Pages

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Unproductive responses to the Emily Letts abortion video

[Today's guest post by Rachel Enders is part of our paid blogging program. Get more thoughts from Rachel at her Pro-Life For All tumblr. She also blogs about sexual health at Birds, Bees, and Other Things, which is not remotely safe for work.]

Emily Letts is a woman from New Jersey, and she is pro-choice. She participates in abortion-related activism, and she is an abortion counselor at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center. In November, she decided to have an abortion. This choice has sparked an onslaught of respect and condemnation from people on all sides of the abortion issue.

Why is Emily’s abortion different than the fifty-five million other abortions that have taken place since 1973? Emily Lett filmed her abortion… and it went viral.

Miss Lett entered her video into the Abortion Stigma-Busting Competition sponsored by the Abortion Care Network in an attempt to dissipate the shame that many women feel after an abortion. She says:
I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman's process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt… Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions… I had one woman who messaged me saying she’d had an abortion that week, and she was plagued with guilt. Her boyfriend called her a killer…
Unfortunately, these sorts of reactions to post-abortive women are far too common in some facets of the pro-life movement. When I was perusing facebook looking for information about this case, the amount of pure vitriol coming from the peanut gallery was simply terrible. I’ll share a few (adjusted for privacy).

Some were slut-shaming:

Others wished her infertility:

Some even wished her death:

And some were simply a bit stupid:

All of these examples are very, very sad.

I’m writing this in the early hours of Mother’s Day, and I’m appalled by so many aspects of this case. On one hand, there is a woman who has bought into the lies that support abortion. On the other hand, there are people who supposedly support life that are wishing another person violent death.

I understand the anger of the commenters. I really do. It makes me mad that this woman chose to end her child’s life. I am disappointed that in her sexual activity she was not using any form of birth control, by her own admission. It also makes me angry to see fellow pro-lifers spit this sort of hatred at a woman they’ve never met. I am even more livid that high-profile pro-life websites have allowed this sort of commenting to go unchecked on their Facebook pages.

I’ve drawn one conclusion about this story: Nothing has occurred so far that’s positive.

However, we do have the opportunity to improve the situation. Many women who are considering abortion or are post-abortive feel a great deal of shame and condemnation from society and the people around them. Unfortunately, too much of that comes from people who claim to be pro-life.

We can change this. Bringing positivity to the abortion dialogue does a lot. Firstly, it decreases the amount of totally unnecessary stress to someone who is facing an unwanted pregnancy or has just lost a child. In any circumstance that’s difficult and nobody needs to be called a whore when their lives are going to be changed forever. Secondly, if a woman has had or is seeking an abortion, do you think this sort of trash talking will convince her to choose life? I don’t think so. Lastly, it’s just the kind thing to do. That factor is enough for me to use only productive language in any circumstance. The list goes on and on, but I’ve picked out the highlights.

I truly believe that with some hard work, the pro-life movement will ultimately triumph over abortion. It’s a firm conviction of mine. For this to occur, we have to stay productive and open. We can let our anger drive us to action, but we can’t let it consume us. Overall, I believe that we can change hearts and minds, but hatred only hurts our cause.

Calling someone scum doesn’t save the unborn – it only hurts people.

299 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 299 of 299
Suba gunawardana said...

I said nothing about going to bed. More importantly what's your obsession with with other people's bedtimes? This is not the first time you mentioned bedtimes.

This time your ENTIRE post is a string of excuses, insults & flailing. Getting rather old.

You couldn't even manage to prove your claim that I ever argued for "right to life" for ANYTHING. Duh! Apparently your whole debate is based on lies.

Now Einstein, here's the argument in a nutshell, once again. Rebut if you can. If all you can come back with are yet more personal attacks, that means you lost long ago.

Summary of YOUR view: “We, forced-birthers, wish to retain our right to kill/use/abuse other individuals for our own necessity & convenience, but to take away WOMEN’s right to kill a fetus for their necessity & convenience. Killing is fine when we say so but not when anyone else says so. We wish to propagate the human species at whatever cost to non-humans, OR to human women & children. This includes forcing every single fetus to birth, regardless of the mother’s wishes or the well-being of the future child. We call this concept “human ethics” which makes it easy to fool the gullible into thinking it’s for their own good”.

My rebuttal: There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause. Nothing remotely ethical about running roughshod over living breathing sentient individuals (children, women, animals) in your quest to propagate the human species. If you want to propagate the species, fine, do it yourself. You have no right to force others to participate in your goal, and to make them sacrifice their bodies and well-being in doing so.

Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human species. Why should I agree? More importantly, why should any woman sacrifice HER body & HER freedom for your ideology?

Basset_Hound said...

OK. Point well taken. Isn't it interesting that Mamabear is not one of your alter-egos.

lady_black said...

I disagree. Child support is the right of the child. What he thinks about having a child is irrelevant to the child's right to be supported by both parents.

Suba gunawardana said...

Again, Einstein:
-Anecdotes (which you have provided a-plenty) are not proof.
-More importantly, getting banned for something you actually DID is very different from getting banned under unfounded allegations.

MarcusFenix said...

Actually, btw...since it totally went over your head, not surprisingly...

That statement was a backhanded way of pointing out your values or morals (which admittedly, you display a stunning lack of) carry no more or less weight than mine.

Of course, deflecting the fact that you, indeed, cannot make a moral or ethical argument for an immoral or unethical act didn't escape me, but..the fact i have to take time to explain this bit is rather telling, eh sweetie? ;)

Suba gunawardana said...

YOU labeling abortion (or any act) unethical/immoral does not make it so, considering
your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s according to your own “argument” here. (Based on your history of using underhanded tactics to avoid responding to arguments, your opinion carries LESS weight than those of others.)

Suba gunawardana said...

Spoken like the coward you are... :)

MarcusFenix said...

"YOU labeling abortion (or any act) unethical/immoral does not make it so, considering
your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s according to your own “argument” here."

Except your telling me it's not valid bypasses the entire argument i've made for it. Your out of hand dismissal is worthless, regardless of your opinion.

If you can logically deconstruct it, you wouldn't have wasted a week posting nonsense.

" (Based on your history of using underhanded tactics to avoid responding
to arguments, your opinion carries LESS weight than those of others.)"

LOL...calling you a retard and showing where you're wrong, or pointing out why, or the fact you're nothing more than a utilitarian Eugenics believer, is "underhanded". Yeah, i'll be sure to file that properly under "you're still an idiot".

MarcusFenix said...

Right, because replying to your idiocy is cowardly? Maybe fruitless, and certainly it's not because you make even a possibly valid argument, but.....

If you're going to use insults, at least use ones that work with the flow of the posting.

I know English is like you're 4th language, (being, in order of skill, "Idiot", "Moron" and "Double Speak"), but at least try to do better. You're embarrassing yourself.

Suba gunawardana said...

That would mean sperm donors could be forced to support children made out of their sperm.



I don't know the legal aspects of it, but in my opinion every person should have the right to opt out of the obligation of parenthood within a reasonable time. (The reasonable time being enough time to get an abortion, NO abandoning a born child.)


That right should apply to all, regardless of gender.

MarcusFenix said...

"Who cares Calvin? The "dual account" crap is getting really old."

Then stop using them? Stop being an idiot. Stop posting. Seems pretty straightforward on how to get by that.

"All you have proved is you would go to ANY lenghts to avoid addressing an opposing view."

