Again you're taking him out of context Muppet. Are you so blinded by your belief that all republicans are brain dead retards that maybe, just maybe, this guy meant something besides what he said?
Granted I know his stance is based in religious belief but I'd call him more of an asshole for saying you can get an abortion after a rape, because THEN he sounds like he's punishing women for having sex! At least he's being consistent here!
We're not taking him out of context. If the pregnancy is God's will, so too must be the means. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." There is no other way to logically intepret that statement. "That pregnancy" means "that union of sperm and egg." Her egg, his sperm. God had to put that man there for that to be true.
Of course, we're looking for logic in religion. We are doomed to fail.
It is theologically consistent - at least with his expressed theology. And even if you want to be an apologist and try to spin this, it's still abhorrent.
At the end of the day, I'm fine with someone being against abortions. Hey, I don't like them. I don't think you should get one in most cases. But why should I be allowed to stop someone from getting one? I don't get to make shit illegal just because I don't like it.
I have no problem with someone believing that pregnancy from rape is still a gift from God.
I have a problem with someone making laws that restrict me based on that OBVIOUSLY RELIGIOUS view in a country where laws imposing religion are forbidden.
Hey you're right. Murdock isn't even running in my state. I'm against abortion but I can't tell anyone else what to do. I just feel like that's a clown question, because the media outlets KNOWS they'll have a sound bite to crucify even the most well-meaning republican. And it seems to be dying out in Indiana so meh.
It's not hard to crucify someone who says that God meant for people to be raped and they therefore shouldn't seek medical assistance with the consequences.
Hey you're right. Murdock isn't even running in my state. I'm against abortion but I can't tell anyone else what to do. I just feel like that's a clown question, because the media outlets KNOWS they'll have a sound bite to crucify even the most well-meaning republican. And it seems to be dying out in Indiana so meh.
It's one thing to be against abortion, but when you want to outlaw it as most Republicans want to do, it's no longer a clown question.
Let's say a woman is raped and is gets pregnant. That guy is saying that under no circumstances should that woman have an abortion.
Now what? She gives birth, presumably. Then gives the kid up for adoption. Even more trauma! Hooray! Now, who its going to care for that kid? You think all the bible blading jackasses are chomping at the bit to adopt rape-babies?
How about the social sigma that would go along with mother and child?
What about when she can't give the kid up for adoption without the rapist's permission? What about when he uses the fact that she sought permission from him to argue custody away from her? Now the kid is being RAISED by the rapist. Then he sues her for child support.
This isn't even hypothetical. There's case history.
Also, Roe vs Wade wasn't the beginning of abortion in America. It was the beginning of safe and legal abortion by licensed medical professionals. The alternative is coat hangers and knitting needles and criminal "doctors" preying on vulnerable and terrified women, not a rainbows-and-fluffy-clouds Leave it to Beaver land with no abortions.
Hey you're right. Murdock isn't even running in my state. I'm against abortion but I can't tell anyone else what to do. I just feel like that's a clown question, because the media outlets KNOWS they'll have a sound bite to crucify even the most well-meaning republican. And it seems to be dying out in Indiana so meh.
Muppet, just to be clear, and intentionally blunt, your actions in this forum are making it so unenjoyable to read that I find myself skipping more and more threads. The more you respond to people pointing this out in less blunt ways only decreases everyone's respect for you, and in turn their enjoyment of the forum.
I'm sorry that you're turned off by the way I argued with Jack in a way identical to which everyone else argued with Jack, only with less personal attacks. That you have some sort of issue with my personality is clear. I feel badly about that, but not responsible for it, even slightly.
Muppet, just to be clear, and intentionally blunt, your actions in this forum are making it so unenjoyable to read that I find myself skipping more and more threads. The more you respond to people pointing this out in less blunt ways only decreases everyone's respect for you, and in turn their enjoyment of the forum.
Oh it's nice to have a good witch hunt, isn't it? Clears the sinuses.
I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation for how my conduct in the argument with Jack is different from everyone else's in this thread. Rym responded past Jack's concession, as well, so I guess you've all lost a ton of respect for him. Right?
Seriously, folks, this is beyond stupid and textbook "Outsider! Get him!" psychology. Only YOU can pick on Jack. I get it and you should stop pretending it's anything else.
I wasn't even particularly mean to Jack. Show me where I was.
