WALSH: Why The Left Is Terrified Of Gosnell

This_person

Well-Known Member
#CrocodileTears
If men could just control there seed, maybe the church should start teaching little boys how to control where their seed is deposited...
Maybe it would help you engage if I restated the question: What role do you believe the church (apparently, there's only one?) plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent? And, what does the church have to do with a law that allows that woman to then kill the child with which she willingly became pregnant?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Can't engage on an intellectual level, Black Dog? We have had many a good conversation; it seems sad that - on this topic - you can't be any better than Trans, or Midnight, or Salmon, or Sappy, or.......
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I get out plenty, I'm not into getting face from a dude in the ladies room.. Whatever floats your boat downlow..
What role do you believe the church (apparently, there's only one?) plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent? And, what does the church have to do with a law that allows that woman to then kill the child with which she willingly became pregnant?
 

MiddleGround

Active Member
What role do you believe the church (apparently, there's only one?) plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent? And, what does the church have to do with a law that allows that woman to then kill the child with which she willingly became pregnant?
Since our resident expert (or always claiming to know an expert) won't answer.. I will :yay:

What role do you believe the church (apparently, there's only one?) plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent?
It is very well known that the Church encourages man and woman to procreate. Of course, this is supposed to be done during the bonds of marriage however, in recent times the Church has backed off pushing that narrative. They believe that procreation within the Church will replenish the ranks and contribute to future coffers.

And, what does the church have to do with a law that allows that woman to then kill the child with which she willingly became pregnant?
I know of NO church that endorses ANY form of fetal termination. They preach that a life is a life regardless of how it was created. Once again, in the end it will replenish the ranks and add to future "contributions."
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Since our resident expert (or always claiming to know an expert) won't answer.. I will :yay:
I appreciate you answering for him, but I was hoping he'd grow a pair and answer himself. He is the one that brought the church into the discussion on whether or not it should be legal for women to kill their kids, so I wanted to know what his opinion was on why the church should be a part of that discussion.

The fact he refuses to answer why he threw such a bomb into a relatively benign conversation tells me he knows he was wrong for doing it, that it was simply for effect, and the fact that he was called on it was never in his plans. If he had a shred of decency and honesty in him, he would admit that.

It is very well known that the Church encourages man and woman to procreate. Of course, this is supposed to be done during the bonds of marriage however, in recent times the Church has backed off pushing that narrative.
I'm not sure what church you go to that has "backed off pushing that narrative" that marriage should come before babies, but since "the church" is a pretty generic and meaningless phrase, I will let that one go....please, go on:
They believe that procreation within the Church will replenish the ranks and contribute to future coffers.
I agreed with you up until the bolded portion. Keep in mind that the whole purpose of the church is to spread The Word, and therefore having more people to do that and to believe is a good thing. It's pretty rare that you find too many super-rich pastors and priests, so I'm pretty sure the bolded phrase is a jaded opinion and not exactly fact.

Still not bringing the church into law, though. Let's read on and see if you get there.

I know of NO church that endorses ANY form of fetal termination. They preach that a life is a life regardless of how it was created. Once again, in the end it will replenish the ranks and add to future "contributions."
Nope, you never quite made it into how the church is impacting a woman's right to choose whether or not to get pregnant, and why the church should be involved in laws on whether or not she be allowed to kill the child she willingly created. Just more jaded opinion on "contributions".


See, the first amendment to the constitution says that people should be free to choose religion themselves, and practice or not without government involvement or interference. That kind of leaves "the church" (because, apparently there's only one?) out of legal policy making. Any good constitutional conservative (you know, people who want rule of law) would tell you this. Meanwhile, "the church" may preach to increase the ranks, but the church doesn't exactly shun people who have few kids. It's not like you're not a good (insert religious type here) if you don't have a lot of kids, and therefore you will be removed from the ranks of "the church". So, no church is putting any kind of undue pressure on women to get pregnant, taking away their right to choose to get pregnant or not.

