for a liberal to say that he respects everyone’s viewpoints when if one of those viewpoints is the incineration of millions of innocents, that viewpoint is not respected but immediately and summarily rejected.

A more honest evaluation would be for the liberal to say he agrees with everyone’s viewpoints, unless he finds the specific viewpoints in question to be personally distasteful.

I didn’t realize that conservatives have no respect for the viewpoints of others.

Only the ones we find to be economically unworkable, unrealistically utopian, unintelligently partisan, or just plain downright silly.

No, I take that back. I already know that you folks don’t respect cultural diversity, tolerance and respect for others.

Guilty as charged, in quite a few cases. Ever hear of the term “Balkanization”? Take “cultural diversity” to it’s logical conclusion, and you get “Balkanization”.

“Multiculturalism” is a big word which, as a concept, can be disproved by another big word: “Yugoslavia”.

I do, however, appreciate that you personally are honest enough to admit it.

You’re quite welcome.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Come on, Richard, this is beneath you.

You said they don’t approve killing in utero. I showed that there IS at least one form of abortion which involves not only killing in utero but dismembering the child as well.

The proper response to his comment would be “I didn’t know the facts. I stand corrected.”

I understand your point, Vern, but I refuse to use the emotional language Chance used. The Democratic Party, organizationally, supports the right to abortion. I never denied that. But, when these folks drag in “baby killing,” “child killing,” “murder,” "infanticide, " etc. they are projecting their emotional terminology on the subject. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is a fact that the Democratic Party does NOT support “baby murder” or “child killing.”

I am well aware of what abortion involves. I and primarily my wife put in long hours at an alternatives-to-abortion clinic in Little Rock. After enough years, she was burnt out.

But, back on track - As a politician, you know, as I do as an attorney, that terms have to be used carefully, not thrown about to satisfy someone’s self-righteous and, too often, smug feelings.

This will be especially necessary when Roe v Wade is overturned. With the matter up to the states, pro-lifers have to be careful in characterizing abortion because we then have to persuade the electorate so that they vote our way. No railing at “activist judges.” If a state goes pro-abortion, it’s because of the will of the people, and who are the pro-lifers to shout their slogans at?

I wince when I hear both sides screaming at each other “Baby Murderers,” “Fetus People,” etc. That makes some on each side feel good, but may well make the undecided think that both sides are crazy and “a pox on both houses.”

If someone wants to accuse me of saying something, it had better be what I said, not “sounds like” what I said or words they’d like to put in my mouth.

 

[Richardols]

Wolseley:

No, it’s balderdash for a liberal to say that he respects everyone’s viewpoints when if one of those viewpoints is the incineration of millions of innocents, that viewpoint is not respected but immediately and summarily rejected.

Rejection of the incineration of millions of innocents ought to be something all would reject, not something to be rejected depending on one’s politics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

But, back on track - As a politician, you know, as I do as an attorney, that terms have to be used carefully, not thrown about to satisfy someone’s self-righteous and, too often, smug feelings.

Which is why I say name-calling and accusing people of beintg “emotional” when they offer rational arguments is beneath you.

Richardols:

This will be especially necessary when Roe v Wade is overturned. With the matter up to the states, pro-lifers have to be careful in characterizing abortion because we then have to persuade the electorate so that they vote our way. No railing at “activist judges.” If a state goes pro-abortion, it’s because of the will of the people, and who are the pro-lifers to shout their slogans at?

It is not “emotionalism” to differ with someone on the political tactics and their effect.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Which is why I say name-calling and accusing people of beintg “emotional” when they offer rational arguments is beneath you.

To me, the term “murdering the unborn,” “baby-killing,” and the like are emotional terms and I saw no rational arguments, only attempts to use loaded terms. Maybe “loaded” is what I should have said instead of “emotional.”

It is not “emotionalism” to differ with someone on the political tactics and their effect.

We weren’t discussing political tactics. The Democrats favor unrestricted access to abortion. They have never said that they are in favor of “baby killing” or “killing children.” That’s all.

Newspaper reporters know that they have to get their quotations right. Yeah, I know. Our posters aren’t newspaper reporters.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

To me, the term “murdering the unborn,” “baby-killing,” and the like are emotional terms and I saw no rational arguments, only attempts to use loaded terms. Maybe “loaded” is what I should have said instead of “emotional.”

Surely if the children in question were toddlers and were being killed at the rate of over a million a year, you would not consider those terms to be loaded or emotional.

Richardols:

We weren’t discussing political tactics. The Democrats favor unrestricted access to abortion. They have never said that they are in favor of “baby killing” or “killing children.” That’s all.

This sure looks like a discussion of political tactics to me.

