Charlie Kirk permanently owned on abortion

[weaver2]

Is that your schtick then, repeating words I've said, thinking to shame me?

It's one of the best schticks. Shame you? Impossible.

Is it your schtick to ignore the argument altogether, and the irrefutable logic presented to you, never mind the fact that I not only (and unabashedly) own those words you're repeating but have repeated them for you myself several times already?

There is no argument. There is no logic.

Is that your schtick?

Yes.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Obviously Edwin Willers never clicked on the Pub Med link. Even if she was the only person with a tail, her-pre-surgery picture is undeniable proof humans do have tails at some point during gestation.

 

[NewfieMom]

Thanks, @Scrabaholic, for discussing this thread elsewhere. I had not been aware of it. It depressed me to read it. I am depressed that many people have no idea how little a newly fertilized egg resembles a human being and how only a religious belief that God placed a soul into that egg could have made those cells magically into a human being. By the way, that is not taught in most religions. I am also depressed that so many people are arguing about the details of how a human embryo appears. In my opinion, it is like arguing over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The issue is that the embryo resides inside a woman and the law says she has all rights over her body within the bounds of Roe v. Wade. Those rights are being threatened. So the woman is being threatened. I think we should defend women against violation by The State.

 

[Beau Beasley]

This Ben Gleib guy is great at atomizing conservative arguments. In this instance he asks if humans have tails. Kirk is confused. Gleib then asks if Charlie Kirk is absolutely sure that the photo he's holding up is of a human life. Kirk says 'without a doubt', only to be informed that the photo is of a dolphin fetus. There was no trickery, despite Kirk's protests.

How is this ownage at all?

Kirk simply assumes he was being shown a human fetus.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Thanks, @Scrabaholic, for discussing this thread elsewhere. I had not been aware of it. It depressed me to read it. I am depressed that many people have no idea how little a newly fertilized egg resembles a human being and how only a religious belief that God placed a soul into that egg could have made those cells magically into a human being. By the way, that is not taught in most religions. I am also depressed that so many people are arguing about the details of how a human embryo appears. In my opinion, it is like arguing over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The issue is that the embryo resides inside a woman and the law says she has all rights over her body within the bounds of Roe v. Wade. Those rights are being threatened. So the woman is being threatened. I think we should defend women against violation by The State.

I really feel bad for women in the States, that at least one of their reproductive rights are in danger. Up here, it's considered settled law. Even the Conservative leader is pro - choice.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I really feel bad for women in the States, that at least one of their reproductive rights is in danger. Up here, it's considered settled law. Even the Conservative leader is pro-choice.

We have a pro-choice leader too. On a Christian message board, Catholics say Joe Biden is anti-Catholic despite being one most of his life just because they are 100 percent against abortion. How crazy is that?

 

[NewfieMom]

We have a pro-choice leader too. On a Christian message board, Catholics say Joe Biden is anti-Catholic despite being one most of his life just because they are 100 percent against abortion. How crazy is that?

Is he not a lifelong Catholic?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Is he not a lifelong Catholic?

He certainly is a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic. I will never understand why other real Catholics deny this 75-year old fact based only on his preference to honor America's Constitution as the President of the United States.

 

[Scrabaholic]

We have a pro-choice leader too. On a Christian message board, Catholics say Joe Biden is anti-Catholic despite being one most of his life just because they are 100 percent against abortion. How crazy is that?

It's insane. We had a Catholic PM (Jean Chretien) who was personally against abortion but thought it should remain legal. He knew it wasn't his decision to make.

 

[choiceone]

Is he not a lifelong Catholic?

Technically, no one is a lifelong Christian if he/she is not subject to the woman pregnant with him/her until he/she is welcomed into the community at baptism, which only occurs about a month after birth, based on the Jewish/Hebrew timing of an infant coming into the religion.

The whole thing depends on the woman, not conception, because no one is baptized or christened then.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

It's insane. We had a Catholic PM (Jean Chretien) who was personally against abortion but thought it should remain legal. He knew it wasn't his decision to make.

That was what Joe Biden said during the Democratic caucus/primary season. It is very common for a partisan office candidate to alter some positions toward being more conservative or liberal than what they personally believe after winning the party nominations Republicans see no reason to pay attention to Democrats-only races, which makes sense to me until I see complaints about a member of their own Church choosing a farther left Baptist Her selection as the next Vice President of the United States

 

[NewfieMom]

Technically, no one is a lifelong Christian if he/she is not subject to the woman pregnant with him/her until he/she is welcomed into the community at baptism, which only occurs about a month after birth, based on the Jewish/Hebrew timing of an infant coming into the religion.

