Leave it to David to indulge in a string of distortions (heh), red herrings, and outright insults, in his response to my post from yesterday.
That is the ending message of MM’slatest post concerning our content. In the final 2 paragraphs of his article, he asks 1 important question, at least in his mind, and 1 request:
#1. Where is the compassion for these women from the pro-life crowd? and
#2. I would ask them to show compassion for these women and girls.
Those are odd question and request to make, considering that on the other end of MM’s compassion comes the senseless murder of innocent and defenseless children. We would have to ask, where is his compassion for those young babies?
Is it in his mind that those that are unborn are not worthy of life and are expendable? How can we make that determination when the unborn child cannot speak for him or herself? Then he accuses certain individuals of wanting young mothers to die, by making them carry their babies full-term.
No one has said that but MM puts those words in those certain individuals’ mouths because he likes to frame the narrative in a manner that suits him. He does this regardless of the content he does not like.
Pot, meet kettle. My point, which I clearly need to reiterate for David’s benefit, is that women die from pregnancy and childbirth-related problems, every single day, and sometimes, abortion is the only means to save their lives. Women can and do die when access to safe, legal abortion is unavailable. It is regrettable that sometimes, an abortion is the only means to save a woman’s life, but the woman has every bit as much right to life as anyone else, something David seems to be oblivious of.
Oh, to quote from the link: Pregnancy complications, including placental abruption, bleeding from placenta previa, preeclampsia or eclampsia, and cardiac or renal conditions, may be so severe that abortion is the only measure to preserve a woman’s health or save her life.
Reproduced from another post, to once again point out the medically proven dangers of denying abortion, especially to under-age girls, as pregnancy and childbirth can be extremely dangerous to a woman’s health.(source)
To counter that argument, the medical industry has progressed far enough that the danger of a mother dying is minimal. Why should he demand an abortion when there are medical procedures that can avoid having both people die?
Because David, there are still significant risks to the woman, hence why over 300,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth complications. Yes, that figure has come down (owing to something David has routinely criticised in the past, namely medical science), but that doesn’t alter the reality – every two minutes, a woman dies because of a pregnancy or childbirth-related complication.
Additionally, these complications get worse in cases of under-age girls. Complications during pregnancy and birth are, globally, the leading cause of death among 15-19 year-olds.
If MM had any real compassion, he would not advocate killing someone who cannot defend themselves. That is a coward’s strategy, not a brave man’s act. Instead, he would do everything in his power to bring the proper medical care to those women and help see them through those pregnancies safely.
David, it is enormously ironic that you would call me a coward. You are not in a position to wield accusations. Nor do you focus on facts. Your ‘tid-bits’ are misleading red-herrings. You mentioned unsafe abortions – well, the latest sources I’ve supplied render your arguments bunk, but I doubt you will acknowledge that.
For them, we challenge them to
#1. drop their whining and hatred against God
#2. start bringing proper medical care to those countries that lack it
#3. use their personal resources to get medicine, equipment, etc. to those women
- David, I do not hate God, so this is yet another red herring. Why don’t you stop whining about immigrants, the LGBT community etc?
- Do you already do this? Are you aware that proper medical care includes abortion, and would not include faith healing (Bruce, I think you’ll get a kick out of that particular ‘debate’!)?
- Do you use your personal resources to help the woman you knocked up and then abandoned? Practice what you preach.
2
0
20
“The risks are minimal, so why bother?”
Well … the chance of your divorce having a different outcome if it was heard in a Canadian court versus an American court was minimal, so why were you so insistent on trying to make that happen? Surely it couldn’t have anything to do with the plaintiff using a wheelchair and Crown family courts having a well-documented history of bias against people with disabilities, or the fact that in Alberta, said bias is actually codified in provincial law, could it?
What is an acceptable risk, Derrick? Is your risk tolerance higher than the risk of people finding out what earned you a one-way ticket out of the U.S. (hint: something more serious than a “calling” to teach in Korea) but lower than the possibility that I have a PDF image of the fraudulent voter-registration application you filled out where you listed a fake name, falsely said you were born in California, and signed an acknowledgment that providing false information constituted perjury? What’s your rationalization for that, Derrick? Because you’re not a stupid man, and you must have known that your eventual explanation that “I didn’t break the law by applying” was a load of crap. And even if you didn’t know better the first or second time you registered to vote, you surely did by the third time.
As for the debate … Derrick, surely it would be productive to reveal me and Bruce and MM as liars once and for all, wouldn’t it? If everything I’ve said is a fabrication, and everything BG and MM have said is mere slander, and you can prove it, wouldn’t that be the trifecta for you? Clearing your good name and shutting all three of us down once and for all?
But you can’t, can you? That’s why you’re tucking your tail and running from a debate. The only person for whom it would be unproductive is you.
Go ahead. Prove otherwise. I have no fear of engaging in that discussion with you. Why do you? You won’t even allow me a voice on your board. If I’m so inconsequential and unworthy, what would be the harm?
What are you afraid of, if you have nothing to fear from the truth? Other than the fact that you can’t misrepresent hard-copy documentation the way you can deceptively paraphrase others’ e-mails?
It’s okay. Have fun ignoring me, you coward. I intend to continue giving you plenty of practice doing so. Although it will be kind of hard the next time any of the missionary organizations you want to work with vet you by Googling your name.
the more you say, the more the finger points at you and your inability to listen to the truth. Everything you say only describes you.
A meaningless non-answer from a child-abandoner.
I’m confused. Was he talking to you or to me? And if he was talking to me, I’m a little perplexed by the statement that “everything [I] say only describes [me].” Why would he (or anyone else) think I’m a Canadian-born CINO (like RINO, except with C for “Christian”) who likes to threaten women and risks being unpleasantly surprised by how the statute of limitations on felonies (like perjury and contempt of court) works if I ever encounter legal trouble?
I think he was directing his remarks at me, since he appears to be thoroughly afraid of you and what you know. He declared that ‘love is obedience’ in a recent comment he placed on his own site. I think that sums up a lot of his mentality towards women.
Religions do not have the right to tell me what medical I may get whether it be abortion or surgery to fix my broken ankle.
You are absolutely right Barbara. It’s a pity the religious right doesn’t know when to back out of other people’s lives.