So, bringing "the church" into the discussion is really not for any logical reason except to try and inflame an otherwise meaningful and respectful conversation. It's meant to remove fact and instill emotion into a discussion. The one and only way to "win" a discussion when you have no good facts is to try and throw the other person's emotions off kilter. For example, you could say they are hypocritical in their religious beliefs for having secular beliefs on government involvement into people's lives. That's a pretty clunky sentence, because it is a completely illogical though process. But, it is designed, when put in practice, to make someone respond emotionally. Thus endeth the reasonable discussion when that is attempted.
 

MiddleGround

Active Member
I appreciate you answering for him, but I was hoping he'd grow a pair and answer himself. He is the one that brought the church into the discussion on whether or not it should be legal for women to kill their kids, so I wanted to know what his opinion was on why the church should be a part of that discussion.

The fact he refuses to answer why he threw such a bomb into a relatively benign conversation tells me he knows he was wrong for doing it, that it was simply for effect, and the fact that he was called on it was never in his plans. If he had a shred of decency and honesty in him, he would admit that.



I'm not sure what church you go to that has "backed off pushing that narrative" that marriage should come before babies, but since "the church" is a pretty generic and meaningless phrase, I will let that one go....please, go on:

I agreed with you up until the bolded portion. Keep in mind that the whole purpose of the church is to spread The Word, and therefore having more people to do that and to believe is a good thing. It's pretty rare that you find too many super-rich pastors and priests, so I'm pretty sure the bolded phrase is a jaded opinion and not exactly fact.

Still not bringing the church into law, though. Let's read on and see if you get there.



Nope, you never quite made it into how the church is impacting a woman's right to choose whether or not to get pregnant, and why the church should be involved in laws on whether or not she be allowed to kill the child she willingly created. Just more jaded opinion on "contributions".


See, the first amendment to the constitution says that people should be free to choose religion themselves, and practice or not without government involvement or interference. That kind of leaves "the church" (because, apparently there's only one?) out of legal policy making. Any good constitutional conservative (you know, people who want rule of law) would tell you this. Meanwhile, "the church" may preach to increase the ranks, but the church doesn't exactly shun people who have few kids. It's not like you're not a good (insert religious type here) if you don't have a lot of kids, and therefore you will be removed from the ranks of "the church". So, no church is putting any kind of undue pressure on women to get pregnant, taking away their right to choose to get pregnant or not.

So, bringing "the church" into the discussion is really not for any logical reason except to try and inflame an otherwise meaningful and respectful conversation. It's meant to remove fact and instill emotion into a discussion. The one and only way to "win" a discussion when you have no good facts is to try and throw the other person's emotions off kilter. For example, you could say they are hypocritical in their religious beliefs for having secular beliefs on government involvement into people's lives. That's a pretty clunky sentence, because it is a completely illogical though process. But, it is designed, when put in practice, to make someone respond emotionally. Thus endeth the reasonable discussion when that is attempted.
I do so love how you asked an opinion on a subject, then... in a very condescending way... explain how you THINK that opinion is wrong :lmao:

I suppose now I know why BD just didn't answer.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I do so love how you asked an opinion on a subject, then... in a very condescending way... explain how you THINK that opinion is wrong :lmao:

I suppose now I know why BD just didn't answer.
You never answered the question. BD was asked why the church was involved in the law, and you answered the church likes members to make money. You didn't even touch on the question in your answer.

I'm happy to listen to an answer to the question, but your opinion was not it.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I do so love how you asked an opinion on a subject, then... in a very condescending way... explain how you THINK that opinion is wrong :lmao:
I didn't ask an opinion, by the way. I asked for BD's motivation in putting "the church" into the discussion.

I also didn't explain how I think the opinion you offered was wrong, I offered a counterpoint.

I suppose now I know why BD just didn't answer.
We both knew why before you ever attempted to answer; BD got called out for a bull#### point, and doesn't have the balls to stand by his mistake.
 
Top