We are RE-pricing the old adage - Conservatives question the judgement of liberals, but liberals question the character of conservatives.

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

There could be common ground in the abortion debate but people like you refuse to occupy it. That's fine. Other folks are finding it and that's why abortion rates have come down.

---

Way back on the first page, looking for common ground.

Still here. But you'll have to find common ground with me, no infanticide or baby-killing remarks.

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

quash said:

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Wrong.

I offered a definition, you never responded. I never said anything about "fluid", I pointed out there was not set legal definition of "fetus" as your posts appeared to suggest and also that "fetus" and "baby" baby are often used interchangeably.

You didn't like how I offered to define a term, and then stopped responding and failed to offer an alternative or your objections to the one I offered. Hard to have a discussion, fruitful or otherwise, when one party wont engage.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Does this moral position of pro life serve to benefit a person or does it hurt them?

---

What moron debates whether or not executing an innocent child and protecting a woman from regret, quack butchery, possible death from said butcher, post partem guilt, statistical heightened suicidal thoughts, future miscarriages, and heighten cervical cancer risk is out to hurt them?

You're the one advocating risking all of the above to satisfy politicizing ignorant fear in a desperate woman or expedience from the responsibility of one's own actions.

---

It was a question. But thanks for name calling.
Does a woman experience only the negative from abortion?

quash said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

There could be common ground in the abortion debate but people like you refuse to occupy it. That's fine. Other folks are finding it and that's why abortion rates have come down.

---

Way back on the first page, looking for common ground.

Still here. But you'll have to find common ground with me, no infanticide or baby-killing remarks.

---

Abortion kills a human. That's not debatable.

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Wrong.

I offered a definition, you never responded. I never said anything about "fluid", I pointed out there was not set legal definition of "fetus" as your posts appeared to suggest and also that "fetus" and "baby" baby are often used interchangeably.

You didn't like how I offered to define a term, and then stopped responding and failed to offer an alternative or your objections to the one I offered. Hard to have a discussion, fruitful or otherwise, when one party wont engage.

---

Exactly.

tommie said:

---

But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

---

Exactly, but that is what this board is. You see everyday on here loud professing Christians be downright cruel to each other on here, but that is social media and a keyboard for ya.

The question is "ridiculous" because of the potential for an answer he/this board doesn't want to hear. I haven't mentioned this in the past, mainly b/c it is not about me, but I have had the opportunity hear about DT before he was running for president/politics on a personal level. A close family member is the 2nd wife (trophy wife) to a very wealthy NY businessman. Those "elites" do alot of the same functions, and she has been hit on by him many times while he was married. Socially (even though she doesn't like most of them), all those elite ladies talk/gossip/hang out and know the story behind stories. Without delving too much into what I have heard 1st hand from her, I would "bet" he has funded an abortion. I will leave it at that.

That is not to say that should change one's perception of abortion. One of the biggest "anti-abortion" people in the country is a family friend here locally, and she has had 3 abortions. I just find the mental gymnastics some do funny when it comes to Trump as their savior.

Contrario is right, we may look back on abortion centuries later negatively. Same could be said for capitalism (remember when we celebrated wealth disparity?!?), environment (remember when we thought we had no impact on the environment like the oil companies told us?!?) and other key tenets important to our party. That exercise is subjective and is just for "amen" blue star attention.

Personally, I would prefer people not have abortions and it be very difficult to get one. I feel totally outlawing will go much the same way prohibition/war on drugs has gone. Great in theory, terrible in practice.

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

Slave owners had different names for black people too. That doesn't mean people of the time didn't recognize the disgusting practice and didn't debate the issues. The only ones that grasped on to the antiquated definitions were the slave owners. 100 years from now, people that differentiated between abortion and infanticide will be held in the same light as those that defended slavery. You are on the wrong side of history.

---

Or not. You don't get to decide.

---

I never said I made the decision. History will not look fondly upon people that were involved in mass genocide. Anytime human rights have been trampled on, history has gotten it right. And abortion, the destruction of life and the ultimate destruction of human rights, will be viewed in the same light as slavery, the Holocaust and every other major human rights atrocities. And for those events, there were weak-minded people with limited morals that defended those practices and the lens of time has viewed them negatively. You and your buddies that defended this barbaric practice will be viewed in the same light as Hitler, slave owners, et al.

