From here:
NOTHING LIKE PRO-CHOICE SEMANTICS!!!!......."Pamela, the problem with your point about pro-choicers can adopt too is that, pro-choicers aren't advocating for more unwanted children to be born. I often see the word "Advocate" attached to pro-choicers, which isn't really the case. We don't "Advocate" for adoptions or abortions, the only thing we advocate for is the right to make a choice."
So clearly Chris Fallon has exposed the reality that "choicers" only support "choice" in theory not in action. According to him once birth/and or adoption is "chosen" they wash their hands of the mothers and their babies born of those "choices" they say they support. He says they only support MAKING THE CHOICE not the results of the choices they support.
I was the Abolish Human Abortion admin on all those comments.
socialized
ReplyDeletelobotomised
ReplyDeleteI prefer the British spelling in this case. :-)
Just as I thought... a lack of substance with an overload of bias.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteNot often that a comment describes itself.
bossmanham,
ReplyDeleteThat was an awesome burn, dude. You totally moded him.
"Abolish Human Abortion --"My argument is that socialized medicine has been proven to reduce abortions because the mother does not need to worry about paying for medical care"--
ReplyDeleteIt's just that it wrecks the economy and reduces everyone to a medium low icky standard of living. Yeah, great.
Makes it so no one has any disposable income for stuff like computers and charitable donations.
And we all get to stand in line for bread, and meat once a month. Joy. Except for the oligarchy, of which Idiotic is no doubt a member."
So you sidestepped the point, and then claim it doesn't matter if there are less abortions because the economy would fail. Lol, pure. gold.
What Godsnot said. Rho- do you have any evidence for your assertions about socialized medicine "wrecking the economy", forcing people to "stand in line for bread", etc? As you may remember, I live in Austria, which has socialized medicine, and no breadlines, no wrecked economy, and I'll be glad to compare my contributions to charity with yours.
ReplyDeleteSo you sidestepped the point, and then claim it doesn't matter if there are less abortions because the economy would fail.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great example of unwarranted quoting out of context. I dealt with this question elsewhere in the thread.
Further, making an assertion like what Idiotic made requires not only evidence but also evidence that specifically links the allegedly causative factor to the allegedly caused effect. This Idiotic did not do, and it would be incredibly difficult, because of the massively huge number of factors in play and the limited number of societies to test, not to mention the difficulty of finding a decent control group.
do you have any evidence for your assertions about socialized medicine "wrecking the economy"
ReplyDeleteYes, economics of supply and demand.
forcing people to "stand in line for bread"
USSR, as mentioned above.
, I live in Austria, which has socialized medicine
Since you're apparently unaware of this fact, I'm happy to inform you that other factors can keep otherwise-unstable economic systems afloat for longer than they otherwise would remain in place. Incestuous and future-sacrificing inter-country money-loaning, for example.
I'll be glad to compare my contributions to charity with yours.
Good for you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the energy for it right now. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI said: do you have any evidence for your assertions about socialized medicine "wrecking the economy"
ReplyDeleterho answered: Yes, economics of supply and demand.
Er, I asked for evidence. Do you know what "evidence" means?
zilch: forcing people to "stand in line for bread"
rho: USSR, as mentioned above.
Can you show how "socialized medicine" caused people to "stand in line for bread" in the USSR? You could also claim that speaking Russian caused people to "stand in line for bread". Let's have some figures.
zilch: I live in Austria, which has socialized medicine
rho: Since you're apparently unaware of this fact, I'm happy to inform you that other factors can keep otherwise-unstable economic systems afloat for longer than they otherwise would remain in place. Incestuous and future-sacrificing inter-country money-loaning, for example.
I'll agree with you there, but such factors apply to all economic systems, including that of the US of A. Can you please stick to your claim that socialized medicine "wrecks the economy"? Give us some facts and figures, please.
Oops, I see that Rho replied to my comment while I was cleaning it up. Rho's last comment thus applies to my post that follows it.
ReplyDelete"This is a great example of unwarranted quoting out of context"
ReplyDeleteOh the irony.
A couple questions for rhology-
ReplyDelete--If worldly goods and material gains don't ultimately matter, why shouldnt we as a society try to provide healthcare to all people?
--Could you please point the readers to where socialized medicine was the specfic cause of 'people standing in line for bread' in the USSR?
--Can you please provide examples of countries that use a system such as Obamacare, that aren't completely socialist, in which a majority of people are standing in line for meat and bread on a daily basis?
Can non-Christians be charitable?
AND here are others, not really related to the topic at hand but relates to your worldview
--Are you aware of the social, cultural and historical factors that has created religion and conceptions of God throughout time?
--Why did you choose the interpretation of the Bible that you choose to believe?
--Is the Bible meant to be taken as literal or should it be read as metaphorical to understanding truth?
Thanks for your time. Thanks for considering the questions too.
I ask because it seems you have a severely misguided view of the way economics work, and the actual ramifications of Obamacare. You also seem to share a narrow-minded view of the hundreds of different factors that cause and relate to topics ranging from religion to the government to history. Either you truly are ignorant of all of the factors involved, in which your "one size fits all" worldview literally cant apply to everyone, or you choose to ignore them to make arguments comply with your worldview.
Again, not trying to be insulting- but reading books about these topics and trying to understand different perspectives are might go a long way with you. I have no doubt that you know the Bible through and through- but I have serious doubts that you have ever tried to look into critical works that show that much more was involved in the evolution of religion. I wouldnt ask these questions usually to someone- but your naivety and simple outlook on the way things are is astounding.
Gefdas,
ReplyDelete-We should. The gov't stealing loads of money from working ppl, wasting most of it, and giving a great deal of the rest of it to ppl without requiring they work for it is not the way to do it.
-I was referring to the larger context of socialISM, not merely socialised medicine. The standing in line for bread thing I set in contrast to the oligarchy's living much larger than the proletariats, and the untenable system that is socialism.
-No, I am not aware of any.
-Yes, non-Christians can be charitable. I don't see the point of this question, however.
-Yes, I am aware of some of them. Surely claiming to know ALL of them would be pretty hubristic.
I don't intend to defend "religion", but the Bible and Jesus' religion, however.
Also, to say that a given religion developed and was affected by various factors is a no-brainer. Who denies that? To say that therefore it is false is to commit the genetic fallacy - this has nothing to do with its truth value.
-If you're asking why I chose it, it is because God regenerated my heart to love His Word.
If you're asking why and how I defend it, it is merely the regular, normal way of dealing with all human communication - the grammatico-historical method. There is not much special about biblical hermeneutics in terms of setting it apart from the hermeneutical method of any other communication.
-it should be taken according to its normal sense, as intended by the authors.
As for your closing emote, thanks for your thoughts. I doubt you can substantiate your accusation of naivete, and I don't care whether my outlook is simple or not; I care whether it is true.