Except when I address them. I just dont feel the need to repeat myself but so many times, while you whine, b!tch and stomp your feet on the matter. You were given a rebuttal, even on your idiotic stances and points. Your reply, here at the end, is "your opinion is worthless".

I said like a week ago...you weren't looking for a debate. You wanted an argument. You got one, with someone that ran circles around you, and *these* postings are what you're reduced to.

"You are getting quite boring. If you ever bring a valid rebuttal I will
still respond. Certainly won't hold my breath, based on your conduct in
the past week.

Bring an actual argument then. If you're bored, do us all a favor and log off. Conversations end that way incredibly fast. Just saying.

MarcusFenix said...

I will, thanks!

I know you're bored, so..hit that huge red X in the top right corner, and get some rest.

Suba gunawardana said...

Says the guy who AVOIDED the point at all cost. And here you go with the same dance again. Look who's repeating LOL

MarcusFenix said...

No. Wrong, as usual.

Says the guy who rebutted and slapped your ridiculous points from the first post I made. It's ok to save face and think that's not the case, but your reply to those was basically "I don't agree"...and now you've spent a week whining about it.

I'll say it again since you're slow. Will use small words when possible, since you're acting like you're 5...i'll treat you like a 5 year old.

I wrote you. Said they were bad. Showed why they were bad. You said no. You not understand what "non sequitur" mean. You cry for week over not making argument.

Hope that helps.

Suba gunawardana said...

Just for the record, here's the argument that you failed to rebut, and repeatedly avoided using all kinds of diversion tactics. (Obviously you have no response & I don't have the patience to wait another week). Enjoy!

Summary of YOUR view: “We, forced-birthers, wish to retain our right to kill/use/abuse other individuals for our own necessity & convenience, but to take away WOMEN’s right to kill a fetus for their necessity & convenience. Killing is fine when we say so but not when anyone else says so. We wish to propagate the human species at whatever
cost to non-humans, OR to human women & children. This includes forcing every single fetus to birth, regardless of the mother’s wishes or the well-being of the future child. We call this concept “human ethics” which makes it easy to fool the gullible into thinking it’s for their own good”.

My rebuttal: There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause. Nothing remotely ethical about running roughshod over living breathing sentient
individuals (children, women, animals) in your quest to propagate the
human species. If you want to propagate the species, fine, do it yourself. You have no right to force others to participate in your goal,
and to make them sacrifice their bodies and well-being in doing so.

Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human
species. Why should I agree? More importantly, why should any woman
sacrifice HER body & HER freedom for your ideology?

MarcusFenix said...

I didn't even need to get past the preview for this before i could spot that the entire thing you're posting is incorrect, not what i said, and is erroneous. You've purposely misrepresented every single person here, and elsewhere, that have posted to you, and then get all whiny and teary when it's rejected for being incorrect (or not even an argument).

Not surprising, really. Your entire post there is the second biggest straw man you've used in 2 days.

See, like this piece from the bottom.

"Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human
species. Why should I agree?"

Could you incorrectly present something faster next time? That "one person is replying" thing for such crappy content took you forever.

I didn't state i wanted to "propagate" the species. Far from it, in fact. You could have bothered asking about my views on overpopulation, but you don't have time for things like facts or asking questions to get real answers.

I'm not campaigning that we get women pregnant for the sake of increased population. My point was that abortion is unethical and immoral as a practice, when used on innocent life, and that killing said life was wrong. You spun that into all kinds of things, even to the point where your argument was that basically, people and animals are on the same playing field. Sorry, it's not even close to reality.

It's really just that easy. You can't even take the time to actually acknowledge your opponents actual argument, and have spent a week doing THIS kind of replies instead.

How about this bit?
"There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause."

Which was my point, in regards to abortion. YOUR actually point was that it was wrong to sacrifice innocent life for convenience and so forth. Directly, that's your statement.

When challenged by pointing out that a fetus fits EVERY qualification of what you state about being innocent requires your rebuttal:

"I don't believe that's they are".

Well, now that we've got the tripe out of the way, how about WHY it's wrong? Miss that day in Debate 101? If i fits every qualification, there's no reason TO exclude it.

The start of an easy syllogism, using your own definitions.

P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
P2. Animals are innocent life.
C1. It is therefor wrong to kill animals for convenience.

See, very easy. You could have done that crap a week ago, rather than wasting time.

Now, since a fetus fits YOUR parameters for innocent behavior, let's try again.

P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
P2. A fetus is an innocent life.
C1. It is therefore wrong to kill a fetus for convenience.

And Presto. That's how its done, and again...your reply to this idea was "I don't believe that to be the case".

Of course not, because having to admit this would make you intellectually honest and beholden to follow the logic. This runs contrary to your "belief"...which oddly, you point out is for idiots, i might add...so you won't change it.

It's no wonder your arguments are all full of crap. You don't understand what's being said by anyone else, and when they do say something, you twist it until it gets to what you need it to say, via straw man, to knock down.

Please, take a week. That might be enough time to let some of this sink in.

Suba gunawardana said...

Once again, “rejecting” an argument is the coward's way out. At least you made an attempt this time.

After flailing & deflecting for over a week, you STILL failed the grasp the point. Even after I literally spelled it out, you are still getting it backwards! LMAO!

Let’s start again.

“YOUR actually point was that it was wrong to sacrifice innocent life for convenience and so forth.”

I NEVER said that. Stop lying to try & justify YOUR position. I challenged you to point out where I ever said this, & you miserably failed (as with all challenges).

“P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
P2. Animals are innocent life.

C1. It is therefor wrong to kill animals for convenience.”

HUGE fail. My position has always been the OPPOSITE. This is just ONE instance (among many) where I stated the exact opposite, which of course, you totally danced around true to form.

>>Now Einstein: I am NOT
questioning your right to kill animals, but merely pointing out your hypocrisy in opposing the killing of certain individuals while merrily killing other individuals, all the while calling yourself “Pro-life”.

You being a slave to definitions, rules & technicalities, you should be the first to realize that NOBODY can be pro-life. To live is to kill. There’s no human alive who hasn’t killed others directly or indirectly. So your “Pro-life” label is a hypocritical lie,
created solely to oppress others while fooling the gullible to think it’s a
good thing.<<

Nowhere did I EVER claim that killing animals was wrong. My consistent position was that: Considering it is perfectly legal & acceptable to kill SOME innocent individuals (animals, plants, certain humans) for our necessity & convenience, you have no
justification to selectively object the killing of OTHER innocent individuals (fetuses) for the same reason.

You have tried every tactic under the sun, stooped to every low, trying to avoid this point. (like a monkey
throwing crap) You can keep avoiding, or finally have the courage to face &
address an opposing viewpoint. Choice is yours.

Let me make it even simpler.

P1. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to kill innocent life for our necessity & convenience.

P2. Animals are innocent life. So are fetuses

C1. It is therefore FINE to kill fetuses for necessity & convenience.

You have yet to provide a valid objection to oppose killing fetuses while killing animals & plants “because we can”. ALL are innocent life.

As you know now, there’s no such thing as a “pro-lifer”, only forced-birthers. Forced-birthers can be classified into two categories. Those who can grasp a point (even respond), and those who cannot grasp anything
even if their life depended on it. Guess which category you fall into? As I said before your hypocrisy will fit in nicely with that of the “Veganazis”.

lady_black said...

