Thanks Bob

[PKevman]

Alan Keyes supports the death of a child to save the mother's life. The current statement on his current web site now says:

"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."
Keyes openly admits that in cases where both lives cannot be saved, that "medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child" are permissible to save the mother's life. You have insisted that the only acceptable pro-life position is to save both.
Do you still support this pro-abortion candidate?

In the process of attempting to save the life of the mother and the child, the child might die. That is a far cry from going in and sucking his brains out of his skull for example. The difference is that the doctor is not entering with the mindset of murdering the baby. He never at any time tries to murder the baby. I doubt very seriously you have invested any amount of time in studying our views on this at all, or you wouldn't have made this argument.

Stephen, you demand respect. You demand people to hear your points. You demand timetables for when your information is going to be reviewed. But you sometimes then refuse to grant the same respect in return. That is hypocritical.

I gave your son a very good link a few pages back in this thread in which TOL's own Turbo utterly refuted the "Life of the mother" argument and did it quite well. You obviously ignored this, but I'll tell you that an unintended consequence is not a pro-abortion stance in the least. Abortion by definition today is the deliberate and pre-planned murder of an innocent life.

A good doctor will recognize he has two patients and will seek to save them both.

You have hypocritically falsely accused Dr. Keyes, just as you accused Bob Enyart of falsely accusing Ron Paul.

Lighthouse was absolutely right in pointing out that you missed the obvious "unintended" consequences in the very words you posted.

 

[PKevman]

If you really have the ability to act without permission, are you willing to drive without your license from now on?

It's a redundant question. I'll ask a similar one and see if your logic holds: if you are really free to wear what you want, why won't you go outside stark naked and cut your grass or go for a jog? I guess you must not be free to wear what you want.

 

[sopwith21]

:duh: My Bad, looked at last years stats. I understand that this war is well on the way to eclipsing both death tolls of the Vietnam and Korean wars combined.

Yes, but don't say that here. No one wants to know the truth... its easier that way.

Yes I did

Good for you. Questioning everything is a good policy.

However, that was not an accusation to you personally but a wider question for everyone. And as you know, the answer in the vast majority of cases is "no."

 

[S†ephen]

In the process of attempting to save the life of the mother and the child, the child might die. That is a far cry from going in and sucking his brains out of his skull for example. The difference is that the doctor is not entering with the mindset of murdering the baby. He never at any time tries to murder the baby. I doubt very seriously you have invested any amount of time in studying our views on this at all, or you wouldn't have made this argument.

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.

You demand timetables for when your information is going to be reviewed.

He just said a few posts ago you cold set whatever timetable you wanted.

I gave your son a very good link a few pages back in this thread in which TOL's own Turbo utterly refuted the "Life of the mother" argument and did it quite well.

No he didn't. He refuted dilation and extraction and that's it. When I tried to question you on other procedures that were primarily directed towards saving one life or the other. all you said was I WILL TRY TO SAVE BOTH. Nothing was really refuted at all.

You obviously ignored this

No he didn't. You sent it to me.

You have hypocritically falsely accused Dr. Keyes, just as you accused Bob Enyart of falsely accusing Ron Paul.

He believes he has seen a brother in sin. He is dealing with it harshly. According to your posts in the "how can you call yourselves Christians forum" You should support this.

 

[sopwith21]

In the process of attempting to save the life of the mother and the child, the child might die. That is a far cry from going in and sucking his brains out of his skull for example.

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.

But instead of debating the issue, you are attempting to do is debate intent, or how Keyes might have felt emotionally at the moment the baby dies. However, the baby is dead either way. The outcome is the same, and it enjoys your blessing.

Once again, you hold a double standard. You support a candidate for president who would choose the life of the mother over the life of the baby, and he openly admits it. However, you will die a thousand deaths before you admit that Keyes supports the position for which you have denounced other candidates.

 

[Granite]

I for one can't understand the attraction Keyes holds over his handful of supporters. Talk about a waste of time and energy.

 

[S†ephen]

It's a redundant question. I'll ask a similar one and see if your logic holds: if you are really free to wear what you want, why won't you go outside stark naked and cut your grass or go for a jog? I guess you must not be free to wear what you want.

And notice how it holds up perfectly? :doh:

I'm glad we agree.

 

[sopwith21]

if you are really free to wear what you want

I'm not. Thank you for demonstrating that.

