Thanks Bob

Status
Not open for further replies.

PKevman

New member
sopwith21 said:
Congratulations. You've done a thirty second web search and that is an excellent start.

Ba-da-bing, and the hits just keep coming. You have no idea how much time I spent or have invested in this information do you? Really? I know you were exaggerating to try to make a point, but you made a wrong assumption in your exaggeration.

sopwith21 said:
Another suggestion is to find out who did the study and read the study itself instead of a single-sentence synopsis from Google. Then study the manner in which the results were gathered, then the manner in which the US military results are gathered, then the manner in which the US military results are concealed, then study the 30,000 additional US casualties that you were never told about on the news

Wait, wait, wait, where did YOU hear about the additional US casualites that we have never heard about on the news? If you do not give an answer then please stop making claims like this.

sopwith21 said:
Obviously, you just looked this up real quick in an attempt to ridicule the previously posted claims,

There's that wrong premise again, it's getting out of hand. I am attempting to have a reasoned dialogue with my friend. You are attempting to ridicule my responses to the information that YOU THINK is irrefutable and therefore nobody could possibly come to a different conclusion than you already have. Here's a newsflash: That's why they're called opinions! Everybody has one. When you examine a document or a claim, preconceived notions and biases need to be considered as well. That is why SOURCE is so important.

If you aren't willing to reveal the sources you've used to come up with your views and opinions, it makes it difficult for others to verify the validity of those claims!

Maybe you are afraid that those sources can be debunked and have been debunked?

Allow me to illustrate what I'm saying:

Suppose in a discussion I tell you that there is indisputable proof that little 3-foot green men live on Mars.

You grow excited and ask me where is the proof, and I tell you to go and spend the next week researching every scientific journal you can find on Mars and Martian life, and THEN you will come back with the evidence you need to see that there are little 3-foot green ment living on Mars.

See how silly that is when put to the test? Why not reveal your sources, so that we can examine the validity of those claims?

sopwith21 said:
but there's a far greater point here... by doing this, you asked a question.

:doh:

sopwith21 said:
For probably the first time in your life, you questioned the standard propaganda line about casualties in Iraq.

Seriously, this is such a stupid thing to say Stephen. You have no idea what I might or might not have studied as it relates to casualities in Iraq. I see you about 7-10 times per year. I generally avoid discussing politics when we're together for the very reasons that have been fleshed out in this thread. If you really think this, then there is no sense in discussing this with you any further. Better watch those wrong assumptions, they bite you in the tail sometimes.
 

PKevman

New member
Here's the deal, take it or leave it: Abortion is ALWAYS WRONG. There is no excuse for an innocent baby to be brutally murdered. No excuse not ever, no matter what! Anyone who disagrees with that statement is not pro-life.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
PastorKevin said:
You don't do evil so that good may come from it!

Quite true, so your support of the government (current set up) now vs the government set up by our founders is really baffling. You support taking the states out of everything, make everything a federal issue, but yet that system you support gave us Roe v Wade to begin with. We have done it your way since 1865. Time to ditch it and go back seems to me.
 

PKevman

New member
I found an excellent quote from none other than TOL's Turbo on the issue of the life of the mother:

Turbo said:
When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.

Well said Turbo! :up:

CONTEXT
 

PKevman

New member
Quite true, so your support of the government (current set up) now vs the government set up by our founders is really baffling. You support taking the states out of everything, make everything a federal issue, but yet that system you support gave us Roe v Wade to begin with. We have done it your way since 1865. Time to ditch it and go back seems to me.

Our government is wicked! We need to have ONE LAW for every single one of the United States of America. Do not murder. No exceptions.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
My system? What exactly is my system? :)

Yes, your system you are defending. That the Federal Government is the boss. States don't have any rights whatsoever. Tell me I'm wrong please.

Everyone here agrees abortion is murder. And it should be outlawed.

Colorado was the 1st state to legalize the practice. Knowing full well that the case would go to the Supreme Court and be ruled on for the state of Colorado. Legalized without the people of Colorado giving their disapproval. Thank you Federal Government. And this is what you support. The federalization of abortion, and every other stupid thing one can think of.

