Abortion Split from: "What the [LDS] church misrepresented in the AP article response"

[Moksha]

MG, you might point out that if Kirton McConkie helped deflect lawsuits away from the Church, then allowing any abuse to continue was an acceptable by-product.

[Marcus]

Please.

I think I’ve seen/heard pretty much what I expected. Now it’s on record.

I’m done for now.

Here is what is on the record:

That's not what I said at all. You're a hypocrite for the reasons I mentioned.

Looks like there isn't going to be any real discussion on the points/questions I brought up.

Just deflection.

I don't think there are any exceptions wherein raping someone is permissible. That is one of the reasons I don't think these two things are morally equivalent. Because they aren't morally equivalent, holding to one, but not the other, isn't hypocrisy to me.

Since you insist on making these two things morally equivalent, and see adhering to one but not the other as a sign of hypocrisy: What circumstances do you feel make raping someone permissible?

That you turned a conversation into a comparison of the moral equivalence such that your hypocrisy resulted in you implying there are circumstances that make rape permissible is what is on the record.

Even if we conclude you didn’t mean for that to happen, it is still on the record that you derailed a discussion about sexual abuse by introducing abortion as an issue with equivalent concerns. Which is morally repugnant. It is on the record that you showed your character by yet again derailing a thread so you could disrupt and disturb.

Your comments are on the record. Your conclusion that you caused a derailment so you are stopping for now is on the record. Your obscene justification of your religion’s pitifully inadequate response to sexual abuse is on the record. Your inappropriate responses are on the record. For the record, you give your religion a black eye every time you post.

[Marcus]

MG, you might point out that if Kirton McConkie helped deflect lawsuits away from the Church, then allowing any abuse to continue was an acceptable by-product.

Don’t be disgusting.

[Moksha]

MG, you might point out that if Kirton McConkie helped deflect lawsuits away from the Church, then allowing any abuse to continue was an acceptable by-product.

Don’t be disgusting.

No lip when we are working on apologetics.

[Marcus]

Don’t be disgusting.

No lip when we are working on apologetics.

Don’t be disgusting. This is not the topic for your flippancy.

[Moksha]

Don’t be disgusting. This is not the topic for your flippancy.

And this is not the place for your rudeness.

[Marcus]

Don’t be disgusting. This is not the topic for your flippancy.

And this is not the place for your rudeness.

Lol. It’s not being rude to express my opinion that your humor crosses the line and becomes intrusive and inappropriate at times.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

MG, you might point out that if Kirton McConkie helped deflect lawsuits away from the Church, then allowing any abuse to continue was an acceptable by-product.

Don’t be disgusting.

Tbf, from my perspective Moksha’s comment was observational rather than an attempt at edgy humor. I could be wrong, but that’s how it read to me.

He makes a good point in that KM’s actions actually do result in a reality where Mormons are ok with child rape. They can say they are disgusted by the act, but actions really are what matter here, and when a disgusting piece of garbage defends their current actions I can’t help but come to the realization that on some level they just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

What other conclusion are we supposed to have?

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

No lip when we are working on apologetics.

Don’t be disgusting. This is not the topic for your flippancy.

Lol. It’s not being rude to express my opinion that your humor crosses the line and becomes intrusive and inappropriate at times.

All I'll say is that for you to come in and overtly try to exercise direct control over the flow of the conversation and tell people what they can and can't say is absolutely appalling. Someone has got to say it. And say it again. Board nanny is not a powerful enough descriptor. I would leave it to others to come up with one but they are too afraid.

Others have come in and said their piece, not just me. Limiting free speech is NOT the way a board like this should operate.

I felt that it was a bit hypocritical for folks that think one thing is criminal and unforgiveable to give a pass to women/men who choose to kill unborn babies. The contradiction and juxtaposition blows my mind.

The thing is, there are those that would rather not think about it or try and excuse it. Those that have tried here have come off rather lame.

My free expression along with all the others here ought to be accepted. Instances where other topics have veered off on a tangent are not uncommon. Others have done it.

Get off your high horse Marcus.

I'm totally cool with everything I've said on this thread. I'm cool with being on the record just as others are.

YOU are NOT the thought police.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Why is it immoral for someone to end the development of a conglomeration of cells in a woman’s body? The fetus is not technically a child until born...

But for the grace and goodness of your mother in not electing to abort her child you live and breathe.

Millions of others haven't been so privileged.

That you can even say this turns my stomach.

Regards,
MG