Prairie_Bear said:

---

tommie said:

---

But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

---

Exactly, but that is what this board is. You see everyday on here loud professing Christians be downright cruel to each other on here, but that is social media and a keyboard for ya.

The question is "ridiculous" because of the potential for an answer he/this board doesn't want to hear. I haven't mentioned this in the past, mainly b/c it is not about me, but I have had the opportunity hear about DT before he was running for president/politics on a personal level. A close family member is the 2nd wife (trophy wife) to a very wealthy NY businessman. Those "elites" do alot of the same functions, and she has been hit on by him many times while he was married. Socially (even though she doesn't like most of them), all those elite ladies talk/gossip/hang out and know the story behind stories. Without delving too much into what I have heard 1st hand from her, I would "bet" he has funded an abortion. I will leave it at that.

That is not to say that should change one's perception of abortion. One of the biggest "anti-abortion" people in the country is a family friend here locally, and she has had 3 abortions. I just find the mental gymnastics some do funny when it comes to Trump as their savior.

Contrario is right, we may look back on abortion centuries later negatively. Same could be said for capitalism (remember when we celebrated wealth disparity?!?), environment (remember when we thought we had no impact on the environment like the oil companies told us?!?) and other key tenets important to our party. That exercise is subjective and is just for "amen" blue star attention.

Personally, I would prefer people not have abortions and it be very difficult to get one. I feel totally outlawing will go much the same way prohibition/war on drugs has gone. Great in theory, terrible in practice.

---

While I respect your thoughtful response, it is a bit of a stretch to compare capitalism, or the right of people to keep money they make and do with it what they wish, with the intentional termination of a human life. And while I can see the parallels you are trying to draw, it takes a practice of cognitive distance to make that leap.

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Wrong.

I offered a definition, you never responded. I never said anything about "fluid", I pointed out there was not set legal definition of "fetus" as your posts appeared to suggest and also that "fetus" and "baby" baby are often used interchangeably.

You didn't like how I offered to define a term, and then stopped responding and failed to offer an alternative or your objections to the one I offered. Hard to have a discussion, fruitful or otherwise, when one party wont engage.

---

Exactly.

---

Sooooo... define the terms the way you want or **** off? Seems like the basis for very fruitful discussion.

Well "f*** off" is not a safe place to begin dialogue.

Waco1947 said:

---

Well "f*** off" is not a safe place to begin dialogue.

---

Do you understand context at all? I know tone is difficult over a text based platform, but come on. Not at all a place I ever indicated dialogue had to start from, rather the apparent feeling of Mr. quash who refused repeatedly to engage with the discussion angle he began.

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

So not a single liberal is going to come forth and own up to liberalism's betrayal of its historical pro-life ethic?

To date, all it's been is deflecting to attack conservatives and partisan Republicans instead of asking why this isn't a bi-partisan issue.

---

I tried the common ground route. You stood on your side and hurled insults and lies.

Still here if anybody wants to discuss the issue rationally.

---

No you dug a hole then got exposed.

Don't play victim when you came here to play one after being an ass.

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Does this moral position of pro life serve to benefit a person or does it hurt them?

---

What moron debates whether or not executing an innocent child and protecting a woman from regret, quack butchery, possible death from said butcher, post partem guilt, statistical heightened suicidal thoughts, future miscarriages, and heighten cervical cancer risk is out to hurt them?

You're the one advocating risking all of the above to satisfy politicizing ignorant fear in a desperate woman or expedience from the responsibility of one's own actions.

---

It was a question. But thanks for name calling.
Does a woman experience only the negative from abortion?

---

Calling you what you are offended you then so be it.

You're a genocidal imbecile if you think there's anything positive about killing innocent people.

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

So not a single liberal is going to come forth and own up to liberalism's betrayal of its historical pro-life ethic?

To date, all it's been is deflecting to attack conservatives and partisan Republicans instead of asking why this isn't a bi-partisan issue.

---

I tried the common ground route. You stood on your side and hurled insults and lies.

Still here if anybody wants to discuss the issue rationally.

---

No you dug a hole then got exposed.