Sperm donors of the anonymous type are not held liable for child support. The reason for this is precisely to prevent married men from claiming they aren't the biological fathers of children born through sperm donors. If it's all there in the medical records, too bad if he isn't the biological father. For people who try DIY sperm donors, the legal frontier is murkier, and the courts will come down on the side of the child, as they should. The fact is, without medical intercession, the man is left without the legal protection of claiming no relationship. As far as the court is concerned, the two may have been lovers. The fact of legal abortion is legally and morally irrelevant to the right of a child to be supported by both parents. I think you are viewing child support as "her" right when it is not. It is the CHILD'S right. In too many cases, the alternative is the taxpayers supporting the child. I don't know too many taxpayers who see that as a good idea.

Suba gunawardana said...

Yet another pathetic attempt at dodge & denial.



There's nothing valid in your whole diatribe, considering it is aimed NOT at my argument but what you IMAGINE my argument to be. I will rebut anyway, as dodging & deflecting is not my style.

Remember, I repeatedly challenged you to prove where I EVER said "It's wrong to kill animals". You have failed to show a single quote. That alone disproves your whole premise.

"You said it like a dozen times."

Really? WHERE? How come you can't show even a single quote, let alone a dozen? Again, FAIL. (Miserable attempts at generalizations don't count, neither does you CLAIMING I said something. Remember, your word is worth nothing).

"You kept using it as an example. You referred to it over and over as some go-to."

WHERE Einstein? In your dreams? Referring to a certain action doesn't mean I personally advocate it or oppose it.

"Sorry, but in this late hour, you're stuck with your own examples. Your example, almost verbatim, was that if it's wrong to do it in one place, it's wrong to do it in another. I simply took your own example, and applied it. If you disagree, then you're welcome to go back to the very first post of yours, where you made this argument, or the other multiple times you made it over and over, after having to "simplify" it."

Flail, dodge, deny, & repeat. Keep up dance son. At least you are entertaining me although you failed at the debate.

"You did question it, several times, before totally misrepresenting it as you've done with everything else."

LOL! By now even YOU should realize how pathetic it is to keep repeating I said something without providing a single quote. An actual quote from me, not your flapping gums.

"Killing an animal or plant for food is survival."



Amazing how you keep repeating the same wrong statement. I have said this a hundred times: Animals & plants are killed NOT just for our survival but for all kinds of reasons which have NOTHING to do with survival. Are you that stupid as to not know what they are?

The point is, the humankind that you worship, deem it perfectly fine to use/exploit/kill those weaker than them. "Ethics" is just a word used to fool the gullible into following you. In a system based on exploiting those weaker, there are no real ethics.

Humans have EXEMPTED certain specific individuals from this exploitation (able-minded adults who have not openly broken the law; children & the disabled to SOME extent; a VERY FEW types of animals), again for selfish reasons. The rest are fair game. IF you wish to exempt any group & give them "right to life" or any other right, you have to provide a valid justification. "Innocent" is absolutely not good enough, considering the vast majority of other individuals humankind is free to kill are also innocent.

The rest of your post is of course, nothing but venom & insults. Obviously you are capabler of nothing more, considering you have no argument. Surprise me if you can, boy, and present a REAL argument why "fetuses should have right to life".

JDC said...

Hello. Not sure if this is the best place to drop this or not, but it's partly for the benefit of anyone who happens to follow me on Disqus as well. Anyways, if you're still interested in Crawford's craziness, you might be interested to know that there is two Facebook groups I know of that were created to counter his work.Neither is very large or active, but I have read some funny stuff on them.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Natural-Abortion-Flaws/212582372184644

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Debunking-the-Natural-Abortion-Laws/163945530389413

MarcusFenix said...

Excellent, thanks for the heads up :)

JDC said...

For additional fun, you may want to read his 'indisputable abortion facts', which is apparently what he was pushing before the scientific laws we know and love today. Did you know that if you can be frozen and brought back to life, you are not "living human life"? Also, I love how the guy who claims to be doing science uses the term "spark of life.' Because that's totally a scientific term.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ItouP7qed2sr_SzR9rMT_UKVAFvlrZd8KSes4AazoP4

purrtriarchy said...

Your longest post yet!

Holy fuck.

I haven't been reading this conversation (way too many words), but the size of this post in my email caught my eye lol.

MarcusFenix said...

LOL....compliment or detraction? ;)

It is a bit long, but...at some point, sometimes you have to bring out a sledgehammer to knock down a wall.

MarcusFenix said...

The Natural Abortion Flaws site is a bit more updated and current. The other page, there were quite a few times where i wasn't sure if it was the admin or Crawford talking...i figured it was crawford, since the post itself was beyond stupid, but...it wasn't made specifically clear.

I am reading them now tho, since...looks like i'll be up all night again. :( Excellent stuff though, thanks!

JDC said...

Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm just glad that some people were keeping track of the conversations on his Facebook page. Apparently, he has a strong tendency towards deleting things there, so much of this would have been lost otherwise.

MarcusFenix said...

It's nice to see him being held to account.

I know about 3 months ago when i was just running roughshod on him, i took screenshots of everything..the actual argument, me just trolling the hell out of him for the fun of it, everything. It is good to know that he's as big of a loser with everyone else as he was with me.

Rainbow Walker said...

Evidently you still don’t get it,
or care. How are you equating gender selection to ensuring no child is unwanted? I forgot, you want more children to torture and abuse.

As for gender selection. What
culture is that? We don’t practice that here. And at least there will be less girl children for religious nuts to abuse, rape and sell.

Rainbow Walker said...

If one stumbled onto OZ [aka LAN] one could think that.

Rainbow Walker said...

I’m not going to run around this thread chasing your nonsense, Calvin. At least others are starting to see you for what you are and not swallowing your lies.

“I think we're about done here. You lose. Again.”

I come back and the kid is still at it? I think the dentist was more pleasant then listening to this retarded
child.

You are just like a vegan, a dogma is a dogma.

“Yet you keep mentioning. You keep going to it, as a red herring to detract and side step my discussion point.”

Yet you keep trying to argue the law. You did it with me the very first time you posted. The only one I see
trying to sidestep the issue is you.

“As a matter of survival, which YOU excluded as being just the way it is, remember?”

You use it as an excuse. You don’t want to see the exploitation because it will mean you must revaluate your ideology and it hurts your head to think.

“Secondly, here you are....making the case for animals again as being equal...after swearing up and down you aren't.”

Suba responded to this. It doesn’t sink in with you. You are the one trying to give rights to a fetus. Trying to
give rights by taking away those of others. This is the same tact vegans take. In
order to be a juridical person one must be able to actuate those rights and be responsible. Do you want to put a fetus on trial for killing a pregnant woman, or an animal for following its instinct and eating your baby?

You are using your religious beliefs to justify cruelty and systematically striping the rights of others away.

Rainbow Walker said...

You are wrong. You are trying to punish both the mother and the child. Studies show unwanted children are far more neglected and abused than those that are wanted. Passing fancy? Ever heard
of rape or coercion? Over 60% of all sex in this world falls in that classification. Most women don’t report rape, being too scared of the perpetrator. Beyond that why can’t a woman choose to evacuate a fetus if she wishes? I remember.
Your bybull subjugates women and makes them second class citizens. It’s better for you to take her rights away, give rapists and molesters the green light and ensure that child will be neglected and abused just to satisfy your Iron Age thinking?

Rainbow Walker said...

