Yeah, I’ve realized that about myself. If you advocate for abortion, however you stand on other issues, I can’t help but be rather repulsed. It is 100%, unequivocally evil.
The first one features a graphic of a guy where it says he’s “pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, and anti-healthcare”, but he’s “pro-life”. Marc thinks this is just a brilliant point. Of course, I’ve never met anybody who was anti-healthcare or pro-war 100% of the time, but hey. That doesn’t fit the narrative. I also am not sure how advocating for the death of convicted murderers or other extremely violent criminals is in any way opposed to being against the slaughter of innocent children, but you know – doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m also not sure what being in favor of “guns”, full stop, has to do with anything at all, but I guess it sounds scary, which is good for a strawman ad.
The point: It’s a stupid point.
The second post is a critique of the Catholic blogger R.D. Miksa of Experimental Apologetics (you can check out his blog through Marc’s link – I encourage it). There’s not much for me to say since R.D. took him down hard. But here’s what I posted in the end:
I’m really not a huge fan of the abortion lobby…
Oh, this is rich. You’re “not really a huge fan” of the abortion lobby. The lobby that advocates the legality of killing children, you’re just “not really a huge fan.
I’m “not really a huge fan” of the baseball team the Pittsburgh Pirates. I despise any lobby that advocates mass murder.
2) does not hold in many cases, because the large majority of abortionists I know are sincerely convinced that unborn children are not yet persons and that killing them is as morally problematic as throwing away a bunch of outworn chemicals into a wastebasket.
Come on Marc. You’re smarter than this. So if a Nazi is about to shoot a Jew and you can take him down, and your only way to do so was to kill him before he shot the Jew, you would not support this because “the Nazi really believes he’s just putting down an animal?” This is ridiculous.
During the Bush administration, Dick Cheney (and many of his colleagues) consciously started a gruesome war in Iraq which has caused countless innocent children and civilians to perish under an atrocious pain.
If 1) were true, it would certainly have been moral for any member of the American Left to try to liquidate him.
There is so much wrong with this.
An abortionist sticks surgical instruments into a woman’s uterus to rip or vacuum apart a child. Dick Cheney and his colleagues voted to go into a war with enemy combatants, on a battlefield. They did not directly kill anybody and did not target innocents specifically.
Furthermore, killing them would have done nothing but kill them; stopping an abortionist from killing a child, hopefully without killing them (a point you don’t seem to grasp at all) saves a child’s life. Directly. Killing Dick Cheney may or may not stop a war that MIGHT cause innocents to die, but not through intentional targeting, and that may or may not have been justified anyway.
You don’t see how your response makes absolutely no sense?
R.D. Miksa has already taken you down hard. But I just want you to know that I find your characterization of both him and his arguments disgusting.
Don’t read the comments section. It’ll just frustrate you. The fawning over Sheila’s increasingly ridiculous comments from a supposed Catholic is especially nauseating. Take note of the weird biological wizardry going on there to justify the baby-killing (Conception doesn’t count as being alive!).
EDIT: Please note in the thread that the Catholic Sheila has finally admitted that born lives matter more than unborn lives, meaning it is okay to kill the unborn but not the born. She tries to use the Bible to justify this.