Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[Marie-Therese]

Gentlemen, allow me.

Socrates, you are a prime example of precisely what I was talking about...someone who is so enamored of the placard he's toting around that he refuses to actually regard fact.

First: vague and poorly written laws can be used by those who have (granted, bizarre and frankly incomprehensible) agendas. Why would someone want to prosecute pregnant women? Well I certainly don't understand, but there are those on the fringe radical right who would regard any woman's miscarriage as a possible prosecutable offense, until proven otherwise. There are, even though you seem incapable of understanding this, people who would do crazy things with laws if they had an opportunity. There are people on the fringe left who think you should be able to partially deliver a viable infant and shove scissors into its brain, if you think that you don't want the kid anymore. You believe that there are not similar elements in the pro-life category who are so vehemently "pro-life" that they would take that to an extreme? Really?

Second: I will tell you straight out that your personal prejudice against J_lol is disgusting to me. I happen to know this man personally. He is not only a Christian but a pro-life Christian at that. Disagree with his politics? Fine. But to invoke the same slander you are so fond of accusing him of by trying to claim that he is attacking conservatives and pro-life legislation is not only false, it is personally offensive to me. What he is capable of doing, and what you seem pathologically unable to do, is to view a law on its merits and to see its potential abuses, whether or not those abuses might be likely or not. Even the governor of Utah, as I quoted in my initial post, expressed reservations over potential unintended consequences of the law; in small words spoken slowly, that means even he could see a potential misuse of the law.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310408357' post='2265806']
There's quite a bit of difference between arguing that the wording of the law was too vague, and could open itself up to loopholes, and should be more precisely worded, and accusing the lawmakers of "wanting to criminalize miscarriages" (which you earlier agreed was an absurd accusation). Although you here state that the laws are"intentionally vague" for the purpose of prosecuting innocent women. Which is it?[/quote]

Your repeated charges of issues with reading comprehension should, perhaps, be revisited. I never said that the purpose of the law was to prosecute women. I said that the law was so vague as to make that a possibility. Not the same thing.


[quote]These proposed laws are essentially "stepping-stone" laws which establish legal precedent for giving legal protection to the life of an unborn person, and thus could be used to eventually challenge Roe v. Wade.[/quote]

I am perfectly aware of the political ramifications of this legislation. However, legal precedent which is opposed to standing law, especially law which has been vigorously reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings, is going to have a hard time standing. As difficult as this is to swallow, it is what all of us who value life are facing: a serious uphill battle for upholding the inherent value of life.

[quote]I don't see them at all as sinister attempts by psychopathically cruel monsters to persecute women who innocently miscarry their child, but if that's the way you see it, I believe it says more about you than anything else.[/quote]

You are awfully fond of tossing around accusations in regards to personal viewpoints, particularly those of which you have zero knowledge. You don't know me or what I think, and nothing that I posted gave any indication that I held this opinion at all. I said the law was poorly written and could therefore be used by those who had an agenda. If you want to read into my words, I think that says more about YOU than anything else.


[quote]The real story here is a left-wing poster who attacks conservatives at every opportunity blatantly twisting the facts to accuse pro-life lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize miscarriages.[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]And no, this has nothing to do with "Republican vs. Democrat." If the law in question had been proposed by a Democrat, I would have defended it just the same. Just as I oppose pro-abortion Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Guilliani. And I have supported legislation proposed by pro-life Democrats.[/quote]

Bully for you. However, you'll find that the political landscape is peopled with partisan hacks. Generally, those are the sorts who level baseless accusations and make presumptions about the personal beliefs of people they don't know, based on what they assume their politics are.

[quote]And I think it telling that those on the political left will always find fault with any legislation providing any kind of legal protection on the unborn or placing any restrictions on abortion. If they think the wording of that clause is too nebulous, why don't they work to amend it to clarify, rather than simply trying to shoot down such legislation altogether?

Seems that the current post-Roe status of abortion-on-demand is the only legal position most modern day liberals seem happy with.[/quote]

J_lol is pro-life. Whether you regard him as liberal is another matter; however, you are making assumptions. I will refrain from giving voice to the entire old cliche about what happens when you assume.