Don't play victim when you came here to play one after being an ass.

---

I'm no victim. Just trying to discuss abortion while being called a murderer, etc . Those accusations don't make me a victim but they make dialogue difficult. As does your being stuck on one note.

I'll watch this thread another day or two in case a real discussion breaks out.

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

So not a single liberal is going to come forth and own up to liberalism's betrayal of its historical pro-life ethic?

To date, all it's been is deflecting to attack conservatives and partisan Republicans instead of asking why this isn't a bi-partisan issue.

---

I tried the common ground route. You stood on your side and hurled insults and lies.

Still here if anybody wants to discuss the issue rationally.

---

No you dug a hole then got exposed.

Don't play victim when you came here to play one after being an ass.

---

I'm no victim. Just trying to discuss abortion while being called a murderer, etc . Those accusations don't make me a victim but they make dialogue difficult. As does your being stuck on one note.

I'll watch this thread another day or two in case a real discussion breaks out.

---

No, you came here to be a partisan asshat and then pivoted when exposed. You very much are trying to pretend you've been victimized for being dismissed for the hack you came here to be.

By your asinine logic, Ted Bundy should get to discuss his strangulation of women without being called a murderer.

And you haven't even attempted to address why you ignore the pro-life ethic that embodied historical liberalism, you sidestep it to be a partisan tool instead.

In the interest of the elusive 'civil discussion', here are my thoughts on Abortion.

First, I am a husband and a father, which does not make me qualified to tell anyone else what to do, but it does contribute to a valid perspective and adds to a lifetime of experience. I am not a 'hater' just for believing that life is precious, and human life more than other animal life, so much so that the deliberate taking of innocent life must be seriously contemplated in every case before the act.

I am sympathetic to women who have abortions, and not only those who are victims of rape, incest or other sex crimes. I believe that many women who choose to have an abortion do so in a time when they are highly stressed and conflicted, and they find it difficult to learn vital facts about abortion and its common after-effects. Consequently, I would suggest the following reforms are reasonable and necessary:

* A doctor with trauma experience needs to be present at all abortion procedures, through the recovery time after the procedure when many patients suffer catastrophic events such as hemorrhage and stroke;

* Protesters must remain at least 200 feet from any entrance to a facility where abortions are performed;

* No abortion may take place without prior evidence of a good-faith effort by the clinic to contact the father of the fetus, except in documented criminal cases. Simply claiming he was not interested or available is insufficient;

* Just as individuals who conscientiously object to military service are exempt, no individual in medicine or pharmacy work may be compelled to take part in or assist - in any way - with an abortion if their personal ethics or religious beliefs prohibit such actions.



Your thoughts?

Oldbear83 said:

---

In the interest of the elusive 'civil discussion', here are my thoughts on Abortion.

First, I am a husband and a father, which does not make me qualified to tell anyone else what to do, but it does contribute to a valid perspective and adds to a lifetime of experience. I am not a 'hater' just for believing that life is precious, and human life more than other animal life, so much so that the deliberate taking of innocent life must be seriously contemplated in every case before the act.

I am sympathetic to women who have abortions, and not only those who are victims of rape, incest or other sex crimes. I believe that many women who choose to have an abortion do so in a time when they are highly stressed and conflicted, and they find it difficult to learn vital facts about abortion and its common after-effects. Consequently, I would suggest the following reforms are reasonable and necessary:

* A doctor with trauma experience needs to be present at all abortion procedures, through the recovery time after the procedure when many patients suffer catastrophic events such as hemorrhage and stroke;

* Protesters must remain at least 200 feet from any entrance to a facility where abortions are performed;

* No abortion may take place without prior evidence of a good-faith effort by the clinic to contact the father of the fetus, except in documented criminal cases. Simply claiming he was not interested or available is insufficient;

* Just as individuals who conscientiously object to military service are exempt, no individual in medicine or pharmacy work may be compelled to take part in or assist - in any way - with an abortion if their personal ethics or religious beliefs prohibit such actions.



Your thoughts?

---

Several of your tenants were "filibustered" by Wendy Davis in 2013.

The legislation required clinics to have ambulatory access for women in case of trauma and blood hemorrhaging.

