What happened to LDS apologist Doug Marshall?

[Guest]

Take it or leave it. If you leave it, I'll just assume you agree.

As people walk away in boredom, bcspace tells the world triumphantly:

"I can go on talking longer than you. If I'm the last one to stop talking, I win!"

Simple debate logic. If you can't argue your side, the other side wins.

You wouldn't know debate logic if it walked up and bit you on your sorry visceral conservative ass.

You are a perfect example of the totally clueless dunderhead who has no idea of how ridiculous he sounds or how much he is perceived to be a complete moron by others.

The blanket statement that liberalism is contrary to Mormon Doctrine and teachings of JC is so fundamentally stupid on its face that it is pointless to debate it. How could someone who actually believes this utter nonsense, and who is so completely incapable of seeing even the slightest bit of nuance, be persuaded by any kind of counter-argument?

You make idiotic sweeping assertions, dare people to respond, but when they do respond, you automatically dismiss anything they say, continue to dare them to respond, only again to viscerally dismiss any response, and then chide them for not responding, and then declare yourself the winner because nobody responded.

A foolproof style of argumentation. Sort of perversely brilliant in its idiocy.

[_bcspace]

Everytime you post without providing an example of how leftwing ideology is compatible with LDS doctrine you prove my point that it isn't.

Wow, yet again you oblige me.

You're a satirist's dream.

Satirize all you want but invective won't help your case.

[_asbestosman]

The life of the mother is always in more danger when she is pregnant than when she is not--especially during labor which will often occur as a result of pregnancy.

This is true, but I'm assuming that those who would allow abortions only to save the life of the mother have more direct health threats in mind.

Perhaps, or perhaps they think that those women who were not responsible for becoming pregnant should not be required to take the risks inherent in pregnancy. Is it murder if I refuse to jump into a raging river to try to rescue someone? What if I am responsible for that person being in that river? Maybe it's something like that (but not completely).

[_guy sajer]

Everytime you post without providing an example of how leftwing ideology is compatible with LDS doctrine you prove my point that it isn't.

Wow, yet again you oblige me.

You're a satirist's dream.

Satirize all you want but invective won't help your case.

And stupidity sure as hell ain't helping yours.

[_bcspace]

Satirize all you want but invective won't help your case.

And stupidity sure as hell ain't helping yours.

ah...Ah...AH...Dukakis!

[_Chap]

The God of the Old Testament did not treat killing an unborn child as the equivalent of murder, either.

Exodus
22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

The LDS footnotes say that "mischief" means "other harm".

Obviously GOD did not consider the miscarriage of the woman from an act of violence as the equivalent of murder.

I have missed bcspace's one-liner in response to the Old Testament deity's misunderstanding of the Gospel ... I am sure there is one coming soon.

No, evidently there isn't.

I think it may be because even bcspace feels a little hesitation about saying that Yahweh is a discredited member of the ultra-liberal wing of the Democrats, and is probably not really a believing LDS. Too much risk of being smitten, I guess.

No! Got it!

It wasn't translated correctly ...

[_beastie]

Perhaps, or perhaps they think that those women who were not responsible for becoming pregnant should not be required to take the risks inherent in pregnancy. Is it murder if I refuse to jump into a raging river to try to rescue someone? What if I am responsible for that person being in that river? Maybe it's something like that (but not completely).

I think it's a stretch - especially today when pregnancy is much safer than it was in the past - to try to make the case for self-defense in this scenario.

After all, if one is going to rely on the statistical chance of death to build a case for self-defense in this situation, then all abortions could be justified by the use of self-defense. For the self-defense to work at all (and I'm not convinced it does work, ever), it has to be a clear and present risk of death, not just a statistical chance.

[_bcspace]

No, evidently there isn't.

I think it may be because even bcspace feels a little hesitation about saying that Yahweh is a discredited member of the ultra-liberal wing of the Democrats, and is probably not really a believing LDS. Too much risk of being smitten, I guess.

No! Got it!

It wasn't translated correctly ...

Doesn't seem to be read correctly. "If men strive..."

[_beastie]

Doesn't seem to be read correctly. "If men strive..."

It means they're fighting.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't seem to be read correctly. "If men strive..."

It means they're fighting.

That's right. According to the Hebrew Lexicon, it's two (or more) men striving together and the woman just gets in the way. No analog to abortion here.

Now if a woman intentionally gets involved ala Deuteronomy 25:11-12, THAT could be a problem. lol