[quote]Yes, I consider accusing the lawmakers of intentionally trying to criminalize miscarriage to be either stupid or malicious.
And yes, I consider such charges themselves to display an egregious lack of charity.
Are we to always give those who oppose pro-life legislation the benefit of the doubt, yet presume that people making laws which provide legal protection to the unborn are acting out of malicious cruelty? Are such charges in any way charitable?
If you think the proposed law was poorly worded, and in need of amending for clarification, that's one thing. But baselessly accusing the lawmakers of having malicious and cruel intent is quite another. It's dishonest political posturing, an act of rash judgment, and contrary to Christian charity.
[/quote]

What lacks in charity is presuming to know the heart of one of your brethren, calling them stupid and malicious. Because, frankly, the only stupidity I see is someone thinking they know everything. The only malice is trying to assign moral hatred to someone who was simply calling out bad policy.

Your post is a breathtaking example of precisely what I was talking about. You were so quick to assume "liberal politics...oh, must be one of those baby-killers" that you impugned the character of a good person in the name of political labeling.

I would ask you to examine your heart about trying to be gentle with your fellow Christians and to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree, and I would ask you to refrain from being a total windbag, and I say that in all charity.

This is precisely the reason I quit posting here. My blood pressure doesn't need this nonsense.

[kujo]

First off, Marie-Therese FTW.

Second, regarding this:

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310427289' post='2265998']
...to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree...
[/quote]

Get ready for the "Jesus turned over tables" excuse.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1309796641' post='2263015']
Honestly I see very little difference between conservative or liberal. They're equally corrupt.
[/quote]
as Mark Shea says, you have your pick between the Stupid Evil Party and the Evil Stupid Party.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1310427743' post='2266010']
as Mark Shea says, you have your pick between the Stupid Evil Party and the Evil Stupid Party.
[/quote]

Or, as South Park says

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/SMU9GQzTYGI/AAAAAAAAHRQ/fyS6t5VByWE/s400/giantdouchevsturdsandwich7om.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310427289' post='2265998']
Gentlemen, allow me.

Socrates, you are a prime example of precisely what I was talking about...someone who is so enamored of the placard he's toting around that he refuses to actually regard fact.

First: vague and poorly written laws can be used by those who have (granted, bizarre and frankly incomprehensible) agendas. Why would someone want to prosecute pregnant women? Well I certainly don't understand, but there are those on the fringe radical right who would regard any woman's miscarriage as a possible prosecutable offense, until proven otherwise. There are, even though you seem incapable of understanding this, people who would do crazy things with laws if they had an opportunity. There are people on the fringe left who think you should be able to partially deliver a viable infant and shove scissors into its brain, if you think that you don't want the kid anymore. You believe that there are not similar elements in the pro-life category who are so vehemently "pro-life" that they would take that to an extreme? Really? [/quote]
No, I don't believe there are such people. I've been around people active in the pro-life movement all my life and have never come in contact with, nor heard of, any people who would want to prosecute accidental miscarriages.
If such people exist outside an isolated padded cell, they certainly have absolutely zero influence in American law or politics.
I'm open to correction if actual evidence is provided to the contrary, but until then, I contend that such persons exist only in the drug-induced night terrors of the more hysterical elements of the "pro-choice" lobby.

But in the meantime, I try not to worry so much about purely hypothetical non-existent people.



[quote]Second: I will tell you straight out that your personal prejudice against J_lol is disgusting to me. I happen to know this man personally. He is not only a Christian but a pro-life Christian at that. Disagree with his politics? Fine. But to invoke the same slander you are so fond of accusing him of by trying to claim that he is attacking conservatives and pro-life legislation is not only false, it is personally offensive to me. What he is capable of doing, and what you seem pathologically unable to do, is to view a law on its merits and to see its potential abuses, whether or not those abuses might be likely or not. Even the governor of Utah, as I quoted in my initial post, expressed reservations over potential unintended consequences of the law; in small words spoken slowly, that means even he could see a potential misuse of the law.
[/quote]
I have no personal prejudice against J-lol, since I don't know him personally. While he may well be a swell guy off-line in "real life," my problem is with what he has posted on here in black-and-white, which is indeed slanderous.

Again:
[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310134989' post='2264426']
[b]I am saying that the fact that some politicians want to criminalize miscarriages makes them both out of touch, idiots and cruel.[/b]
[/quote]
He claims these politicians "[b]want to[/b] criminalize miscarriages," which means, unless my understanding of Canadian English is way off, that they have a deliberate intent to criminalize miscarriages, which he describes (truly enough if we are to believe such an evil intent on their part) as "cruel." That's quite a serious charge, and quite different from talking about "potential abuses" by hypothetical whackos.