The abortion lobby hated this because it cut into profits and allowed the free market to box a number of clinics out of business because hospitals didn't want to freely associate with abortion mills.

Secondly, it required women to counsel with a medical professional about their options for a 24 hour period prior to an abortion as well as have a sonogram, so you couldn't just walk in off the street on a whim and do it as if it were an outpatient procedure.

But this again threatened bottom line for abortion mills and risked educating women about other options or giving them cold feet when confronted by evidence of a child in their womb.

The third major thing the legislation did was restrict abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, the timeline we know by scientific fact is the absolute latest an abortion can be performed before a child feels the pain of being killed.

And new evidence is always forthcoming that may lower that number in time.

So any semblance of mitigation and compromise has never been in the interests of the abortion lobby, it isn't about women, it's about profit and expedience for the political hacks that peddle this all in the name of women's rights.

The used to say "safe, rare, and legal" they never qualified safe for whom, and now they don't even pretend its rare or qualify why it should be rare, they just want it legal on demand without question.

Any actual efforts to try and make abortion "safe" for women have been met with blind fury.

And actual efforts to make it rare have been met with charges of misogyny.

When Planned Parenthood performs 321,848 abortions in a fiscal year while claiming they did 3,889 adoption referrals, they make it pretty clear who butters their biscuit.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

---

Several of your tenants were "filibustered" by Wendy Davis in 2013.

---

I'm not a landlord, I don't have 'tenants'. Did you mean tenets?

Oldbear83 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Several of your tenants were "filibustered" by Wendy Davis in 2013.

---

I'm not a landlord, I don't have 'tenants'. Did you mean tenets?

---

Ha, autocorrect. Yes, tenets.

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In the interest of the elusive 'civil discussion', here are my thoughts on Abortion.

First, I am a husband and a father, which does not make me qualified to tell anyone else what to do, but it does contribute to a valid perspective and adds to a lifetime of experience. I am not a 'hater' just for believing that life is precious, and human life more than other animal life, so much so that the deliberate taking of innocent life must be seriously contemplated in every case before the act.

I am sympathetic to women who have abortions, and not only those who are victims of rape, incest or other sex crimes. I believe that many women who choose to have an abortion do so in a time when they are highly stressed and conflicted, and they find it difficult to learn vital facts about abortion and its common after-effects. Consequently, I would suggest the following reforms are reasonable and necessary:

* A doctor with trauma experience needs to be present at all abortion procedures, through the recovery time after the procedure when many patients suffer catastrophic events such as hemorrhage and stroke;

* Protesters must remain at least 200 feet from any entrance to a facility where abortions are performed;

* No abortion may take place without prior evidence of a good-faith effort by the clinic to contact the father of the fetus, except in documented criminal cases. Simply claiming he was not interested or available is insufficient;

* Just as individuals who conscientiously object to military service are exempt, no individual in medicine or pharmacy work may be compelled to take part in or assist - in any way - with an abortion if their personal ethics or religious beliefs prohibit such actions.



Your thoughts?

---

. I have my disagreements but oldbear this is thoughtful and thought provoking. Thank you.

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

---

. On target but I would leave out the snideness but I am the wrong one to judge. What we do to these kids saddens me. We yank the safety net out from under them from conception to birth and that doubles down on the mother

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

---

Three of the "middle class so-called Christian evangelicals" in my son's class at school have children in their homes, not their biological children, who have physical and/or emotional problems. A family member of mine, also a "so called Christian evangelical" sought to foster and adopt a young woman with pretty serious emotional problems. It did not work out because the state decided she was not able to adapt to being in a home environment. How many more examples do you want?

Back to the issue of abortion, where do you get off complaining even if those "so called evangelical Christians" didn't want those kids? If those "so called evangelical Christians" advocated KILLING the abused and neglected kids you have worked with through the court system, they would be no different from what you advocate for the unborn, who differ from those kids in their size and location, but not in any meaningful way.

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

---

You apparently don't do irony and think no one can read what you've written already.

You're an infanticide peddling partisan hack, why you chose to be one on a thread that celebrated the pro-life past of liberalism is anyone's guess.

Ignorance would be a generous description, in your case it appears to be callous stupidity.