The questions below were directly spawned by your own statements and based on your own claims. Step up to the plate and answer them. Its real easy... to answer in the affirmative, you simply type "Y-E-S." For the negative, you type "N-O."

Let's try again...

What about 3,200 parents who are about to be sent to prison for not drugging their children in accordance with state mandates… are they or are they not fighting a straw man? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You said that Americans have the ability to act without permission and that (any belief to the contrary) was "paranoid." Do you stand by that statement or not? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If you really have the ability to act without permission, are you willing to drive without your license from now on? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Alan Keyes said that "medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child" are permissible to save the mother's life. You previously condemned this position as "pro abortion." Do you now support it? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[PKevman]

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.

That's exactly right. A responsible doctor will try to save BOTH patients! That is the ONLY Godly response. Nowhere, at ANY TIME have I EVER said it was ok to MURDER the baby! Sometimes in the course of trying to save BOTH, one INADVERTENTLY dies. This is NOT committing murder. If you cannot see this distinction, then I'm sorry for you and you are more committed to trying to win an argument then to understand the position, but the position hasn't changed. IT IS NEVER, EVER, EVER OK TO MURDER AN INNOCENT BABY. NEVER!

He just said a few posts ago you cold set whatever timetable you wanted.

And I don't need permission to study or not to study something. If it's interesting to me then I'll spend time studying it. To demand any timetable is rude quite frankly, and not his place. He is not my parent. He can demand you to set timetables for what he wants you to know, but I'm a grown adult and I have a family and other more pertinent matters to concern myself with than whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the end it's not a particularly hot topic for me. Hussein was a wicked man and he got what he deserved. And it was much too late if you ask me. /B]

No he didn't. He refuted dilation and extraction and that's it. When I tried to question you on other procedures that were primarily directed towards saving one life or the other. all you said was I WILL TRY TO SAVE BOTH. Nothing was really refuted at all.

The position is very simple. Murdering a baby to save its mother's life is never ok. Inadvertently losing a child in the course of trying to save both is not murder. Murdering a child by way of abortion is murdering the child. It's that simple. Instead of trying to win an argument why not pay attention to what is actually said?

No he didn't. You sent it to me.

Wonderful. I am assuming that you guys aren't talking about any of this stuff then, and you couldn't have said, "Hey Dad, Mr. Kevin did address that issue a while back ago?"

He believes he has seen a brother in sin. He is dealing with it harshly. According to your posts in the "how can you call yourselves Christians forum" You should support this.

No he doesn't. He is trying to liken Keyes to Paul in an attempt to prove I'm being hypocritical. That is exactly what he has said in fact, if one goes back and reviews the posts. The problem is he refuted himself when he posted Dr. Keyes' position in which the term INADVERTENT was used.

The quote again, which your dad gladly requoted because he thought it bolstered his position:

"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."

I'm not sure where you get a view that Dr. Keyes is pro-abortion from this statement?

 

[PKevman]

Once again, you hold a double standard. You support a candidate for president who would choose the life of the mother over the life of the baby, and he openly admits it. However, you will die a thousand deaths before you admit that Keyes supports the position for which you have denounced other candidates.

Bingo! Thank you for refuting your own son's views of why you brought the subject up. It has nothing at all to do with rebuking a brother you see in sin, and everything to do with trying to "win" an argument. But you have not won at all. In fact you have defeated yourself and badly with this. You attempt to justify Ron Paul's position on abortion where he is willing to make exceptions for muder by trying to prove that Dr. Keyes says the same thing. Then you post a quote from Keyes:

"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."

Abortion as it is defined today is NOT an unintended consequence. Murdering the baby can never be unintended, but is in fact intentionally KILLING the child.

Do you not see a difference between a doctor trying to save BOTH patience and one patient INADVERTENTLY dying, and a doctor going in with the EXPRESS intent of MURDERING the baby through an abortion?

 

[sopwith21]

This story sums up everything that this entire thread is about:

Zogby released the results of its latest telephone survey today which is known as a “blind bio” poll because likely voters are given details of the candidates’ resumes without their names attached. In the overall race among all Republicans, Democrats and independents, Dr. Paul won with 33%.

 

[sopwith21]

You attempt to justify Ron Paul's position on abortion where he is willing to make exceptions for muder by trying to prove that Dr. Keyes says the same thing.

This has nothing to do with defending Paul... it was obvious a week ago that you wouldn't vote for him if God send Gabriel to help you pull the lever. The issue is that you hold a double standard... again.