I felt badly for him a week or so ago when Greg and WUB were having at him, myself. I guess maybe when you're not the one arguing your perspective is different. Imagine.
When have I torn apart Jack? The last flamewar I remember being in was the Drug Cartel vs Big Pharma debate.
Honestly I can't remember if it was you or Whale or I don't even know, so I retract your name since I can't be bothered digging it up. My only point was that other people on this forum have certainly laid into some of Jack's positions (and sometimes Jack himself, which I don't think I did) and not triggered all this sympathy.
The most I weighed in on that was the Diesel v Petroleum comment, which attacked neither side of the debate.
You missed the point there. muppet is upset that he is the only one being reprimanded for taking jack to task over his bad arguments, despite other people, not you specifically, are doing it as well.
Makes more sense for it to be WhaleShark. He and WUB both completed the Satanic seal of becoming biologists. Maybe Jack said something scientifically wrong, and they knew a lot of shit about it.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Chaos. He actually mentioned me by name, though.
I will never apoligize for being an asshole. I'm consistent like that. I also try to reserve my douchiness for moments where it is truly warranted.
There's really no taking me to task.
I'm pretty sure I chimed in somewhere in the big pharma argument. I probably said something in there like "you're an idiot." You were probably being an idiot.
Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think Muppet was being a bigger jerk than we usually see other people being. Luke is a jerk. Rym is a jerk. WuB is a jerk. We're mostly all jerks.
I will never apoligize for being an asshole. I'm consistent like that. I also try to reserve my douchiness for moments where it is truly warranted.
There's really no taking me to task.
I'm pretty sure I chimed in somewhere in the big pharma argument. I probably said something in there like "you're an idiot." You were probably being an idiot.
I wasn't talking about an argument between me and you, I was talking about Jack getting his ass ripped out by a few of you a week or two ago.
I don't have any problems with anybody arguing with me until ad hominem becomes most of the argument.
Comments
Of course, we're looking for logic in religion. We are doomed to fail.
It is theologically consistent - at least with his expressed theology. And even if you want to be an apologist and try to spin this, it's still abhorrent.
At the end of the day, I'm fine with someone being against abortions. Hey, I don't like them. I don't think you should get one in most cases. But why should I be allowed to stop someone from getting one? I don't get to make shit illegal just because I don't like it.
I have a problem with someone making laws that restrict me based on that OBVIOUSLY RELIGIOUS view in a country where laws imposing religion are forbidden.
Now what? She gives birth, presumably. Then gives the kid up for adoption. Even more trauma! Hooray! Now, who its going to care for that kid? You think all the bible blading jackasses are chomping at the bit to adopt rape-babies?
How about the social sigma that would go along with mother and child?
This isn't even hypothetical. There's case history.
Also, Roe vs Wade wasn't the beginning of abortion in America. It was the beginning of safe and legal abortion by licensed medical professionals. The alternative is coat hangers and knitting needles and criminal "doctors" preying on vulnerable and terrified women, not a rainbows-and-fluffy-clouds Leave it to Beaver land with no abortions.
The only thing worse than a bad position is a weak position that one refuses to defend but simultaneously refuses to concede.
I'm sorry that you're turned off by the way I argued with Jack in a way identical to which everyone else argued with Jack, only with less personal attacks. That you have some sort of issue with my personality is clear. I feel badly about that, but not responsible for it, even slightly.
EDIT: ninja'd
I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation for how my conduct in the argument with Jack is different from everyone else's in this thread. Rym responded past Jack's concession, as well, so I guess you've all lost a ton of respect for him. Right?
Seriously, folks, this is beyond stupid and textbook "Outsider! Get him!" psychology. Only YOU can pick on Jack. I get it and you should stop pretending it's anything else.
I wasn't even particularly mean to Jack. Show me where I was.
I felt badly for him a week or so ago when Greg and WUB were having at him, myself. I guess maybe when you're not the one arguing your perspective is different. Imagine.
Anyway, that's it for me.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Chaos. He actually mentioned me by name, though.
There's really no taking me to task.
I'm pretty sure I chimed in somewhere in the big pharma argument. I probably said something in there like "you're an idiot." You were probably being an idiot.
Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think Muppet was being a bigger jerk than we usually see other people being. Luke is a jerk. Rym is a jerk. WuB is a jerk. We're mostly all jerks.
I don't have any problems with anybody arguing with me until ad hominem becomes most of the argument.