:)
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Where is the self righteous pro-life rhetoric about saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq? Why are we only pro-life when it comes to white American babies? That shows you how pro-life we really are... we don't even care enough about innocent life to spend a few hours digging and researching to find the truth. If our commitment to truth is that low its no wonder we've had abortion in this country for 35 years.

Now that is pure nonsense about anyone here that I know of taking the position that they wish to save only white babies.

I know people who do take that position and I can tell you for certain that I never seen any statement of this kind made by anyone the is against abortion here on TOL!
 

sopwith21

New member
You make the wild unbelievable claim and YOU have to provide the evidence to support your ridiculous claim!
The German Syndrome
by Patrick K Martin

After the Second World War, when the German people were confronted by the Holocaust, most of them said, "We didn’t know!" Well, they knew about the kristallnacht. They knew about the Ghettos. They knew about Jews, Gypsies, gays, and others who were disappearing. They knew about the trains heading east. They heard the stories and rumors, and the tales of horrible things going on. They had the information, but they didn’t KNOW! Why? Because if they did they would have had to make a choice. They would have had to stand up, to cease their support for the butchers running their country, and they would have had to work to bring down the animals responsible for the barbarity. Otherwise they would have to stand with their government, and bear moral responsibility for what that government did. We humans are good at that, at ignoring what we do not like, at refusing to KNOW rather than facing up to the decisions that knowledge makes necessary. Sometimes it is simply easier not to know.

The urge not to know is by no means confined to Germans. In the twentieth century people all over the world have worked desperately, not to know. The communists in the west have refused to know about the White-sea canal, where it’s said a human death accompanied every meter of earth that was dug. They didn’t know about the millions of Ukrainians starved to death to enforce collective farming. They didn’t know about the purges, the Gulags, the wholesale executions, the displacements of native populations. They didn’t know about the capture of western POW's at the end of the war, or the anti- communists, butchered after the west turned them over to Stalin. They didn’t know about the untold millions of Chinese murdered by the communists over a period of thirty years. Nor the chemical weapons used against the peoples of Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Because if they KNEW, they would not be able to escape the fact that their dreams of socialist utopia were really blood soaked nightmares.

Today we Americans face a crisis of not knowing. Our fellow countrymen refuse to know that their government has its hands soaked in the blood of its citizens. They refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution no longer restrains the men in whose hands we have placed our nations future. They refuse to know the crimes carried out in the name of the People. They refuse to KNOW, because then they would have to do something about it.
I have a friend who is a lawyer. He claims to support the Constitution, and to love the Second Amendment. He says that he is a lawyer in order to protect people’s rights. When I attempt to show him some of what is being done by our government however, he refuses to believe. He asks for chapter and verse of the incident, and if I cannot provide them, he scoffs. If I do, he attacks the source, or claims the evidence is incomplete or open to interpretation. If he can do nothing else, he says that it is just an isolated incident and not representative. I used to wonder how he could be so blind, but now I understand that he has no choice. He cannot accept that what I show him is real because he is a part of the system, if that system is corrupt, if that system is destroying the things he believes in, then he must abandon it, or admit that it is HE who is destroying the rights, and indeed the nation, which he has sworn to protect.

We must learn this lesson, we must learn it well and we must learn it right now. When we point out the errors and crimes of our government to people, we are attacking THEM. It is not the abstract concept of our nation, it is not something called a government, it is that person which we are bashing. When you tell a cop that other cops are killing innocent Americans, you are telling him that HE is a member of the Gestapo, that he is part of a group that murders people. How do we expect them to react? They call them Brother Officers for a reason. When you tell a veteran that his country is running around the world beating up defenseless people, you are telling him that he and those he served with were bullies and thugs, fighting, not to defend freedom and democracy, but simply to impose something on somebody else. Do you expect him to admit to it? Do you expect him to thank you for opening his eyes?