Do you not see a difference between a doctor trying to save BOTH patience and one patient INADVERTENTLY dying, and a doctor going in with the EXPRESS intent of MURDERING the baby through an abortion?

The only difference is intent. The baby is dead either way, and you are justifying it by saying "Oops! Accident! Guess its okay now!" A few pages ago, no other outcome but saving both was acceptable... now, as long as the baby dies "by accident," its no problem. Kevin, if you had any more double standards you'd have to file tax returns on them.

Now, back to the original questions...

What about 3,200 parents who are about to be sent to prison for not drugging their children in accordance with state mandates… are they or are they not fighting a straw man? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You said that Americans have the ability to act without permission and that (any belief to the contrary) was "paranoid." Do you stand by that statement or not? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If you really have the ability to act without permission, are you willing to drive without your license from now on? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Alan Keyes said that "medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child" are permissible to save the mother's life. You previously condemned this position as "pro abortion" with no comment about whether it was accidental or on purpose. Do you now support it? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[S†ephen]

That's exactly right. A responsible doctor will try to save BOTH patients! That is the ONLY Godly response.

So how can you support a candidate who says:
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.

He openly says that the only time it is permissible for the child to die is if it is an unintended consequence of trying to save the mama's life. Now every time I've pressed you on this question you've always been against that. You've always said save both save both or none and Alan Keys is openly supporting a procedure directed at mainly saving the mother.

And I don't need permission to study or not to study something. If it's interesting to me then I'll spend time studying it. To demand any timetable is rude quite frankly, and not his place.

He didn't demand one, you offered.

I won't have much time this weekend, but give me a few days, and I'll be glad to find the info and share it with you.

The position is very simple. Murdering a baby to save its mother's life is never ok. Inadvertently losing a child in the course of trying to save both is not murder. Murdering a child by way of abortion is murdering the child. It's that simple. Instead of trying to win an argument why not pay attention to what is actually said?

Um... I did, a few posts ago you were saying that turbo's post destroyed the life of the mother argument. Is it the other way around now?

Wonderful. I am assuming that you guys aren't talking about any of this stuff then, and you couldn't have said, "Hey Dad, Mr. Kevin did address that issue a while back ago?"

No I couldn't have. Because you refused to discuss it.

No he doesn't. He is trying to liken Keyes to Paul in an attempt to prove I'm being hypocritical. That is exactly what he has said in fact, if one goes back and reviews the posts. The problem is he refuted himself when he posted Dr. Keyes' position in which the term INADVERTENT was used.

The quote again, which your dad gladly requoted because he thought it bolstered his position:

"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."

I'm not sure where you get a view that Dr. Keyes is pro-abortion from this statement?

You should still support him according to the morals you stood by.

 

[S†ephen]

Bingo! Thank you for refuting your own son's views of why you brought the subject up. It has nothing at all to do with rebuking a brother you see in sin, and everything to do with trying to "win" an argument. But you have not won at all. In fact you have defeated yourself and badly with this.

Mr. K the only one who has mentioned winning or losing on this thread is you.

You attempt to justify Ron Paul's position on abortion where he is willing to make exceptions for muder by trying to prove that Dr. Keyes says the same thing.

Did you completely ignore what I posted on the reason why Ron Paul voted that way. He did it to save lives. Are we picking and choosing now?

Do you not see a difference between a doctor trying to save BOTH patience and one patient INADVERTENTLY dying, and a doctor going in with the EXPRESS intent of MURDERING the baby through an abortion?

Of course we do. You're the one saying both or none. Now you are reversing that, saying it's ok to focus on the mother.

 

[sopwith21]

Remember... none of this matters because they're not American children and besides, Saddam was a really mean guy, and besides, I doubt that its really true, and besides, you can't prove it:

16-Nov-07 -- Child mortality in Iraq has spiralled because of the tense security situation, deteriorating health services and lack of medical supplies, say experts.

According to a report released in May 2007 by aid agency Save the Children, “Iraq’s child mortality rate has increased by a staggering 150 per cent since 1990, more than any other country.”

The report, entitled State of the World’s Mothers 2007, said that some 122,000 Iraqi children - the equivalent of one in eight - died in 2005, before reaching their fifth birthday. More than half of the deaths were among newborn babies in their first month of life.

“Even before the latest war, Iraqi mothers and children were facing a grave humanitarian crisis caused by years of repression, conflict and external sanctions,” said the report.