While I don't have time to break down and parse the laws yet again, I see absolutely nothing there to justify such a horrific accusation regarding the lawmakers' intent.
Unless he has something serious to back it up, such an accusation is indeed slanderous.

It's as stupid and offensive as those claims that the Pope is against condoms because he sadistically enjoys people to suffering and dying of AIDS.


[quote]Your repeated charges of issues with reading comprehension should, perhaps, be revisited. I never said that the purpose of the law was to prosecute women. I said that the law was so vague as to make that a possibility. Not the same thing.
[/quote]
Yes, what J-lol said in the above quote was not the same thing at all. You may have never said that, but he most certainly did. (If you doubt me, read it again, and follow the link.)


[quote]I am perfectly aware of the political ramifications of this legislation. However, legal precedent which is opposed to standing law, especially law which has been vigorously reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings, is going to have a hard time standing. As difficult as this is to swallow, it is what all of us who value life are facing: a serious uphill battle for upholding the inherent value of life.[/quote]
And? That's why I'm in favor any laws that will grant the lives of the unborn some of the legal protections provided to persons already born, as those proposed laws do, rather than treating the unborn child as a non-entity. People are held liable for the deaths of born children by reckless actions, and these laws would simply extend the same liabilities regarding the unborn.



[quote]You are awfully fond of tossing around accusations in regards to personal viewpoints, particularly those of which you have zero knowledge. You don't know me or what I think, and nothing that I posted gave any indication that I held this opinion at all. I said the law was poorly written and could therefore be used by those who had an agenda. If you want to read into my words, I think that says more about YOU than anything else.[/quote]
Which could be said of the accusing the lawmakers of cruelly wanting to criminalize innocent women for having miscarriages.


[quote]Nope.



Bully for you. However, you'll find that the political landscape is peopled with partisan hacks. Generally, those are the sorts who level baseless accusations and make presumptions about the personal beliefs of people they don't know, based on what they assume their politics are.



J_lol is pro-life. Whether you regard him as liberal is another matter; however, you are making assumptions. I will refrain from giving voice to the entire old cliche about what happens when you assume.
[/quote]
He's a liberal by his own admission. Most of his posts here are insults and attacks on various conservatives. Not an assumption, but fact, but again irrelevant. Posting slander is wrong regardless of one's political convictions.



[quote]What lacks in charity is presuming to know the heart of one of your brethren, calling them stupid and malicious. Because, frankly, the only stupidity I see is someone thinking they know everything. The only malice is trying to assign moral hatred to someone who was simply calling out bad policy.[/quote]
While making outrageous unfounded accusations against people you don't know, then calling them "idiots and cruel," on the other hand is perfectly charitable. . .

Or is such "charity" not owed to "right-wingers"?

[quote]Your post is a breathtaking example of precisely what I was talking about. You were so quick to assume "liberal politics...oh, must be one of those baby-killers" that you impugned the character of a good person in the name of political labeling..[/quote]
I never called anyone a baby-killer. Just pointing out how certain folks on here have nothing to offer but insults and criticism towards pro-lifers, regardless what their own personal convictions may be.

[quote]I would ask you to examine your heart about trying to be gentle with your fellow Christians and to emulate the love of Jesus in your dealings with those with whom you disagree, and I would ask you to refrain from being a total windbag, and I say that in all charity.

This is precisely the reason I quit posting here. My blood pressure doesn't need this nonsense[/quote]
Then don't post here and contribute to it.

If J-lol doesn't like being called out for slander, he shouldn't post slanderous statements on here. It's that simple.

Seems some folks can take what they dish out on a daily basis.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310424415' post='2265955']
Socrates, back the hell off.
[/quote]


[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310424610' post='2265958']
If you're gonna stoop to his level, you should just change the title underneath your avatar into something he accused you of being (like he did with my "knuckle-dragging hominid" comment). An example would be "Rabid Political Partisan."

EDIT: I called him a slack-jawed hominid, not a knuckle-dragging hominid. I did invoke "knuckle-dragging" another time when I accused him of being a "knuckle-dragging nose-breather."
[/quote]


[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310424682' post='2265960']
What J_Lawl said. Stuff it Socrates or else we'll gang up on you.
[/quote]
Bring it on!

Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja movez from the government?

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310494999' post='2266408']
Bring it on!

Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja movez from the government?
[/quote]

I've got uncles...in construction...out on Long Island...

Just sayin'... Wouldn't want you to have to get visited by , end up or

Feel me