I’m waiting for you to be held accountable, Calvin. And talk about deleting, you do a lot of it on OZ [LAN]. “We must cover our tracks.” And you seem to like trying to run roughshod over people [not surprising your whole ideology follows this pattern]. Of course
only idiots fall for your stupidity. And the only ones who leave are the individuals who tire of arguing with a child. Given your arguments here you probably had your ass handed to you and don’t want to admit it.

MarcusFenix said...

So, after all of this, you just don't have an answer. Got it. :)

You keep saying that you're not saying those things...but you keep making the argument that "IF it's wrong to do one"....and then say the rest.

But please keep upvoting yourself, if it makes your loss feel any better.

MarcusFenix said...

I answered you on your other account, no need to do it here.

But i'll let Calvin know you're still multi-boxing over here. ;)

Suba gunawardana said...

What, no dance tonight? Uh-oh did we get our little feeling hurt....?

"You keep saying that you're not saying those things..."

True to form, not a single shred of proof, but what more can I expect from you, huh Pinocchio?

Rainbow Walker said...

Still trying to spread lies, Calvin? Of course that’s all you have left considering you’re delayed development
leaves you with an inability to grasp the simplest concept.

Rainbow Walker said...

Still no answer. No surprising. He didn’t understand the argument.

“But please keep upvoting
yourself, if it makes your loss feel any better.”

No one’s doing this but you Calvin, considering, you live on the net. Sad actually.

Rainbow Walker said...

He can’t dance. He can’t cognate. I think we’re barking up the wrong tree. This is a special needs child we’re
picking on.

Suba gunawardana said...

LOL yes. Did you know that it took him nearly 10 days to even remotely grasp the exact same argument that most other forced-birthers grasped within a day or two? Shameful even for a forced-birther...

Rainbow Walker said...

I noticed. Came back from the
dentist and you had him twisting. This one is real slow on the uptake.

Suba gunawardana said...

Looks like he is pouting & stopped dancing. Oh well... I will miss my nightly entertainment, but should use my time better anyway :)

MarcusFenix said...

Not at all. I just don't see a reason to repost 6 pages of material, that you have no rebuttal to, when saying that is just fine.

What proof do you need past the fact it's in the last two posts. You do know you can scroll upwards and see it? I'm pointing it out, not hard to find.

Why reply to me on your other account? you were doing so well by not acting like a sock puppet turd. :)

MarcusFenix said...

I'll pass your message along to him.

Still pretending to be a psychologist lawyer fireman unicorn ninja?

Responded on your other account, don't need to go much past here with you.

MarcusFenix said...

I answered. There's like 12 pages of answers. How stupid can you get?

Calvin would love to know that he lives on the net. I'll let him know.

Adam Peters said...

"How are you equating gender selection to ensuring no child is unwanted?"

Because girls are sometimes unwanted the abortion industry has been happy to dispose of them.

"As for gender selection. What
culture is that? We don’t practice that here.
"

Apparently they do in Canada: www.cmaj.ca/content/184/3/E163.full.pdf+html?sid=701eb7c8-5ccb-48c9-8fc1-4f7ebb37046a

"And at least there will be less girl children for religious nuts to abuse, rape and sell."


If that's the case then why not also target the ones that are outside the womb, too? Being dead is better than being unwanted, isn't it?

JDC said...

True. The funny thing is, he always claims that no one has refuted his laws, but it's more like everyone has. People constantly come to his page and point out the same problems with his work over and over again, only to get banned and have their comments deleted. The whole thing honestly makes him look quite petty.

MarcusFenix said...

When i first started in on him like what, a year ago(?) on Twitchy, i made that claim. Stated that he was setting the bar so high, on something already so over the top and illogical/nonsensical, that the burden of proof (in his own mind, not for everyone else) was impossible. He does it so that his approach looks intelligent and that it appears as if no one can scale his ivory tower of intellect.

Except, he didn't get a tower...he got a rancher house, and wonders why people keep getting in through the front door. :)

He's shown to be quite petty. I'm just sad that he removed the pure troll comments i was leaving for him one day, though i did save a screen shot of it. ;)

JDC said...

The funny thing is that when he debates off of his home turf, he accuses others of deleting and editing his comments. The projection is really astounding.

MarcusFenix said...

I know...i always found it hilarious that he accused me of deleting his comments.

On his website. Where he owns it. And runs it. And moderates it.

Never could get him to answer how that worked. :)

To me, him (along with the idiots i've been going back and forth here for, going on over a week now) are *perfect* examples of Hanlon's Razor.

Rainbow Walker said...

12 pages of stupidity. Go home
boy. You can’t debate and definitely can’t reason. You had your ass handed to you so many times I stopped counting.

And yes Calvin you live on the
net. Now go to bed, you have school tomorrow and your lack of understanding should be painfully embarrassing to you.

JDC said...

Hmm, I had actually forgotten that he accused you of deleting comments on his website as well. But he's so crazy that it doesn't really surprise me.

MarcusFenix said...

"12 pages of stupidity. Go home
boy."

Awww, you seem upset. You keep saying I live here (as well as others like Calvin, PJ, Ingrid, and the 14 other people you seem to think i am), so do you typically get confused and tell people to go to places where they already are, in fact, present?

"You can’t debate and definitely can’t reason."

Which is why you have no actual rebuttal to the syllogism offered, or anything else? Makes perfect sense, right?

"You had your ass handed to you so many times I stopped counting.'

You seem to have a thing for male asses. If that's your thing, i mean...it's your lifestyle and all, but we don't need to hear about it. I do find it curious that your inability to debate properly, or even respond without sounding like a cretin, somehow constitutes having "my ass handed to me". Ironically, it happens on your other account, and you then come here to argue the opposite. Glorious.

"And yes Calvin you live on the net."

Since Calvin isn't here, you'll have to go to his own page and tell him this.

"Now go to bed, you have school tomorrow and your lack of understanding should be painfully embarrassing to you."

Since it's not 1995, I only have other things, which are more fun, to do tomorrow. I do have to giggle, though, when someone like you tries to point out a lack of understanding...after demonstrating it for like 10 days straight.

G'nite gramps ;)

MarcusFenix said...

Honestly, if it wasn't as insane as it sounds, I wouldn't have really remembered it either. The whole thing is nuts.

Rainbow Walker said...

Touched a nerve. And real slow on the uptake.

“Which is why you have no actual rebuttal to the syllogism offered, or anything else? Makes perfect sense, right?”

Syllogism offered? First of all go to school and learn how to use syntax. And second no logic was offered only childish stupidity. It was rebutted, trashed and shown for the idiocy it was.

“You seem to have a thing for male asses”

Constantly leveling and
projecting. Look, kid this doesn’t work with me. I outed your sock puppet fetish and you have to come back with something.

And the rest isn’t worth
addressing, Calvin. I know telling you once more you have school in the morning
is no lark. You can’t fix stupid.

MarcusFenix said...

You have this thing with touching...oddly enough, it's never a nerve. It must be a very simple world, where you think text gets to people. <_<

"Syllogism offered? First of all go to school and learn how to use syntax. "

So, you don't actually have a rebuttal? And that sentence, in it's current form, is correct. A syllogism was offered. You'll notice that comma there (which isn't edited in, btw), which continues the sentence after said comma? Of course you didn't see it, because had you, this tripe wouldn't have made it to the screen. It's entertaining for you to try and correct something that's not in error to begin with, and i thank you for pointing out how ignorant you are yet again. Please don't offer corrections where they're not needed.

"It was rebutted, trashed and shown for the idiocy it was.'