The whole thing depends on the woman, not conception, because no one is baptized or christened then.

I was asking because Patriotic Voter had described Joe Biden as being a Catholic for "most of his life". "Lifelong" implied that it was the religion in which he was raised. I wasn't getting into the technicalities of baptism. Some Christians (The Society of Friends, for instance) do not baptize at all.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I was asking because Patriotic Voter had described Joe Biden as being a Catholic for "most of his life".Lifelong" implied that it was the religion in which he was raised. I wasn't getting into the technicalities of baptism. Some Christians (The Society of Friends, for instance) do not baptize at all.

I do not believe anyone is born a Christian because the Bible says you must make the conscious decision to follow Jesus and believe he is your Savior. You must believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is the human form of God. AT birth, infants are incapable of learning the concept of a supernatural, invisible Person in the sky, so it is impossible to literally be a "lifelong" Christian. The word "lifelong" therefore is not accurate for Roman Catholics.

 

[NewfieMom]

I do not believe anyone is born a Christian because the Bible says you must make the conscious decision to follow Jesus and believe he is your Savior. You must believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is the human form of God. AT birth, infants are incapable of learning the concept of a supernatural, invisible Person in the sky, so it is impossible to literally be a "lifelong" Christian. The word "lifelong" therefore is not accurate for Roman Catholics.

I agree that the word is not accurate for Roman Catholics. In that faith one cannot belong prior to consent, although I would bet that there has been some high level Jesuitical debate on this point. When I used to hang around with some Third Order Franciscans they used to tell me about the different ways in which people could be baptized into Roman Catholicism, one being "baptism by desire". I am afraid I forget the other esoteric ways. But I am not a Roman Catholic and I do not mean to tell Roman Catholics how their religion works.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I do not believe anyone is born a Christian because the Bible says you must make the conscious decision to follow Jesus and believe he is your Savior. You must believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is the human form of God. AT birth, infants are incapable of learning the concept of a supernatural, invisible Person in the sky, so it is impossible to literally be a "lifelong" Christian. The word "lifelong" therefore is not accurate for Roman Catholics.

I am Anglican which is similar to Catholic. At baptism, the parents and godparents take a vow to raise the child in the Christian faith. At confirmation, the child takes the vow to follow the faith and tenets of that denomination. In Catholicism, children take their first communion before confirmation. The Anglican church did not allow that until more recently - I'm not sure of exactly how long ago, but when my step mother died in '96, the priest invited anyone to take communion, regardless of their particular religion.

 

[Atreus21]

This Ben Gleib guy is great at atomizing conservative arguments. In this instance he asks if humans have tails. Kirk is confused. Gleib then asks if Charlie Kirk is absolutely sure that the photo he's holding up is of a human life. Kirk says 'without a doubt', only to be informed that the photo is of a dolphin fetus. There was no trickery, despite Kirk's protests.

As with most pro-abortion arguments: That's irrelevant. That a human fetus shares the appearance of many other mammals at that age doesn't mean it's not a human being.

Were I in Kirk's shoes, I would say, "Fine. Let's grant your point for the sake of argument. It's not a human being at that stage. Is it a human being at this stage (17 weeks)?



"If so, do you oppose aborting at that stage?"

I would wager, like many abortion proponents, that Gleib would still not oppose it. And that again would show the whole line of questioning to be a red herring: Abortion proponents generally are immoveable from their support of abortion even if the fetus is a human being. Yet they continually engage in debates about the fetus' humanity. Either they're unsure of their position, or they're just dishonest.

It's possible I'm wrong, and that Gleib is a rare example - he would oppose abortion if he were convinced its target was a human being. If that's true then I'll give him credit for it.

 

[Geoist]

Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???

Actually, human embryos do have tails or 'tail-like' structures and they are usually absorbed into the body during development. I say usually because you occasionally have humans born with tails.

 

[KevinKohler]

It's insane. We had a Catholic PM (Jean Chretien) who was personally against abortion but thought it should remain legal. He knew it wasn't his decision to make.

I think there's something in the water, here.

 

[Geoist]

This is appalling ignorance.

Considering it's from an admirer of Ayn Rand that's really not surprising.

 

[Geoist]

No, what's appalling is your apparent inability to do what's usually taught much earlier than jr. high - which is TO READ. Because READ my post you definitely did not.

What's even more appalling is the utter dishonesty in this asinine line of pro-abortion argumentation in the first place.

You've got some serious gall to continue digging your heels when you just tried to refer to the embryonic tail as 'legs.'

 

[EdwinWillers]

Actually, human embryos do have tails or 'tail-like' structures...