“Since 2003, electricity shortages, insufficient clean water, deteriorating health services and soaring inflation have worsened already difficult living conditions.”

The study listed pneumonia and diarrhoea as major killers of children in Iraq, together accounting for over 30 per cent of child deaths.

“Conservative estimates place increases in infant mortality following the 2003 invasion of Iraq at 37 per cent,” it said.

In the capital of Baghdad, there are four paediatric hospitals and three gynaecological hospitals, as well as individual children’s wards in other medical institutions.

The city’s central paediatric hospital is in the capital’s Islam neighbourhood - a volatile area which is hard for families and medical staff to reach.

The hospitals fall short in providing quality care because they do not have enough medical supplies or staff - who, in many cases, have fled to other countries.

Experts draw parallels between the dire state of Iraq’s health care system today and the way it was when the country was under sanctions during the 1990s, when there was a similar limited supply of drugs and other medical resources.​

 

[PKevman]

I'm not. Thank you for demonstrating that.

You're wrong. You are free to wear whatever you want, but you have to WEAR SOMETHING. My point was that some restrictions is a good thing. I for one wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood where everyone ran around buck naked. Are you saying you would? Or will you concede that sometimes restrictions are a good thing? If not, why are you and the family not joining a nudist colony?

The questions below were directly spawned by your own statements and based on your own claims. Step up to the plate and answer them. Its real easy... to answer in the affirmative, you simply type "Y-E-S." For the negative, you type "N-O."

Follow your own advice Stephen. You have dodged literally dozens of questions, points, and arguments that I have raised in this thread as I have painstakingly responded to your posts point by point. You instead pull out little snippets of things I say and try to build arguments against them. In the process you make disparaging remarks like:

Yes, but don't say that here. No one wants to know the truth... its easier that way.

I have pointed out to you repeatedly that TRUTH is found in God's Word! It is the ultimate source of truth. Anything that points an individual to a deeper relationship with God and to be deeper into His Word is a good thing. Anything that does the opposite is a bad thing for that individual.

What about 3,200 parents who are about to be sent to prison for not drugging their children in accordance with state mandates… are they or are they not fighting a straw man? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

What about them? What is your question? Are they fighting a straw man? Is that your question? If they're about to be sent to prison for not drugging their children, then they're fighting a wicked and evil government mandate. The real enemy is secular humanists and psychologists who say that children have to be drugged in order to control their behavior. So if the scenario you have laid out is true, then NO they are not fighting a straw man.
And my answer hasn't changed. I never defended the wicked things that go on in our government or in our government-run schools. But hey, if it suits you to misrepresent me, go for it!

You said that Americans have the ability to act without permission and that (any belief to the contrary) was "paranoid." Do you stand by that statement or not? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I didn't say it exactly like that, what I said was part of a much larger conversation.

HERE is what was said:

Freedom is the ability to act without permission. In this country, we do not have that ability. We must get permission to drive, to fly, to get on a train, to carry a gun, to shoot a deer, to start a business, to shut down a business, to get a job, to get a bank account or to buy a home... we must submit to searches and eavesdropping in order to travel, talk on the phone or write a letter or send an email. There is precious little freedom left in this country to take for granted.

See POST #962.

I responded to you point after point in POST #969. You utterly ignored everything I said and pulled one thing completely out of context which was this:

My family goes where we want to go, we worship in church openly praising our Lord and Savior. Not sure where on earth you get the idea you have no freedom to act without permission. It certainly has no basis in reality. Only in paranoia.

This was in response to YOU saying THIS:

Freedom is the ability to act without permission. In this country, we do not have that ability.

See how you have dodged and attempted to bait, but I didn't bite the hook. Your position was that we have NO FREEDOM to do ANYTHING without permission in America. THAT position is the one that I was referring to as paranoia. You don't have to ask permission to decide what clothes to put on, but you do have to wear clothes, and that's a good thing! If men were walking around utterly unrestrained, we would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago.

The things you mention are often things that have restrictions for a reason, such as having a driver's license.

If you really have the ability to act without permission, are you willing to drive without your license from now on? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

NO! I am not willing to drive without my driver's license.

There is nothing wicked or evil about requiring people to get a license to drive and pass a basic test to get that license, ensuring they know at least something about operating a motor vehicle and have the capability to do so! There is nothing evil or wicked about restricting people who are too young or too drunk, or physically unable to drive (for whatever reason) either.

