WALSH: Why The Left Is Terrified Of Gosnell

[MiddleGround]

You never answered the question.

I didn't ask an opinion, by the way.

Umm... Yeah! Pretty sure you DID ask for an opinion. Which I offered. Please see below

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?

I answered BOTH questions with what I BELIEVE to be true. You then proceeded to take an arrogant stance and reply about that what I BELIEVE was the answer was wrong. Really no other way to explain it.

Its ok though, I realize that so many people on here would rather get lemon juice poured on their paper cuts then admit that they were wrong in any way.

 

[This_person]

Umm... Yeah! Pretty sure you DID ask for an opinion. Which I offered. Please see below

Fair enough!

I answered BOTH questions with what I BELIEVE to be true.

Perhaps you can help me understand your answer, then. I postulated that when women have consensual sex with the expectation that someone who has sex has some understanding that they could become pregnant (even if they are using BC), then they are consenting to the potential of pregnancy. Thus, a woman's consent is a reasonable assumption to the vast majority of abortions, since Planned Parenthood offers up <0.5% (I said <1%, but I was trying to be reasonable and double the potential of rape) of abortions are from rape. BD said that the church should teach men to control where they put their seed. So, I asked what role the church plays in getting women pregnant.

If I understand your answer correctly, you stated the opinion that the church likes members and thus offers an environment where pregnancy is a plus for the woman.

I responded that the church, generically, doesn't even come close to shunning non-mother females.

Assuming I have the conversation correct so far, are you suggesting that the church actually does shun non-mother females, or are you saying you simply don't like the tone of voice you put in your head as coming from me as you read what I typed, or, what is your objection to my response? Because, see, I don't see a response to how the church is playing a role in getting a woman pregnant; I read an opinion from you that the church likes money and therefore seeks to create an environment where more members = more money.

Of course, neither of us are coming close to BD's suggestion that only the man is responsible for the woman getting pregnant, but that is a whole separate issue.

Meanwhile, the other question you quoted me asking is what role the church plays in the law that allows the mother to kill the child she willingly created. I am really reading hard, and trying to come up with where you answered that, but I just can't. Please let me know how you answered that, because I clearly do not understand what you said that answers that question.

You then proceeded to take an arrogant stance and reply about that what I BELIEVE was the answer was wrong. Really no other way to explain it.

Again, I stated an opinion contrary to yours. If my contrary opinion is somehow refutable by you, by all means refute it. And, the arrogance you're reading is in your head. My tone of voice is not transmittable in typing, so what you are hearing is what is in your head.

It's kind of like the meme:

Person A: Do you pronounce it data or data?

Person B: I totally hate that I read those as two different words, but you're crazy if you think it is data and not data.​

Kind of funny, and demonstrates my point

Its ok though, I realize that so many people on here would rather get lemon juice poured on their paper cuts than admit that they were wrong in any way.

I concur. I presume that is why BD won't answer.

 

[MiddleGround]

Perhaps you can help me understand your answer, then. I postulated that when women have consensual sex with the expectation that someone who has sex has some understanding that they could become pregnant (even if they are using BC), then they are consenting to the potential of pregnancy. Thus, a woman's consent is a reasonable assumption to the vast majority of abortions, since Planned Parenthood offers up <0.5% (I said <1%, but I was trying to be reasonable and double the potential of rape) of abortions are from rape. BD said that the church should teach men to control where they put their seed. So, I asked what role the church plays in getting women pregnant.

What does one have to do with the other???

Assuming I have the conversation correct so far, are you suggesting that the church actually does shun non-mother females, or are you saying you simply don't like the tone of voice you put in your head as coming from me as you read what I typed, or, what is your objection to my response? Because, see, I don't see a response to how the church is playing a role in getting a woman pregnant; I read an opinion from you that the church likes money and therefore seeks to create an environment where more members = more money.

Where in the HELL did this come from? Strawman much? This is an argument you are making solely on your own. Also, I do stand by my statement that a primary reason why the church (any church) pushes for women having children is to add to the flock which, in turn, eventually adds to the bank account.

Of course, neither of us are coming close to BD's suggestion that only the man is responsible for the woman getting pregnant, but that is a whole separate issue.

I have seen him take that stance quite a bit. Something odd going on there being a man that sees zero liability in the woman's choice as to getting pregnant. Maybe he has a caveman mentality when it comes to procreation and thinks the woman has no say and therefore, no responsibility :shrug:

Meanwhile, the other question you quoted me asking is what role the church plays in the law that allows the mother to kill the child she willingly created. I am really reading hard, and trying to come up with where you answered that, but I just can't. Please let me know how you answered that, because I clearly do not understand what you said that answers that question.

You mean THIS:

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]

What does one have to do with the other???

If the church is to help men control where they put their seed, then the implication by BD is that the church is somehow complicit in getting the women pregnant by not doing what BD thinks is a good enough job in teaching men where to put their seed. If BD does not think that the church is somehow complicit in getting the women pregnant, then BD's not providing much a point. I was trying to find out if he was doing what I explained ad naseum above in terms of bomb throwing for emotional purposes vice providing a valid point to anything, or if he thinks he has a point.

Where in the HELL did this come from? Strawman much? This is an argument you are making solely on your own. Also, I do stand by my statement that a primary reason why the church (any church) pushes for women having children is to add to the flock which, in turn, eventually adds to the bank account.

You realize your last sentence answers your first and second question, right?

If the purpose of the church's position on child creation is to add to the flock, then the role the church is playing is advocating women get pregnant. My question, as you recall and reiterated, was what role the church plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent". So, your answer appears to be they encourage the woman to get pregnant.