Not "tails" but "tail-like" ...which was - in part - my point; so thank you for at least acknowledging that.

You've got some serious gall to continue digging your heels when you just tried to refer to the embryonic tail as 'legs.'

If I made a mistake calling them legs (or pre-legs), well, my utter bad. Sue me. However, had you even bothered to read what you quoted in order to accuse me of 'gall' you might have grasped the point I've been making all along here - that Glieb's point, and everyone else's argument like it, is an utterly dishonest line of reasoning. Heck, I even bolded the word for you.

What's galling are pro-abortion advocates clinging to such asinine arguments as Glieb's - moronically asserting that because "human beings don't have tails" (Glieb), the human embryo therefore isn't "human." And if it's not human, it's perfectly ok to abort it, thinking such logic somehow deflates the pro-life argument of [human] life at the point of conception.

If pro-abortion advocates were honest, they'd discard such comedic nonsense as Glieb's and simply admit they think it's perfectly ok to abort babies in the womb (or even out, for many).

 

[EdwinWillers]

As with most pro-abortion arguments: That's irrelevant. That a human fetus shares the appearance of many other mammals at that age doesn't mean it's not a human being.

Were I in Kirk's shoes, I would say, "Fine. Let's grant your point for the sake of argument. It's not a human being at that stage. Is it a human being at this stage (17 weeks)?

View attachment 67358360

"If so, do you oppose aborting at that stage?"

I would wager, like many abortion proponents, that Gleib would still not oppose it. And that again would show the whole line of questioning to be a red herring: Abortion proponents generally are immoveable from their support of abortion even if the fetus is a human being. Yet they continually engage in debates about the fetus' humanity. Either they're unsure of their position, or they're just dishonest.

It's possible I'm wrong, and that Gleib is a rare example - he would oppose abortion if he were convinced its target was a human being. If that's true then I'll give him credit for it.

Good post.

Glieb's [comedic] line of reasoning regarding the fetus' - or embryo's humanity is just plain asinine and if abortion advocates were honest, they'd discard that [not human] nonsense and simply admit they believe it's ok to abort embryos or fetuses at whatever stage of development - including in some cases even babies.

Wording it as you did was good - "Abortion proponents are generally immovable from their support of abortion" - regardless the humanity of what they're aborting.

 

[bearpoker]

Are you genuinely that gullible to think pre-leg formation in a human embryo is actually a tail???

It's not a "pre-leg" for starters, there's only one of it. Humans have two legs. Dolhpins don't have any, and this is a dolphin empryo, remember? It's actually a "pre-spinal chord", an attribute of all mammals.

 

[EdwinWillers]

It's not a "pre-leg" for starters, there's only one of it. Humans have two legs. Dolhpins don't have any, and this is a dolphin empryo, remember? It's actually a "pre-spinal chord", an attribute of all mammals.

I know, I know, I know... in the human, it's the sacrum ok? My bad, my boo boo, I was wrong....

However - TOTALLY, UTTERLY, and in every other way ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT and not the point. M'kay?

Arguing the humanity of a human embryo, or fetus, on the basis of whether it has a tail (or not), to support the pro-abortion argument, is asinine, even dishonest; because an HONEST pro-abortion advocate argues their cause regardless the humanity of what they're aborting. @Atreus21 articulates this nicely in post #66:

Abortion proponents generally are immoveable from their support of abortion even if the fetus is a human being.

And that's the point here. That's Glieb's argument to Kirk. And it is, at best, really poor comedy.

 

[weaver2]

What's galling are pro-abortion advocates clinging to such asinine arguments as Glieb's - moronically asserting that because "human beings don't have tails" (Glieb), the human embryo therefore isn't "human." And if it's not human, it's perfectly ok to abort it, thinking such logic somehow deflates the pro-life argument of [human] life at the point of conception.

Gleib uses the term "life" to mean a born human being. Prior to the dolphin picture he states that "life (a human being) begins at birth". Soon after his discussion about the beginning of "life" he says of the dolphin embryo picture, "I don't believe it is a life (human being) because human beings don't have tails." It's semantic chicanery and it's stupid.

The two of them define the same terms differently but never discussion their definitions. They talk past each other, interrupt and ignore facts, statistics, studies, research. The whole one+ hour is silly. Neither made the least effort to present honest arguments.

If pro-abortion advocates were honest, they'd discard such comedic nonsense as Glieb's and simply admit they think it's perfectly ok to abort babies in the womb (or even out, for many).

And if pro-life advocates were honest they would be discussing women's contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the effects on a family of a child that was not wanted. Instead they keep repeating their old mantra of it's human (meaning its a human being) and killing it is murder therefore women are murderers schtick.