(March 30, 2025 at 8:01 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(March 29, 2025 at 7:34 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: So they are professionals who have dedicated their lives to their subject, they just don't agree with you so they are wrong. Brilliant.

They're listed as a hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extr...atricians/

Quelle surprise, The White(supremacist)martens, is citing hate groups in his arguments for controlling and enslaving women.

I confused them with AAP.

(March 28, 2025 at 5:19 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 8:59 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Cool; so what species does that blastocyst or zygote, microbic as it is, a clump of cells without sentience, belong to?

Oh so you're just going to roll past your lie that my factual statement describing a blastocyst, was rhetoric, I see. It says a great deal about your posturing here, that it requires constant sophistry, and outright duplicity. You also seem to have ignored a raft of questions, and my point about letting someone live by using the body of another against their will. Also the biblical references, and questions, all ignored. 

What species do your finger nail clippings belong to? Would you describe them as a human being? You claimed abortions involved killing children after all, that you either don't know, or don't care that this is an egregious lie, says it all. 

Now I will ask again, as you keep ignoring my question. You claimed abortions "denied a basic human right" "the right to life". Yet we never grant anyone the right to live, by using the body of another human being against their will. So if you think a blastocyst should have this right over the woman's body it is topologically connected to, and a part of, would you grant it to actual children after they are born, say forcing a father against his will to harvest his kidney to save the life of his child, if he was the only viable donor and refused to give it up?

The longer you dodge this question, the more I must infer that you realise your claim was facile rhetoric, but lack the integrity to acknowledge this fact, and the open mind to examine what that means for your position.

Now, do you think it was immoral when the deity you imagine to be real, tortured a newborn baby to death in the bible, or when it committed genocide using a global flood? Including all the pregnant women of course, so much for the notion you care about the "right to life".

I'm never getting any answers to these am I, is anyone really surprised.

(March 30, 2025 at 11:10 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(March 28, 2025 at 5:19 am)Sheldon Wrote: Oh so you're just going to roll past your lie that my factual statement describing a blastocyst, was rhetoric, I see. It says a great deal about your posturing here, that it requires constant sophistry, and outright duplicity. You also seem to have ignored a raft of questions, and my point about letting someone live by using the body of another against their will. Also the biblical references, and questions, all ignored. 

What species do your finger nail clippings belong to? Would you describe them as a human being? You claimed abortions involved killing children after all, that you either don't know, or don't care that this is an egregious lie, says it all. 

Now I will ask again, as you keep ignoring my question. You claimed abortions "denied a basic human right" "the right to life". Yet we never grant anyone the right to live, by using the body of another human being against their will. So if you think a blastocyst should have this right over the woman's body it is topologically connected to, and a part of, would you grant it to actual children after they are born, say forcing a father against his will to harvest his kidney to save the life of his child, if he was the only viable donor and refused to give it up?

The longer you dodge this question, the more I must infer that you realise your claim was facile rhetoric, but lack the integrity to acknowledge this fact, and the open mind to examine what that means for your position.

Now, do you think it was immoral when the deity you imagine to be real, tortured a newborn baby to death in the bible, or when it committed genocide using a global flood? Including all the pregnant women of course, so much for the notion you care about the "right to life".

I'm never getting any answers to these am I, is anyone really surprised.

The @TheWhiteMarten isn’t used to thinking for herself. 

She will not answer that question or the question dose an aborted soul go straight to heaven never to be judged.

(March 30, 2025 at 9:10 am)brewer Wrote:

(March 30, 2025 at 8:01 am)Sheldon Wrote: They're listed as a hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extr...atricians/

Quelle surprise, The White(supremacist)martens, is citing hate groups in his arguments for controlling and enslaving women.

I confused them with AAP.

That's by design

My general response to pro-life arguments requires some explanation, but I've just thought of a much simpler rebuttal to the standard line that the science says that life begins at conception. One can, ex hypothesi, accept that science says human life begins at conception, but science is neutral on values and morals. In order to conclude that this life should not be terminated, one must bring one's justification for forbidding it from outside of science, from morals or values which themselves cannot be demonstrated to be valid. Thus it's not uncommon for both sides to make arguments pro and con, which are ultimately backed up by one variety of faith or another.

(March 29, 2025 at 7:41 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Got it; so all the ad homs are how you people show appreciation to each other, that it? I know Yanks pride themselves on their assholery, so maybe I'm just ignorant to how deep that culture goes.

Should I talk to you as others talk to me? Gonna tolerate that? Or do the rules continue to only work one way?

As a southern gentleman, when a lady asks me not address her too familiarly, I respect her wishes. Without any whining.

(March 31, 2025 at 1:23 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(March 29, 2025 at 7:41 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Got it; so all the ad homs are how you people show appreciation to each other, that it? I know Yanks pride themselves on their assholery, so maybe I'm just ignorant to how deep that culture goes.

Should I talk to you as others talk to me? Gonna tolerate that? Or do the rules continue to only work one way?

As a southern gentleman, when a lady asks me not address her too familiarly, I respect her wishes. Without any whining.

Bless his weaselly heart.

I'm confident that all women appreciate the medical science position on molar conceptions/pregnancies. A 'conception' that is incompatible with creating a human life, there are others.

Pastor claims empathy can be a sin

Idaho-based pastor Joe Rigney in his new book, The Sin of Empathy, claims empathy is “the greatest rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21st century”.

There is such a thing as an excess of compassion. You say, “How could you be too compassionate?” Well, if you’re overwhelmed by your feelings and you lose touch with what is true and what is good, if you lose touch with Christ, you have an excess of that emotion that sweeps you off your feet and can be very destructive.

The example is the way the trans movement has weaponised society’s compassion. “Here’s people who feel themselves to be in the wrong body. They are very distressed by this mismatch between their biology and their felt sense of [identity], and we need to do whatever we can to enable them to align those, including surgeries.”

Think about the story of Job. All of his property is gone, and his kids have been killed. His wife comes to him and says, “Curse God and die!” This is a mother who has just lost 10 children. It’s the most horrific scenario you can possibly imagine, and she’s angry at God because of it.

In her distress, in her grief, she wants to curse God. Should Job out of empathy join her in her blasphemy? I think all of us recognise that no, that would be a very bad idea. But he could have very easily indulged her.

I sometimes say that the most empathetic leader in the Bible is Aaron at the golden calf. Aaron sees this distressed and agitated people and finds their agitation unbearable and therefore goes along with it [and the golden calf is made, which the Israelites worship].

https://www.premierchristianity.com/inte...96.article


So no empathy for trans people, oppressed people, and people of other religions.

As we all know, jesus christ could not have suffered any excess of compassion - as he was blameless and without sin.