It wasn't. It was dismissed out of hand, and i repeatedly stated that to be the case. You used a lovely straw man to deflect it, and then stated your "belief" about it. There wasn't a single logical rebuttal point in the entire thing, past your opinion and say so.

you're welcome to try again, using facts or anything that isn't just a bare assertion/dismissal, but you don't have the chops for it, obviously.

"Constantly leveling and
projecting."

As opposed to constantly thinking everyone is "leveling". Very sad. Clearly, you got about as far with your psych degree as you did with the bar exam.

" Look, kid this doesn’t work with me."

Clearly it does, because you keep responding with the same errors and idiocy time and time again.

"I outed your sock puppet fetish and you have to come back with something."

Calling your actions a "fetish" is entertaining, but calling you what you are isn't really a fetish. Saying it over and over makes you feel better, and I get it. It's ok to admit you have a problem. Isn't that Step 1? You do know that step, don't you? :)

"And the rest isn’t worth
addressing, Calvin."

It's a good thing you're not addressing Calvin (or that i noticed the comma there....get it?).

" I know telling you once more you have school in the morning is no lark. You can’t fix stupid."

If it's a lark, then with all of your AMAZING detective skills...what grade am I in? Where do I go to school? You've clearly stated on your accounts here that you know and can find these things.

I'll give you a hint...i'd have school tomorrow if the date was 5/22/95.

You're right though. You can't fix stupid...which explains a multitude of problems with you, your accounts, and your entire reasoning as a whole.

don't you have someplace to be, other than online? Nick At Night has some reruns of shows that were around when you were a kid maybe? :)

Rainbow Walker said...

“Because girls are sometimes unwanted the abortion industry has been happy to dispose of them.”

First of all there is no “abortion industry”. Second, this didn’t address the question. Just because one gender is prized over another doesn’t mitigate the fact that unwanted children are abused
and killed.

In Canada they don’t. They have forced birth propaganda there too. Sex selection is illegal in Canada. Using reproduction medicine to select the gender of a child was made illegal in Canada
in 2004.

“If that's the case then why not also target the ones that are outside the womb, too?”

Because it’s not inhabiting a juridical person we cannot terminated it. However, many children I treat think being dead is better than being unwanted. Want to tell the child whose parents beat them to a pulp that this life is better than being aborted?

Basset_Hound said...

And 10 days of this crap from someone who was "diagnosing" our posters! It seems to me that if he were a REAL psychologist he wouldn't be whining about being banned from somebody's web site or trying to "out" Marcus as Calvin as a part of some kind of internet conspiracy. But then again, according to our Resident Psychic, I'm supposed to have Mommy issues or sumpthin like dat....

Chris said...

It is sad. More sad because the abortion industry drowns out the voices of the mothers who have or are suffering from the trauma of their abortions. The women whose voices need to be heard, are belittled and shouted down.

Adam Peters said...

First of all there is no “abortion industry”.

No, just a group of people who collect hundreds of millions of dollars a years for performing abortions. You're right--that's nothing like an industry at all.

Second, this didn’t address the question. Just because one gender is
prized over another doesn’t mitigate the fact that unwanted children are
abused and killed.


And if the reason why a particular child is unwanted is because her parents don't like her gender then that's a perfectly acceptable reason to abort her, right?

In Canada they don’t. They have forced birth propaganda there too.

Yes, the Canadian Medical Association Journal (the ones who published the article that I provided) are known as a veritable hotbed of forced birth zealotry.

Because it’s not inhabiting a juridical person we cannot terminated it.

Well, you could encourage these unwanted children to do the job themselves. Acetaminophen is reasonably cheap, after all, and it doesn't take that much to induce liver failure.

"Want to tell the child whose parents beat them to a pulp that this life is better than being aborted?"


Yep, right after I reported this abuse to law enforcement.

Suba gunawardana said...

-Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption? Another 20-30K. Guess who’s the
profit-making industry?

-Personally I disapprove of gender discrimination. However, being abused or discriminated against as a living child is far worse than being aborted. (If I were the girl fetus inside a mother who didn’t want girls, I’d rather be aborted than live with a family who didn’t want me).

-Death from acetaminophen overdose is painful & inhumane. If you even consider such an option you obviously have no consideration for these children. (Most methods of suicide are painful).

-“Yep, right after I reported this abuse to law enforcement.”

Unfortunately a LOT of abuse is never known or
reported, and children suffer in silence until its too late. Until every child
is wanted (for the right reasons) and loved, abuse will not stop.

Suba gunawardana said...

Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of
childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption?
Another 20-30K.



Guess who’s the profit-making industry?

Suba gunawardana said...

Wrong as usual Pinocchio.



I challenged you to provide a QUOTE where I ever said animals (or anything
else) should have right to life.

You failed. (Not in the last two posts, not anywhere.)



Now use logic sonny:

-Obviously I wouldn't have said anything like that, considering my argument was always AGAINST the
right to life. Isn’t it ironic that your desperate attempt at debate is to now claim I am somehow on your side?

-Given your juvenile nature, if I had ever made even a single slip of the tongue you would’ve been so quick to jump on it. Your repeated lack of such a quote is what? Proof that you lied, yet again.

For the record, here’s the my basic point (among others) that you NEVER managed to properly rebut:

While YOU go on killing innocent individuals
for your own convenience, you have no right to impede others killing innocent
individuals for their own convenience. Basically, you cannot throw rocks while
living in glass houses.

Adam Peters said...

Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT
including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption? Another 20-30K.
Guess who’s the
profit-making industry?


Oh yes, they're both industries. The difference is that one puts children into adoptive families while the other one puts them into vats labelled as "Medical Waste."

Personally I disapprove of gender discrimination. However, being abused
or discriminated against as a living child is far worse than being
aborted.


So in other words, the female population of large chunks of the world would be better off dead. Even if that were true, why not let girls decide for themselves whether they want to keep living after they're born? You're approach doesn't sound very "pro-choice."

Death from acetaminophen overdose is painful & inhumane.

That's true, but being pulled apart is likely not a positive experience either so I figured it wouldn't be an issue for you.

Until every child is wanted (for the right reasons) and loved, abuse will not stop.

And we should keep killing them until that situation changes. Gotcha.

Suba gunawardana said...

“Oh yes, they're both industries.The difference is that one puts children into adoptive families while the other one puts them into vats labelled as "Medical Waste."”

-Breeding and selling children is not necessarily a good thing. In an already overburdened country/world without enough resources to care for the existing children, breeding & selling MORE is detrimental to many of those children. In the same situation, abortion is not a bad thing, considering those fetuses were unwanted anyway, and were unlikely to have found loving homes. As to medical waste, what happens to a body after death is immaterial.

“So in other words, the female population of large chunks of the world would be better off dead. Even if that were true, why not let girls decide for themselves whether they want to keep
living after they're born? You're approach doesn't sound very "pro-choice."

I already said I DISAGREE with and DISAPPROVE of gender discrimination. But unless you stop gender discrimination first, throwing vulnerable girls into a hostile environment is the worst thing you can do to them. Such girls will be raped, tortured, enslaved, sold. They don’t get a choice over their body, including whether to kill themselves. Have you seen the documentary “Half the sky” regarding the situation of women across the world? Women don’t get a choice.

That's true, but being pulled apart is likely not a positive experience either so I figured it wouldn't be an issue for you.

The difference is, a child can FEEL pain fear and distress, UNLIKE a fetus who can’t.