This will be especially necessary when Roe v Wade is overturned. With the matter up to the states, pro-lifers have to be careful in characterizing abortion because we then have to persuade the electorate so that they vote our way. No railing at “activist judges.” If a state goes pro-abortion, it’s because of the will of the people, and who are the pro-lifers to shout their slogans at?

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Surely if the children in question were toddlers and were being killed at the rate of over a million a year, you would not consider those terms to be loaded or emotional.

There’d be no need to be emotional. Who could possibly tolerate the deliberate deaths of so many toddlers?

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

This sure looks like a discussion of political tactics to me.

A one-sided discussion, Vern. Not one of the other posters engaged me about the tactics for a post-Roe America.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

There’d be no need to be emotional. Who could possibly tolerate the deliberate deaths of so many toddlers?

And yet we say using those terms about the deaths of those SAME children, scant months before they become toddlers is “emotional” or “loaded.”

Which implies that the unborm are NOT as human as those who have successfully passed through the birth canal.

Now, as Catholics, we accept that they ARE just as human, just as precious. So why the brouhaha about using terms that you admit would be justified if they were killed a few months later?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

A one-sided discussion, Vern. Not one of the other posters engaged me about the tactics for a post-Roe America.

When you accuse people of being “emotional” that tends to dampen any discussion about tactics.

If you want a rational discussion, you must set and uphold the tone.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Thanks for the story Gilliam. Unfortunately, I believe that terrorism will only end when mankind ends our time on this earth.

What is being done now is the act of evil. Pure, unadulterated evil. It is perpetrated by those who force their beliefs upon others. I feel this is the goal of Islam in general and fundamentalists in force.

If moderate Muslims did not agree with the actions of this group they claim “highjacked” their religion, it would be over by now. Much like Christianity stomped out the KKK in the US when they claimed to be doing God’s work.

No, Islam’s goal from 610AD was to rule the world.

Maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the evil one at work?

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Now, as Catholics, we accept that they ARE just as human, just as precious.

Absolutely. Even under the loosest definition, one can’t deny that a two-and-a half to three-week fetus is already a human person.

So why the brouhaha about using terms that you admit would be justified if they were killed a few months later?

I was responding to what the posters claimed that Democratic Party declaredly supports.

It’s much better to quote what was actually said, not to accuse people of what fits one’s agenda.

 

[CatholicNewby]

Richardols:

A man waving a roll of money in public in a dangerous part of a town and a woman wearing extremely immodest and provocative clothing didn’t provoke anything? Utter nonsense!

You’re the legal eagle type, but (if I were you) I’d refresh my memory on the legal definition of provocation. Wikipedia had a nice little blurb on it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)

And, if you don’t care to use the legal definition, I would think your argument had even less support. I suppose that blacks were just provoking the KKK members by being in the wrong neighborhood.

Of course the victims that you mentioned are culpable for their own poor choices (immodesty, drunkeness, etc.) but they did not provoke an attack on their person.

 

[gilliam]

iamrefreshed:

No, Islam’s goal from 610AD was to rule the world.

Maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the evil one at work?

What you are seeing is no more Islam at work than Hitler was Christianity at work. What you are really seeing is fascism at work. The difference is that it is being cloaked under the guize of Islam

 

[Richardols]

CatholicNewby:

You’re the legal eagle type, but (if I were you) I’d refresh my memory on the legal definition of provocation.

A drunk waving a wad of cash or a boobsy girl with her blouse open down “to here” and a skirt an inch below her panties are provoking trouble even if they don’t carry a dictionary around with them.

I suppose that blacks were just provoking the KKK members by being in the wrong neighborhood.

No, but a black man who would got to a Klan meeting, curse out the Klansmen, and yell, “catch me if you can, you %&#@ing crackers” could be seen as being provocative.

Of course the victims that you mentioned are culpable for their own poor choices (immodesty, drunkeness, etc.) but they did not provoke an attack on their person.

You say tomatoe, I say tomahto.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Absolutely. Even under the loosest definition, one can’t deny that a two-and-a half to three-week fetus is already a human person.

I was responding to what the posters claimed that Democratic Party declaredly supports.

It’s much better to quote what was actually said, not to accuse people of what fits one’s agenda.

If the party plank simply said:

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because webelieve in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose to kill her children up to the age of 2, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planningand adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Would that not justify using the terms you object to?

Now, given that we both accept that an unborn child is as human and precious as one already born, it makes no difference to us (as Tertullian pointed out) if it is only children in the womb wo are to be killed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

A drunk waving a wad of cash or a boobsy girl with her blouse open down “to here” and a skirt an inch below her panties are provoking trouble even if they don’t carry a dictionary around with them.

Is that the argument you would make if you were the defense council?