People tend to identify themselves with the things they love, they do not separate themselves because they cannot. Yes, I know that we are trying to bring back the true sprit of America. I know that our attacks are aimed at the vermin infesting our institutions and spilling the blood of our innocent fellow countrymen, but we must realize that others do not see it that way. We must begin to approach our fellow Americans with the understanding that they will defend the status quo, both out of reflex and out of a sense of self-preservation. So much of their ego is wrapped up in the idea of The United States that they cannot separate themselves from it.
Nor can we expect those who are victims, or potential victims, of the system to respond properly. In the words of Rabbi Mermelstein of the J.P.F.O.;
"In Germany, Jews said things like: ‘Hitler is a passing fad,’ ‘Kristallnacht was an isolated occurrence,’ ‘We will be set free from the labor camps and returned to our homes soon.’”

How many people, faced with government charges of violating un-constitutional laws on weapons possession, the environment, drugs, taxation, etc. go eagerly into a courtroom expecting to be vindicated, when they know, that thousands languish in prison for similar acts? What makes people expect that their rights will be upheld, when the rights of so many others have not? What make people think that what happened to Randy Weaver, or the Branch Davidians, will never happen to them? Are they not reacting just like the Jews Rabbi Mermelstein mentioned?
In picture after picture from the Holocaust, we see German soldiers and SS men herding Jews and others with unloaded weapons. Submachine gun bolts forward, rifle firing pins down, pistols secured in full- flap holsters; these people had no fear of those they led to slaughter. They knew that the people they killed had no will to resist, and they were right. Not because the Jews or Gypsies were inferior, but because the victims refused to believe what was happening. In the movie Schindler's List as the women are going to the gas-chambers and bemoaning their fate you hear a voice cry out, "They wouldn't do that to us, would they?" That is the sound of denial, that is the sound of the NRA and Civil libertarians as new restrictions on our rights are imposed, because no matter what violations have occurred before, some will refuse to believe the newest outrage. Because if we admit the truth we must do something about it.

The day the NRA admits that the government plans to deny our rights and kill those who resist, the NRA must call upon its members to act. The day the ACLU admits that the destruction of the Second Amendment heralds the destruction of all rights, they must act to preserve it. The day that the American people admit that the government is out of control, that it murders its citizens and oppresses its people, they must do something about it. They must decide to risk their fancy houses and SUVs, they must risk their lives and the futures of their children, or they must accept the blood of innocents staining their hands, and admit that the gold the government gives them is pried from the mouths of victims just like them.

Sometimes it’s easier not to know.
 

sopwith21

New member
The premise is false. Both can in fact be saved, as has been pointed out already.

Then why bring it up? It was you who first posted about a situation in which both lives could not be saved, and then after a response is given, you claim that no such situation could exist.

The response was given to a situation in which both mother and baby could not survive. If that situation is impossible, then please drop it and don't try to use an impossible situation as part of your argument.

Fair enough?
 

sopwith21

New member
:doh:
This isn't about "Freedom to travel". This is about freedom to travel with the EXPRESS INTENT to MURDER an innocent life!
So in fact you do agree that this bill was about freedom to travel...you're merely debating the reasons why travel might take place.
I'm burnt on this whole whining about "Government Violence" stuff.
I'm sure you are, but you have not denied it and for good reason. Ultimately, every law is backed by lethal force. You will submit or die. Christians should be very careful about using that type of violence against others, or asking a man in a blue uniform to do it for them. Violence is un-Christ like. Its time for Christians to stop using government violence in the name of God.
Wrong. It's to prevent MINORS from traveling to another state to have an abortion! You forgot that little word MINORS, and you exchanged it for "people".
So it does, in fact, refer to people... you're merely debating their age.
Why not support banning it nationally for all 50 of the UNITED STATES!
As you know, Paul does. But why not support banning it worldwide via the United Nations? Are you pro-abortion, country by country?
That's silly. Come up with something better than that to make your point.
Answer the question. If its so silly, it should be easy.
 

PKevman

New member
Then why bring it up? It was you who first posted about a situation in which both lives could not be saved, and then after a response is given, you claim that no such situation could exist.

The response was given to a situation in which both mother and baby could not survive. If that situation is impossible, then please drop it and don't try to use an impossible situation as part of your argument.

Fair enough?