Having to get a driver's license doesn't STOP me from being free to drive where I want to drive, so your argument has fallen apart!

Alan Keyes said that "medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child" are permissible to save the mother's life. You previously condemned this position as "pro abortion." Do you now support it? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Whoops! You misquoted him! Keyes ACTUALLY said:

"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."

 

[sopwith21]

Don't worry about this... it can't be true. Its just another wild conspiracy theory. We're far better off with our blindfolds firmly wrapped around our faces as we stumble down the road to oblivion, dragging the willingly ignorant and what's left of our nation along with us -

Pentagon Cover Up: 15,000 or More US Deaths in Iraq War?
By Mike Whitney

The Pentagon has been concealing the true number of American casualties in the Iraq War. The real number exceeds 15,000 and CBS News can prove it.

CBS's Investigative Unit wanted to do a report on the number of suicides in the military and "submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense". After 4 months they received a document which showed--that between 1995 and 2007-- there were 2,200 suicides among "active duty" soldiers.

Baloney.

The Pentagon was covering up the real magnitude of the "suicide epidemic". Following an exhaustive investigation of veterans' suicide data collected from 45 states; CBS discovered that in 2005 alone "there were at least 6,256 among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week in just one year."

That is not a typo. Active and retired military personnel, mostly young veterans between the ages of 20 to 24, are returning from combat and killing themselves in record numbers. We can assume that "multiple-tours of duty" in a war-zone have precipitated a mental health crisis of which the public is entirely unaware and which the Pentagon is in total denial.

If we add the 6,256 suicide victims from 2005 to the "official" 3,865 reported combat casualties; we get a sum of 10,121. Even a low-ball estimate of similar 2004 and 2006 suicide figures, would mean that the total number of US casualties from the Iraq war now exceed 15,000.

That's right; 15,000 dead US servicemen and women.

CBS interviewed Dr. Ira Katz, the head of mental health at the Department of Veteran Affairs. Katz attempted to minimize the surge in veteran suicides saying, "There is no epidemic of suicide in the VA, but suicide is a major problem."

Maybe Katz is right. Maybe there is no epidemic. Maybe it's perfectly normal for young men and women to return from combat, sink into inconsolable depression, and kill themselves at greater rates than they were dying on the battlefield. Maybe it's normal for the Pentagon to abandon them as soon as soon they return from their mission so they can blow their brains out or hang themselves with a garden hose in their basement. Maybe it's normal for politicians to keep funding wholesale slaughter while they brush aside the casualties they have produced by their callousness and lack of courage. Maybe it is normal for the president to persist with the same, bland lies that perpetuate the occupation and continue to kill scores of young soldiers who put themselves in harm's-way for their country.

It's not normal; it's is a pandemic---an outbreak of despair which is the natural corollary of living in constant fear; of seeing one's friends being dismembered by roadside bombs or children being blasted to bits at military checkpoints or finding battered bodies dumped on the side of a riverbed like a bag of garbage.

The rash of suicides is the logical upshot of the U.S. war on Iraq. Returning soldiers are traumatized by their experience and now they are killing themselves in droves. Maybe we should have thought about that before we invaded.​

 

[PKevman]

The only difference is intent. The baby is dead either way, and you are justifying it by saying "Oops! Accident! Guess its okay now!" A few pages ago, no other outcome but saving both was acceptable... now, as long as the baby dies "by accident," its no problem. Kevin, if you had any more double standards you'd have to file tax returns on them.

So you don't see the difference between intentionally murdering a baby through abortion and a baby inadvertently dying while the doctor tries to successfully deliver the baby and save the life of the mother?

I hold no double standard on this. My position has been the same throughout. Stop falsely accusing and deal with what is said. I would expect it from an unbeliever or someone who didn't know me. It's quite saddening to come from you.

I'll expose your argument yet again:

Two people are falling off of a cliff. You reach out your hand to try to save both. You are unable to save both because you aren't strong enough. At no point do you deliberately let go, but one slips from your grasp. You didn't murder either one intentionally. One died unintentionally in the process of trying to save both.

Don't misrepresent me again.

 

[PKevman]

The only difference is intent

WRONG! There's a huge difference between trying to save lives and inadvertently losing one, and intentionally murdering a baby!

 

[drbrumley]

Wow. You know, in Communist Russia under Stalin and the rest of the commies, they were {free} to dress as they wish. Shoot, they were even {free} to visit other parts of the motherland in their own car, driving under their own license.