And you too are biased. I am as well. There is no crime at all on our part. - - - Updated - - - Look, that crap won't work on me.
I know this is hard for you to address but try again: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post Nope, no leaping, just a really good accurate analysis of someone who posted : """""If they get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion, they ARE ANIMALS. """ Can you admit that shows bias? I am not and have not ever been biased against people who want to save children. I am not and have not ever been biased against people who want children to have a good life. I am extremely biased against people who want to vilify and denigrate women just so their little sense of "morality" makes them feel all self-righteous while they do anything they want. I am extremely biased against Anti-American sentiment that says ALL citizens don't all have the same rights.....that would be anti-Choicers.
AOL forums was then the site on a Clinton forum. A young teen close to graduating high school brought up abortion. She was so grateful to her birth mom for changing her mind and not aborting her. She was a top hs student so as it turns out, graduated from U of Texas and now is a TV reporter for a well known TV news firm. She was extremely grateful and met her birth mom. The adoptive parents were dearly loved by her. She today is married and has at least one child. I think I will check on her progress. But I venture a guess none of you have chatted with one person saved from the abortion mill knives. It might not change your mind but when you talk to a surviving child, if you can't have empathy, ..... well, not wanting to go down that path. I would hope were you to talk to survivors you might not see it just one way.
No one said hate and bias and trying to take away someone's rights and calling humans animals was criminal....disgusting and sick, but not criminal. I am extremely biased against people who want to vilify and denigrate women just so their little sense of "morality" makes them feel all self-righteous while they do anything they want. I am extremely biased against Anti-American sentiment that says ALL citizens don't all have the same rights.....that would be anti-Choicers.
No, you have yet to ADMIT you have a bias.....it's very plain to see......why are you afraid to admit it??
I have not seen you object to his characterization of women. Does that mean you know he is wrong, but you are pretending to agree with him because you both want to stop abortions? He is calling your ex-wife (and anybody else that either of us know who had an abortion without a note from a doctor HE would approve) an animal... unworthy of human decency. That is the kind of mindset you have to support to place the potentiality of human life above the rights of someone who is an actual human life.
You do NOT know what the mental state of the woman was BEFORE the abortion, you just keep telling her it's because of the abortion....after all, YOU said they were animals so lying to them wouldn't be a bad thing to you , would it? - - - Updated - - - You haven't read the definition of empathy....you have none if you think women are animals...... - - - Updated - - - Would you call someone who thinks women are animals Pro-LIFE ?
Valid point. I am biased toward protecting the rights of actual people. I am biased toward protecting virtual people when the pregnant woman hosting that virtual person (of her own free will) wants to produce an actual person. I trust studies conducted in the United States above studies conducted in Finland or Denmark because studies on populations within the United States are just naturally going to be more representative of conditions affecting people within the United States. I trust the professionals in the AMA and the APA above the self-proclaimed experts who write for pro-life websites. So yes... I am biased toward reality instead of virtual reality.
I had disengaged from this topic for a good reason. The way some of you people gang up on him and make him the issue. It means nothing to me how you view this. As you don't worry about my comments. I do my best to not try to put words into other people's mouths. I am hip to what is going on. I have seen this form of argument in the past. It turns out not a conversation, but a way to try to hammer other posters. He is willing to argue. Me, I know my views.
Another way to look at Robert's "alliance" with dnsmith is.... the "non-racist conservative" who wants to end Affirmative Action because (he says) he holds a principled opposition to the idea of "government preferences".... so he is friendly and defends the view of another opponent of A.A.....who is a Klan member.
Well, you put him down. Are you a better person for putting him down? - - - Updated - - - Gorn, Gorn.... Stick to what you know. Stick to yourself.
That is not my lexicon. But I have the notion he feels the child is the victim so he has little desire to show much sympathy to the person that terminated a life.
Any DECENT person wouldn't "ally" themselves with an obvious misogynist....just to have an "ally" on a blog "debate".
No, the issues are the claims he makes about himself and the posts he makes that establish those claims to be bogus. Then he takes it another step and degrades women who have abortions further damaging his claims to being a professional therapist. If someone claims to have expertise in a subject area under discussion it is be expected that they will be tested and if found to be lacking in knowledge exposed as a charlatan. He isn't the first and he most certainly won't be the last either. Whenever anyone alleges to be a subject matter expert there is good reason to be skeptical until they can demonstrate that they know what they are talking about. It is usually clear in a couple of posts whether they are or not. Once it is readily apparent that they are not what they claim to be only the most foolish persist in the charade in my experience. Ironically enough this thread is called "Big lies about abortion" and the former has certainly come to light during this thread and it's predecessor.
Don't you agree that saying :"""""If they get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion, they ARE ANIMALS. """ ....is quite an extreme way of not showing much sympathy? I don't have any sympathy for Anti-Choicers but I have never called them animals. Would you call someone who thinks women are animals Pro-LIFE ?
I am not making the poster an issue, I am making the awful statement he made about women the issue:: """""If they get pregnant through their own negligence and have an abortion, they ARE ANIMALS. """
Frankly, I don't recall your bonafides. Why listen to you and not listen to him? My concern is the least of the guilty. The unborn simply is not the guilty party. - - - Updated - - - What do you have against animals that makes you call that an insult?
Really, do you have an actual point to make? Tip for you. When you get offended, stop posting or stop reading posts that bother you. I had quit over you and your pals form of discussion. His I can stand. I am tied up here. I have posts to deal with that truly are interesting.
Well, you ally with posters who post some very troubling comments. And in fact, you make troubling remarks. Such as your comment at the top of this comment where you spoke to me.
If your view is that actual people deserve human rights, then we agree on that much. In a debate, when somebody is trying to maintain an inconsistent position, you call them on it. On one hand we see the position that women who (excepting life-threatening circumstances) get abortions are animals and/or murderers. Oh the other hand we see the position that women who get abortions must be treated with empathy and understanding. They should not be punished for the crime of murder. When both of those positions come from a single poster, it comes across sounding like they are not being honest about their position. You have to wonder would they take one position just to get the laws in place, and then argue "How dare you let those women walk free after committing murder?"
There is no if about it. I however don't stop with the mom. I extend that to the unborn. While any argument can show some inconsistencies, the one consistent thing from him is he defends the not yet born. He sees them as little moms or little dads. They to him are quite valuable. People get emotional as does your side get emotional. Tell me this much. Would you approve an abortion when you dearly love the female? Does her getting rid of your child mean much to you?
Apparently when he said that, you got offended. DEEPLY offended. So offended you refuse to as Hillary puts it, MOVE ON. Move forward. I see little evidence you did much to try to comprend his meaning. Does he mean a dog? Or does he mean the beautiful peacock? Does he mean the ape or the lemur?