“And we should keep killing them until that situation changes. Gotcha.”

Yes. Once the number of children is equal to the number of responsible caring adults ready to be parents, there will be no more abuse.

purrtriarchy said...

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

Highlights

The human brain may discriminate touch from pain from 35–37 weeks gestation

Before 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke nonspecific neuronal bursts

After 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke modality-specific potentials

Summary

When and how infants begin to discriminate noxious from innocuous stimuli is a fundamental question in neuroscience [1].
However, little is known about the development of the necessary
cortical somatosensory functional prerequisites in the intact human
brain. Recent studies of developing brain networks have emphasized the
importance of transient spontaneous and evoked neuronal bursting
activity in the formation of functional circuits [2, 3]. These neuronal bursts are present during development and precede the onset of sensory functions [4, 5].
Their disappearance and the emergence of more adult-like activity are
therefore thought to signal the maturation of functional brain circuitry
[2, 4]. Here we show the changing
patterns of neuronal activity that underlie the onset of nociception and
touch discrimination in the preterm infant. We have conducted
noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) recording of the brain neuronal
activity in response to time-locked touches and clinically essential
noxious lances of the heel in infants aged 28–45 weeks gestation. We
show a transition in brain response following tactile and noxious
stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts to
modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest
that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch
and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human brain.

purrtriarchy said...

Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of
evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the
womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply
extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He
questions the value of such data:

Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however,
that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal
neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
incorrect.

He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2
in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both
sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with
the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing
consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then
the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized. “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

Mellor, DJ; Diesch, TJ; Gunn, AJ; Bennet, L (2005). "The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain". Brain research. Brain research reviews 49 (3): 455–71. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006. PMID 16269314.

Paul, AM (2008-02-10). "The First Ache". The New York Times.

Suba gunawardana said...

It’s not necessarily the women but the prefatory adoption industry that profits from selling children to the highest bidder. The women could be just as much their victims as the children are.

“Further,if we need to reduce the population then why not encourage suicide as well?”

Suicide is a personal choice, and many DO make that choice. No need of encouragement. Same for abortion. It’s a personal choice of the pregnant woman, NOT yours or
mine.

“These daughters are clearly unwanted and you've already said
that it's best if unwanted children are selectively aborted. “

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said it’s best to be SELECTIVELY aborted. For any unwanted child, male or female, in general its better to be aborted than be born into a hostile environment.

If I were the unwanted fetus (male or female) and if the choice is abortion now vs
a lifetime of rape & torture, I would choose abortion hands down. In countries where blatant gender discrimination exists, the LIFE of an unwanted girl is far worse than non-existence.

“There's evidence that says otherwise”

If fetal pain is a concern, the answer is NOT to abolish abortion but to provide anesthesia/analgesia. Doesn’t childbirth involve pain? And all surgical procedures? According to your logic shouldn't all those things be abolished due to pain?

Furthermore, if you are that concerned about fetal pain, where’s your concern for the pain & suffering of living breathing sentient CHLDREN (about whose capacity for suffering is there’s no question)?

DianaG2 said...

I have not mentioned anything about the Bible. In fact, I was pro-"choice" for about thirty years, during which time I practiced no religion. THAT was when I became pro-life, without any religion at all.



There is no religious argument that can effectively be made against abortion, because you don't have to be religious to see what a bad idea it is.


All humans are connected, and we have all been connected ever since long, long, long before Moses ever wrote down the Decalogue.


Your pro-abort slogans subjugate babies and make them second class citizens. They are human beings like us. They are a part of the human family. It is not okay to kill them.



Do you have a link to these "studies" to which you refer?


Sixty percent of pregnant women were raped? I've never heard of that.


But, I've heard that 60 to 80% of moms who have aborted felt coerced.

DianaG2 said...

There are abortions by gender here in the U.S., also.

DianaG2 said...

Why not get help for that abused child AND her or his parents?

Actually WANTED children are also abused and murdered, as well. (After all, those are the parents who have such high expectations in advance.)

In fact, there was a stat that I heard a long time ago, that wanted kids had a higher rate of abuse. I think we learned that in sociology class. I don't know if it still applies.

DianaG2 said...

"Furthermore, if you are that concerned about fetal pain, where’s your
concern for the pain & suffering of living breathing sentient
CHLDREN (about whose capacity for suffering is there’s no question)?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, here's the answer to that question:

There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision making it perfectly legal to dismember and kill living, breathing, sentient children about whose capacity for suffering there's no question.

But, I'd also like to address your question about "predatory adoption agencies."

First, I have no doubt there ARE such places. (Anything can be tainted by corruption and greed, not just adoption. Who knows, perhaps the abortion industry itself might someday be subject to that.)

But, every county has an adoption agency, I believe. My son was adopted in 1966 by our county agency, when he was only five months old. (Because I was not yet 18 when he was born.)

Then, the county found some very nice adoptive parents for him.

Nobody had to pay anything, except the agency itself. They paid for legal fees.

DianaG2 said...

Roflmao!!

Suba gunawardana said...

"There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision making it perfectly legal to
dismember and kill living, breathing, sentient children about whose
capacity for suffering there's no question."

And why do you think that is? Because children are SENTIENT, fetuses are not.
It's not OK to dismember sentient individuals, but dismembering or any method of death is fine for NON-SENTIENT individuals.

More to the point, dismembering is NOT the main threat facing living breathing sentient children. ABUSE is, which could include any number of atrocities including starvation, beatings, rape, torture. .

Suba gunawardana said...

Lookee here... Pinocchio is trying to prove his age
with anecdotal evidence, which is what? Unverifiable!

Here's a tip. If you want to be treated like an adult, ACT LIKE ONE.

MarcusFenix said...

Aww, you say the nicest things on your multiple accounts.

Still wanting the wood, I see. That's a bit telling. ;)

Suba gunawardana said...

"There is no religious argument that can effectively be made against
abortion, because you don't have to be religious to see what a bad idea
it is."


I agree, considering the bible has absolutely NO problem with abortion.



There's no real non-relgious argument to be made against abortion either. To force pregnancy & childbirth on a woman against her will is to advocate slavery.

Suba gunawardana said...

If I (or anyone) wanted wood, why would they come to you?

MarcusFenix said...

Well, you keep calling me Pinocchio, I figured you'd at least get the reference.

Why would they indeed? Guess it's just one more piece of wood that doesn't want you, and that you'll never get to see. So, typical day for you.

Cheers!

Suba gunawardana said...

A case of sour grapes I see :)

My position stands. If anyone wanted wood, why would they ever come to you?

And don't try to distract & deflect again. You don't have to be made of wood to be a Pinocchio, all you have to be is a LIAR.

MarcusFenix said...

Sour grapes over what? You not getting laid? So sad, your projection and all.

"My position stands. If anyone wanted wood, why would they ever come to you?"

Who knows? It's not like you'll ever find out, so why ask unless you're really curious and want it? ;)

"And don't try to distract & deflect again. You don't have to be made
of wood to be a Pinocchio, all you have to be is a LIAR."

So, your grandfather is Geppetto? Notice the original, proper spelling with 2 P's...which is still WAY more "P" than you likely have gotten.

It's funny how you make accusations, but all you do is run your mouth. Are you done embarrassing yourself yet? It's going to be a long weekend otherwise. ;)

Suba gunawardana said...

Didn't you just leave? Looks like you are not done embarrassing yourself.

