Permabear rants

Haha you folks are a bunch of gullible idiots. Shame on this “news” site for deliberately misrepresenting the president’s quote to get its uneducated reader base all fired up. Reaffirming a commitment to
“a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters”
and that
“The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families, and their doctors”
does not equate at all to a “commitment to abortion”. How stupid can you people get? Grow up. 

Judging by your other comments, it is almost a certainty that I am better educated, more successful, and innately more intelligent than you’ll ever be. Given this, if you believe that I am stupid, I shudder to hear how lowly your opinions are of yourself, assuming you perceive a proportional relative comparison. I also like how you’re incapable of presenting a proper rebuttal that could have included facts, quotes, or even some sort of logic-based argument. Typical.

“Permabear Hunter” on christiannews.net

Here’s my response and an invitation to take it outside:

This posting is about to get the kind of attention it shouldn’t deserve.

1. “a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters”. I’m 100% with you on that. Such as home schooling, what we pack in our children’s lunch boxes, how we choose our medical care, how we choose to defend our homes. Stuff like that. Obama has no problem intruding when it supports his agenda.

2. “The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions
best made between women, their families, and their doctors” Couldn’t agree more. The Constitution grants the states sole discretion into matters of this type.Yet Roe tramples on the rights of states to protect its citizens from an over-reaching federal government.

But this nonsense about “a decision between a woman and her doctor” is entirely irrelevant. A woman and her doctor are not protected if they plan to rob a bank or kill a toddler. So it all boils down to what they are, in fact, deciding to do. And if one believes, as I do, that a fetus is a person entitled to protection under the law, then a criminal conspiracy has no constitutional protection. The ENTIRE argument regarding abortion hinges on that one question and nothing else.

And later:

If you want to take this off line, comment on my blog http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com. I’ll provide you with all the intelligent discussion you crave.

Will (s)he show up? Or am I not well educated, intelligent and successful enough to engage?

4 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity

4 Responses to Permabear rants

  1. I think a lot of this argument, philosophically, hinges upon when you believe life begins. There are a number of arguments against life beginning at conception that most Christians won't entertain because they either don't feel like it, or because they're challenging.

    Effectively, if any one person is against abortion because of the potential of life in a fetus, they must also oppose birth control. It seems likely that the majority of young people who so feverishly opposed abortion because "life begins at conception" use birth control and therefore are negating their arguments.

    A fetus is not a life until it is viable on its own outside the womb. There is a potential for life, but potential doesn't necessitate a conclusion.

  2. I agree entirely. It is the rankest hypocrisy to oppose all abortion and still practice artificial birth control that results in the loss of a fertilized ovum. Protestants seem to have no problem with it. They may want to believe that life begins at conception but they won't allow that to intrude into their "privacy."

    It is worth noting that the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut creating a "right to privacy" in regards to contraception was a key precedent in Roe v. Wade.The Protestant church was entirely complicit in that. Now they want to shut the door after the horse got out.

    Catholics on the other hand are consistent in their position and take a lot of flak for it. I guess hypocrisy is OK when it supports your own agenda.

    You have stated your case very well. So may I assume that you therefore oppose abortion after viability? If so, then you must support laws that prohibit abortion after twenty weeks gestation. Am I correct?

  3. Anonymous

    "But this nonsense about "a decision between a woman and her doctor" is entirely irrelevant. A woman and her doctor are not protected if they plan to rob a bank or kill a toddler." Best argument I've heard in a long time.

    CNthruPC

  4. Thanks. I am a firm believer that unassailable arguments can be made against abortion using Natural Law rather than religious injunctions. They are both valid but pro-abortion advocates shut down as soon as you quote the Bible because they believe we are trying to force our religion down their throats. Natural law arguments at least get you far enough for them to start screaming at you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.