No, you're wrong. I posted the fact that Ron Paul is ok with abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Then we proceeded to go round and round with all kinds of silliness about what would happen if my wife were pregnant and going to die, would we then be ok with abortion, all of which has been answered. It is never ok to murder a baby. That Ron Paul cannot say that indicates SOMETHING about his supposed pro-life record in my opinion. Actually your son was the one who said that both lives cannot be saved. You should really go back and re-read the things posted, or why am I wasting my time?
 

PKevman

New member
sopwith21 said:
Answer the question. If its so silly, it should be easy.

Let's see the question was:

sopwith21 said:
Would you favor outlawing automobiles in order to prevent people from driving to abortion clinics?

That I even have to answer that is what is silly,but ok. No we cannot favor outlawing automobiles unless their only purpose were to be used to murder innocent children. Since they have so many more purposes how could we outlaw them.

Do you honestly think that this is helping your case by making any number of inane points?

Hey why don't we outlaw arms since people use them to beat one another up? That is the kind of question you are asking and it's just silly.

The bill in question is about stopping minors from going out of state WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of murdering innocent babies. That Ron Paul voted against it says a lot. I am sorry that you cannot see it or refuse to see it. :sigh:
 

S†ephen

New member
Sop, Thats not how it works here. You make the wild unbelievable claim and YOU have to provide the evidence to support your ridiculous claim!

The you should ask him with some resemblance of common sense and maturity that surpasses say... a 5 year old. Your repeated insults are an insult to yourself and the forum and a waste of posting space.:vomit:

A public apology is the least you could do.
 
Last edited:

S†ephen

New member
No, you're wrong. I posted the fact that Ron Paul is ok with abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Then we proceeded to go round and round with all kinds of silliness about what would happen if my wife were pregnant and going to die, would we then be ok with abortion, all of which has been answered. It is never ok to murder a baby. That Ron Paul cannot say that indicates SOMETHING about his supposed pro-life record in my opinion. Actually your son was the one who said that both lives cannot be saved. You should really go back and re-read the things posted, or why am I wasting my time?

Allow me to rephrase my question.

What would you do if you knew that carrying a baby full term would kill your wife and the baby in all likelihood would not survive. In other words, you know that it is impossible to save both.

Or, do you believe that this type of situation doesn't exist and that both can always be saved?

Interested on your thoughts:banana:
 

S†ephen

New member
The bill in question is about stopping minors from going out of state WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of murdering innocent babies. That Ron Paul voted against it says a lot. I am sorry that you cannot see it or refuse to see it. :sigh:

I agree with your stance Mr. Kevin. You're right we shouldn't allow minors to have an abortion.

However (please consider this and don't take offense. Think of it from my view.) I think that your opinions against Ron Paul are fogging your ability to see the other side of the argument.

I believe the law is a stupid one because Abortion already needs to be outlawed! As history has proven, when power is vested in men they very rarely use it right. If we give the power to a government agent to control our right to travel what other rights might they abuse? I'm all for destroying abortion but I believe there are better and more effective ways to do it than by interfering with other liberties. We would essentially be trading one danger for another.

Please think this through and don't be afraid to change sides. I wasn't when it came to your question on the law.

I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

S†ephen
 

PKevman

New member
The you should ask him with some resemblance of common sense and maturity that surpasses say... a 5 year old. Your repeated insults are an insult to yourself and the forum and a waste of posting space.:vomit:

Your dad has come on this board accusing his Pastor of being a liar. I would say Crash has a good reason to be upset, and yet I don't see him being upset. How would you feel if some people just showed up at your church one Sunday and started hurling accusations at your pastor calling him a liar over a political opinion he had expressed? If you say you wouldn't care, then obviously you have a low view of your pastor.
 

PKevman

New member
Allow me to rephrase my question.

What would you do if you knew that carrying a baby full term would kill your wife and the baby in all likelihood would not survive. In other words, you know that it is impossible to save both.

Or, do you believe that this type of situation doesn't exist and that both can always be saved?

Interested on your thoughts:banana:

I posted a pretty good quote from TOL's Turbo in which he very well articulated my position on this. To save time, let me encourage you to give it a read, and then we can talk through it if you like and what you disagree with on it. It's just a few posts back, so won't take much time to find. (Posted today at 12:06 am)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top