Obviously Geppetto would be YOUR grandfather, but this is getting really boring.

My accusations were about the number of OBVIOUS lies you told on this thread, just to get out of responding to an argument. (For example, claiming I said something then failing to prove it.)

Anyway you already demonstrated you are excessively slow even for a forced-birther. If you can ever learn to grasp & rebut a point, we may continue.

MarcusFenix said...

"Didn't you just leave? Looks like you are not done embarrassing yourself."

See, this is the problem when you try to be all "internet cool" guy, and just copy what someone else is doing. It's completely unoriginal, obvious fawning after something you don't have, and...it makes no sense. I said nothing about leaving...why even mention something like that, when it's not even there, could be an inference to anything said, and just looks like you're being an idiot?

"Obviously Geppetto would be YOUR grandfather, but this is getting really boring."

Simple minds are easily amused, and bore easily. Words to live by, since you do so well in application. already.

"My accusations were about the number of OBVIOUS lies you told on this
thread, just to get out of responding to an argument. (For example,
claiming I said something then failing to prove it.)"

you mean, because i didn't copy/paste the words from the post *immediately* before it...which i referenced. Is your short term memory shot, grandpa? Cant' remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago and need some young whippersnapper to read it back to you like a court reporter?

Please. Don't strain yourself any farther. :)

"Anyway you already demonstrated you are excessively slow even for a
forced-birther. If you can ever learn to grasp & rebut a point, we
may continue."

and back to the "you don't get it" line...which was as wrong the first time you said it over a week and a half ago as it is now. Notice that your statement about this is the same exact one i levy at you....yet, i point exactly to where the problem was, and you fail to grasp it.

If you're bored, its because you can't keep up and don't know what else to do. Concede and stop posting, and then all the hurting will stop. :)

Suba gunawardana said...

No Pinocchio you just said goodbye, but came back just to do another dance for me. I appreciate it.

Given your lack of debating skills, I understand that the only way you can retain a modicum of self-esteem is by insulting & personally attacking your opponent.

Every juvenile attack from you is a notch in my belt, a reminder that you are pouting from losing this debate (whose subject matter you didn't comprehend in the first place).

Keep dancing Pinocchio. Try to refrain from repetition if possible, but I'll excuse you if you do.

MarcusFenix said...

Our resident troll below replied, and might make a good point..if not for the obvious items that go with it. and the price tag she states has no citation, so there's that.

Aborting a child doesn't take a staff of doctors, additional pediatricians and/or support staff just in the delivery room and after, operating in a -real- hospital, using -real- hospital equipment. It doesn't take into account the length of the stay, not to mention all of the other items that go into it (medications, etc). Suba apparently thinks all of those people work for free or something I suppose.

Past this fact, anyone with even halfway decent insurance doesn't see a 30k price tag. Birth of my last child...the bill i got was the cost of the ER admitting and the phone calls made from the room afterwards to family. Less than 400 bucks. Granted, insurance lessened the blow, but...we're not talking about rich people here. That is not an uncommon scenario. Even if you max it out at 30k, it's not like you have to take the kid back if you don't pay it all in 30 days.

Her adoption stat is also suspect. The average cost for adoptive parents is a really wide gap...and not always 20-30k.

http://www.adoptionhelp.org/qa/how-much-does-adoption-cost

County adoptions: $1000. that's it.

Notice the cost of the "Attorney Adoption"...it's high. It's also mainly lawyer fees, which is something you run into -every- time you use a lawyer....surprise that they charge a bunch?

Most of the cost of adoption is for investigative services and the cost of actually placing the adoption, which can take a great deal of time and manpower to do properly. Again, she thinks they should do it for free?

Abortion, OTOH....if it's the chemical version...the meds and visit are less than 200 bucks. And she's lowballing the number. The average cost is usually agreed is about 500, but can go higher depending on the facility and method, sometimes over 1000. I notice she didn't actually give a range, and went with the lowball number to give the appearance of it being something that it's not.

Also, she forgets to mention that places like PP also receive a mass amount of funding from the government, so one could make the argument that in theory, they're subsidized.

Suba isn't going to make a logical argument, so don't waste too much time with the stupidity there.

MarcusFenix said...

"No Pinocchio you just said goodbye, but came back just to do another dance for me. I appreciate it."

So, you -didn't- notice i was telling -you- goodbye. *sigh* See, comprehension. It's not your strong suit.

"Given your lack of debating skills, I understand that the only way you
can retain a modicum of self-esteem is by insulting & personally
attacking your opponent."

Actually, i already finished our debate, and moved on to the mocking and derision portion of the program. You already lost, didn't refute a thing i said with logically valid evidence, and keep going on about nonsense. What else is there to do, otherwise?

"Every juvenile attack from you is a notch in my belt, a reminder that
you are pouting from losing this debate (whose subject matter you
didn't comprehend in the first place)."

It's fine to keep telling yourself that, except even a cursory reading would show this to be a lie. Back to you for the Disney reference bit now. Now, for every parroted reference, for every time you've not actually used logic or rebutted anything said..I'm going to need a new belt or two, because mine is already full. Notice how you "believe" you've won a debate...based on your "belief" of suffering (which didn't prove anything other than your mixture of utilitarian and eugenics ideas wholesale)....notice it all comes down to your "belief"....something you belittle others for having.

Sadly, I -know- i debated it properly, -know- i made a syllogism (offered even! haha!) that you could not refute with an actual point (hell, you didn't even refute it...you replaced it with another one that was off topic and then stated you did, and in the process justified why it was wrong anyway, which was a HUGE bonus!)....you believe something, and i know it and can demonstrate it.

So don't go carving on the belt just yet...you should stick to macaroni art, so there's no sharp objects. They taught you that at a place you've likely stayed before right? No sharp objects, don't believe the voices, and don't eat the glue at craft time?

"Keep dancing Pinocchio. Try to refrain from repetition if possible, but I'll excuse you if you do."

You've not done that so far, and won't continue to do it past here, if you keep going. Why lie about it again now? :)

Bye bye....to you. Just so you're clear. It's directed *at* you. To leave. Not that I'm leaving. Just...it doesn't surprise me that i have to explain "bye bye" to you. Fits perfectly, actually.

Suba gunawardana said...

Interesting that you had to write yet another thousand words to attempt to prove that you "did not" lose the debate. Who are you trying to convince?

"moved on to the mocking and derision portion of the program."


No sweetypie mocking & derision was ALL you ever had. And that doesn't win a debate without substance. Even you should have learned that by now, but keep dancing.

MarcusFenix said...

Actually, after removing your tripe, it was 331. That's only 3x the difference as in "another thousand".

Do you know how to count? Or do you like to bloviate? Would make sense, since you blow everything else out of proportion.

Also, it's not really hard to bang out a really solid reply at 90 WPM. clearly, you struggle, that short and wimpy post took forever.

"No sweetypie mocking & derision was ALL you ever had."

After the first few posts, sure. You weren't worth much more than that, since the argument was effectively over before it began.

"And that doesn't win a debate without substance."

Ironically, i used your "substance" to frame a debate you couldn't beat. Must suck losing to your own garbage, when someone applies it against you.

" Even you should have learned that by now, but keep dancing."

If it's not touching, it's dancing. Clearly, you have some issues.

Do a word count next time, before acting like a spastic child about a post. Can you guess how many words of mine there are here? Pro-tip...if it's got 4 digits, its too high. :)

Suba gunawardana said...