I followed that assertion/belief as I understood it coming from you with the answer that the church actually does not do much at all, as the church does not shun women who have no children. I was refuting your assertion. So, where the HELL that came from is a question - do you believe the church shuns women who do not have children, or was your initial point invalid? It's really a binary choice there. Either the church creates an atmosphere that is encouraging women to become pregnant by shunning women who do not have children, or they don't. Either your initial opinion/belief is invalid, or you believe the church (generically, so apparently a plurality of "the churches" out there) shun women who do not have children. The question comes from your assertion, not from a strawman.

You are certainly welcome to elaborate on your position to demonstrate how I am misunderstanding your point.

I have seen him take that stance quite a bit. Something odd going on there being a man that sees zero liability in the woman's choice as to getting pregnant. Maybe he has a caveman mentality when it comes to procreation and thinks the woman has no say and therefore, no responsibility :shrug:

You mean THIS:

No, I don't. What you quoted from your original answer to my question to BD talks about the church's position (again, generically). My response to that position is that there is a limitation on government (which writes/approves/enforces laws) that they may not enforce laws based on religious practices only, as that would be tantamount to establishing a given religion. You answered what the church's position on abortion is to a question on what any church's position should have to do with law creation.

 

[MiddleGround]

If the church is to help men control where they put their seed, then the implication by BD is that the church is somehow complicit in getting the women pregnant by not doing what BD thinks is a good enough job in teaching men where to put their seed. If BD does not think that the church is somehow complicit in getting the women pregnant, then BD's not providing much a point. I was trying to find out if he was doing what I explained ad naseum above in terms of bomb throwing for emotional purposes vice providing a valid point to anything, or if he thinks he has a point.

I believe you are taking quite the giant leap here.

If a school expels a student, is the school then complicit if the student grows up to become a murderer?

The church can teach it's flock to obey or live a life that is according to it's doctrine. It is still up to the individual to take responsibility for living that life.



You realize your last sentence answers your first and second question, right?

If the purpose of the church's position on child creation is to add to the flock, then the role the church is playing is advocating women get pregnant. My question, as you recall and reiterated, was what role the church plays in getting women pregnant with the woman's consent". So, your answer appears to be they encourage the woman to get pregnant.

I followed that assertion/belief as I understood it coming from you with the answer that the church actually does not do much at all, as the church does not shun women who have no children. I was refuting your assertion. So, where the HELL that came from is a question - do you believe the church shuns women who do not have children, or was your initial point invalid? It's really a binary choice there. Either the church creates an atmosphere that is encouraging women to become pregnant by shunning women who do not have children, or they don't. Either your initial opinion/belief is invalid, or you believe the church (generically, so apparently a plurality of "the churches" out there) shun women who do not have children. The question comes from your assertion, not from a strawman.

You are certainly welcome to elaborate on your position to demonstrate how I am misunderstanding your point.

I've never said that the church shuns women that do not want children. Why would they do that? It removes from the "pot."

The church will advocate for women to have children in order to replenish the ranks (broken record alert) and thus, add to the list of potential monetary donors to keep the church going.

Will the church counsel the single woman (who does not have or want kids) to marry and multiply? Of course! Will they shun her if she says no? Of course NOT! At least, not these days

 

[This_person]

I believe you are taking quite the giant leap here.

If a school expels a student, is the school then complicit if the student grows up to become a murderer?

The church can teach it's flock to obey or live a life that is according to it's doctrine. It is still up to the individual to take responsibility for living that life.

I think we fully agree. So, what is the point in bringing the church into the discussion if people are responsible for themselves? That was the intent of the question to BD.

I've never said that the church shuns women that do not want children. Why would they do that? It removes from the "pot."

The church will advocate for women to have children in order to replenish the ranks (broken record alert) and thus, add to the list of potential monetary donors to keep the church going.

Will the church counsel the single woman (who does not have or want kids) to marry and multiply? Of course! Will they shun her if she says no? Of course NOT! At least, not these days

So, the church really doesn't do ANYTHING of consequence that would imply a woman is somehow wrong for not having kids, and thus is not complicit in any way...that seems to be what you are saying here, which was my point in the question to BD all along, and seems to refute the opinion that the church's urgings to have kids is in any way a driver for a woman to willingly become pregnant.

You're making my points for me, and I appreciate that!

The main point being, there was no reason of consequence to bring the church into the discussion. The only viable reason was to try and inflame emotions, which is what I said originally.

 

[MiddleGround]

So, the church really doesn't do ANYTHING of consequence that would imply a woman is somehow wrong for not having kids, and thus is not complicit in any way...that seems to be what you are saying here, which was my point in the question to BD all along, and seems to refute the opinion that the church's urgings to have kids is in any way a driver for a woman to willingly become pregnant.

Currently... Yes. I would say this is true.

Not so much about 20-25 years ago. Which may be where BD is stuck at. Some people have a hard time moving on as those around them advance in thought. It wasn't that long ago that is WAS in fact a major cannon of the church to have women married and popping out babies.

 

[This_person]

Currently... Yes. I would say this is true.

Not so much about 20-25 years ago. Which may be where BD is stuck at. Some people have a hard time moving on as those around them advance in thought. It wasn't that long ago that is WAS in fact a major cannon of the church to have women married and popping out babies.

If you said 70+ years ago, I could probably agree. I think the generic church wants people to be married to have kids, and having kids is a good thing, but I don't think there's been much of a sexist push on women for stuff like that since the '60's.

The sad thing is that BD couldn't grow a pair and answer for himself.

 

[WingsOfGold]

Abortion is not a heinous act. Not at all.

So in your world it's veal?