Waco1947 said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

Well, I will grant you that Milli & Forest are quite a pair at name calling-bet they claim to be evangelical Christians. Also, very judgmental. But that's their problem. I have worked with abused & neglected children through the court system for 40 plus years and no, middle class so-called Christian evangelicals do not want children with physical or emotional problems. So you just keep on spouting your non factual horse bananas. Many of these unwanted children end up in the State's penal system. But keep on drinking the koolaid served up by your leader trump---

---

. On target but I would leave out the snideness but I am the wrong one to judge. What we do to these kids saddens me. We yank the safety net out from under them from conception to birth and that doubles down on the mother

---

It's not the butchering that saddens you, it's that you think they should be wards of the state from cradle to grave, so why not make them one in the same it appears.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

Eball said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.


Hoover. Hoover. Two more Trump babies gone.

---

It's so bad for the evangelicals that they hitched themselves onto Trump.
I feel sorry for them.
The Democrats just remind people they are going to stay out of their way.
When evangelical dudes are sitting around at Christmas talking about blowing up clinics, it doesn't take much to figure they have been brain washed into think it is the most important political issue.

---

Funny how people that mock evangelicals in every possible situation seem to care that they eventually took a page from the Democrats and voted for the person closest to their beliefs instead of waiting for a person exactly like their beliefs.

I wonder where they figured that out from?

---

I m not mocking them when I make fun of them for sitting around and having an actual conversation about blowing up a clinic at Christmas. A Christian like myself doesn't need the evangelical types who cry like an oppressed victim when things do not go their way in society.

They didn't have the balls to blow the clinic up. The brainwashing could not overcome putting it all on the line with nothing to gain deep down in their fearful souls.

---

You are just one weird dude aren't you? I thought maybe you were just a sports troll who liked to be noticed...but you are just one strange individual.

---

That's okay coming from you. You are one out of touch freak. It's easy for Art Briles and the fomer regime to sell their greatness to you while the rest of the country sees him in action and knows that bumpkin is not to be allowed near their stadiums (they don't want him at Auburn but will take his pawned players).
I have actually had the above experience. I would be afraid if they actually had a plan to blow a clinic because they'd likely blown themselves up and half a neighborhood. They weren't killers, just bad examples of Christians who pollute God's word.

Yes the abortions sadden me but it is none of my business.

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

LAgain, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

So you define a fetus as a human. That's common ground. Here's some additional common ground for you to consider: humans have rights.

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

Again, words have meaning and we have separate words for abortion and infanticide. But you're more interested in ideological posturing than in helping solve the problem.

---

You use semantic to feel good about infanticide, we get it, you're a hack that tries to silence whatever conscience you have left by asininely parsing words in hopes that will deflect from reality.

---

If it makes you feel better you can believe that. Won't make it true.

But seriously, why so averse to engaging in dialogue that seeks a solution?

---

You're the hack that came on a thread civilly discussing the tradition you willfully ignore and betray with partisan stupidity and now want to play a victim for being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

If there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion then there's no need to compromise, period.

You didn't come here to be a solution seeker, that's a pivot from showing your ass, and you're too clueless to realize your indefensible position exposes itself by asking for a solution, because if your position were true then there would be nothing to talk about, but you know better despite your posturing.

You're comfortable with an immoral position, it just irks you that reality has to be bent to keep you insulated with that choice.

---

I tried several times to move the discussion forward. You can't see anything but your side, and that is why many Americans oppose your position. Try common ground instead of hate for the post-born.

---

You refused to engage in the discussion as presented in the OP and then stopped responding to me at all with regard to the definition you were so caught up on. I could be persuaded you tried to move the discussion, but "forward" is a relative term, and based on your inability to move beyond a rather inconsequential gating issue, I do not think you entered the discussion in good faith.

---

I wanted to define terms, you wanted definitions to be fluid. Discussions, fruitful ones, don't work that way.

---

Since we are talking about humans, what definition of fetus do you have that allows a fetus to be something other than an unborn human offspring?

---

Nothing. That was never my point.

---

Sadly, you never had a point. You came to a thread about the historical pro-life position of liberalism and laid repeated turds not remotely on topic.

---

^^^ And dat wha da dimcrat do!!!