Hilarious! Pinocchio is now calling ME a troll (while throughout your past posts you proudly claimed YOU were a troll.)

So you are either complimenting me or INSULTING YOURSELF.

Also interesting you have to "warn" others about me rather than let them judge for themselves. What are you afraid of? :)

Now let me point out that the only substance in your post was to try & EXCUSE why abortion is so much cheaper than childbirth & adoption.

Also as you should know, NO government funding goes to abortion. Massive amounts go to childbirth. Abortion is still cheaper.

MarcusFenix said...

"LOL are you still busy lining up technicalities to try and prove you "didn't lose" ? Again who are you trying to convince?"

Simply replying to you. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

"I forgot, what you had in addition to insults were lying & bragging (again about inane & unverifiable things)"

So, you were wrong the first time? It's a pattern of yours, so...you might as well have told us the sky was blue or something. :)

Little tip: To be in a position to brag you have to be better than others. Then again people better than others don't brag :)

Apparently, you just need a little tip...been a while eh? Just the tip even?

It's amazing that you feel as if my bragging is negative. If it makes you feel better, i only brag to people that i *am* better than, so allow that to ease your troubled little mind.

"As I said, not just to win a debate but even to grasp you are IN a debate, one needs substance, which you didn't."

Says the one who provides your opinion and belief in response to a logical syllogism that you never actually refuted. Nice try though!

"Here's a few basic things you have as yet failed to grasp."

Oh goodie, a list of your beliefs again.

"-There's no such thing as "Pro-life". Only forced-birth."

Apparently a few million people or so didn't get the memo. This is your pejorative opinion, and nothing more. If i call abortion supporters "forced deathers"...would you accept that as equal and let it stand?

"-You have no right to stop others doing the same thing you are doing (i.e. killing for convenience)"

Except i'm not killing innocent life "because i dont want to change my lifestyle", like abortion's number one answer. You STILL are using "convenience" as a replacement for "necessity"...which we've covered.

"-"Innocence" is not a good enough reason exempt an individual from being killed. If it were, we won't be here today."

Practically every facet of the law (you know, the thing you kept trying to straw man me with) disagrees. We don't have the right to kill the innocent whenever we want, for any reason. Doing so initiates a penalty...the fact you dislike that someone wants to extend a right to a life that you couldn't care less about is the actual irrelevant part. If you were being consistent, you'd see the parallel and see your view is incorrect...especially since "innocent" is the term YOU started with at the beginning.

"There's no justifiable reason for the forced-birth position (Control, profit or pleasure are not justifiable reasons)."

But those 3 reasons DO encompass the entire pro-abortion agenda. It's odd you keep using the very arguments that point to the error in your posts AS the error in mine. We can't both have the same argument here, sweetie. LOL Of course, this is also your opinion and nothing more than an invective for the sake of disagreeing with someone who's been all mean and said unkind things to you.

Every single one of those is an opinion...not even good ones really...that you've provided not a single shred of logical proof for believing. In the end, it's just that...your belief....with nothing to back it up.

to quote you:

"You can lie twist & divert all you want, but the fact is you never managed to rebut (or even comprehend) the above facts."

See, I get to use your own argument and words against you AGAIN. Seems like bragging rights for me one more time.

MarcusFenix said...

"Hilarious! Pinocchio is now calling ME a troll (while throughout your past posts you proudly claimed YOU were a troll.)"

Yes, but being a good one is different than being a shrill, insignificant one. It's not like there's just one kind out there. Was that not obvious?

"So you are either complimenting me or INSULTING YOURSELF."

Since "bad troll is bad" describes you, i get to do *neither* AND still point it all out. It's like you just want this to be easy for me.

"Also interesting you have to "warn" others about me rather than let them judge for themselves. What are you afraid of?"

Nothing. You made a comment. I placed one there as well. Why does everything have to be about fear and touching with you? Can something not just -be- what it is? I pointed out how you're basically an idiot and a liar. Thought that was pretty self evident? If not, then..now you know!

"Now let me point out that the only substance in your post was an attempt
to EXCUSE why abortion is so much cheaper than childbirth &
adoption."

So, your rebutal is...an opinion? No actual stats. No links. No facts. Just....your say so.

See, it's like a pattern i predicted somewhere, isn't it?

I pointed out that abortion is cheap, and thus those involved make a profit, versus others who have to work hard, train for years, and expend a great amount of effort to be good at their jobs. Why did that escape you so easily?

"Also as you should know, NO government funding goes to abortion. Massive amounts go to childbirth. Abortion is still cheaper."

Correct...so why would PP get all upset for the3% of funding they'd lose, since they claim that much of their business is abortion. It's like they're afraid of losing...profit? I'm simply stating that one could, in theory...you know, the things you don't seem to understand very well...that if such a small % of their business was involved with it, that there's little to no way to prove that funds aren't being used that way. It's already proven, publicly, that PP is a dishonest business......but again, theory. Just shooting from the hip, as it were.

In the grand picture, abortion is cheaper. It's also the base destruction of a life...which should tell you how little life means to people like you, and how important the motive of convenience and profit are....see what i did there?

Go outside, get some sun. It's a holiday weekend, and there's I've seen some seniors specials out in the papers that might interest you. :)

Basset_Hound said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uBOtQOO70Y



I guess you're Chad Smith, right?

MarcusFenix said...

I guess so.....good stuff :)

Have a good holiday weekend!

MarcusFenix said...

hahaha...well, i WAS promised the last word, which i have yet to receive.

We're pretty much done though. :)

JDC said...

"We're pretty much done though."
We'll see...

MarcusFenix said...

Famous last words, i know. But, I've got a barbeque/bonfire this evening, and tomorrow there's a few things going on. And i have somewhere to be on Monday, so...but you're right, we'll see :)

JDC said...

Okay, so I'm assuming this will resume on Tuesday. :)

MarcusFenix said...

Maybe..but just like Crawford, at some point...even i draw a limit at how much i hammer them down. ;)

Suba gunawardana said...

Of course it’s obvious. You are the shrill insignificant one, considering your whole “debate” consisted of insults
lies & backpedaling, with hardly any substance. I couldn’t care less about your self-proclaimed trolldom. Present some substance if you got any.

“Why does everything have to be about fear and touching with you?”

Interesting…. I never mentioned touching, and this is the first time I mentioned fear. Hmmm someone's a little jumpy lately???

Your whole post is a string of groundless insults as usual. Another string of notches in my belt.

“So, your rebutal is...an opinion? No actual stats. No links. No facts. Just....your say so.”

Why should I present links for you, Pinocchio? You are not worth it. When people who can grasp & rebut my
points ask for links I always provide them.

Now you try to claim abortionists need no training? Look who’s been reading religious propaganda sites while
claiming to be non-religious….

“Correct...so why would PP get all upset for the3% of funding they'd lose”

You provided no proof showing they are upset about loss of funding. I personally would be upset about all the women & children harmed from being denied abortion. IF PP is upset that’s probably their reason too.

If “PP is a dishonest business”, the answer is to get them clean up their act, or to provide abortions somewhere else. NOT to abolish abortion, duh!

Senior specials? When I qualify for them I would have EARNED them, unlike you…

Suba gunawardana said...

Who is this Crawford? I bet your self-proclaimed "hammering" is just as pathetic there as it's been here.

Hint: When you have to repeatedly declare how badly you behaved, its an attempt reassure your own self and/or a cry for crowd approval.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 299 of 299   Newer› Newest»