In typical fashion, ‘David’ has responded to posts by Bruce and I, and demonstrated (yet again) that he will not conduct himself in a reasonable, honest manner.
We have 2 main detractors that like reading our website. They can’t seem to get enough of our content. When we say something they do not like, their websites are filled with their ‘opposing’ points of view.
We know about them because they make sure they link to our articles in their content. What we have found is that despite their demands that Christians present rational, logical, and evidence-filled (their definitions, of course), content in rebuttal to their arguments, these detractors do not do the same thing.
There’s a lot of irony here. David has regularly responded to Bruce and I, even going so far as to write up a snide post about me, that wasn’t even addressing any topic, other than me! My post had nothing to do with him, and was not discussing any topic we’d debated, but that didn’t stop him.
Bruce and I link to David’s content because we are being transparent. We have nothing to fear from letting David know we have written a response or rebuttal to his words. Our posts may incorporate elements of mockery, but they also contain fact-driven arguments. David prefers to overlook this, and instead, as per his snide post from earlier, will indulge almost exclusively in insults.
An example of this crops up in his latest post.
There is a problem in the world and both MM and BG can only focus on having abortion available and committing two assaults with no fear of reprisals. They do not address the real problem but want to lead parents and children to sin and call it good. MM did not see the final line in the article:
He has argued in his responses that getting an abortion avoids the trauma of childbirth, yet he wants children to experience the trauma that abortions cause. He cannot have it both ways. If trauma is wrong for pregnancy, it is also wrong for abortions.
David must have skim-read the article, and perhaps he merely skimmed the other article I linked to (by the way David, how is that not providing evidence? I quoted from, and linked to, two sources from medical professionals, detailing the dangers of pregnancy in young people, yet you say I don’t deal in logic… 🙄). I suggest he goes back and reads both posts in their entirety, instead of cherry-picking, and taking things out of context.
Medical professionals made it clear that, until their bodies are sufficiently developed, pregnancy and childbirth can kill and cripple young girls, yet all David can offer (responding to part of one of the articles) is:
Maybe not BUT that opinion does not stop the crime from being committed. Nor do the bad effects of a pregnancy stop men from raping little girls. Nor are the bad effects justification for abortion.
What does the medical benefits of an abortion for a child have to do with the crime of rape? This is a classic example of a red herring. And the ‘bad effects’, as David calls them, include death. They include being rendered disabled. They include various forms of serious injury.
Since those problems are well known, people should be creating solutions to them instead of immediately going to kill an innocent child. If you read the article, neither ‘doctor’ comments on any solutions for the trauma those girls will suffer.
Their answer to curing those problems is to kill someone. That is not rational, logical, or even evidence for abortion. Doctors are to do no harm and when a child is pregnant, the doctor has 2 patients yet the Hippocratic oath is applied to only one.
Seriously David? This is a matter of biology. There’s no solution that will magically render a ten year-old’s body capable of handling pregnancy and birth. The articles made it very clear as to the medical dangers of forcing children to have babies. Previous articles I’ve shared have made it clear that sometimes, abortion is the only way to save the mother’s life. These are rational, logical, fact-driven arguments…. and David rejects them.
We put in bold the keywords. We never abandoned anything but MM won’t believe it. He would rather believe the false stories he is told than the truth. We are not going to say anything more on that topic.
MM & BG just want negative fodder to continue to attack us in their own sinful ways. They won’t be rational. logical or even produce evidence to support their views. Everything they have written or alluded to points to the validity and truthfulness of our content.
We never said we were the moral authority on this issue. We did say that GOD is and we write his words, not ours. Ours are not inspired but they are based on inspired words. So the problem BG and MM have is not with us but with God and his ways.
They do not like those ways, so they advocate for everything sinful. Their denial of both God and sin just shows that their arguments are never rational,. logical or even evidenced-filled. They are not honest either.
Their arguments are personally based, subjective and according to their own desires and thoughts. Unbelievers are never rational, logical, or evidence-based because they dismiss the truth in favor of their own deceived opinions.
They are not our enemy, but the evil in and behind them are. We do not wish them ill-will and are saddened that they hold onto evil in spite of hearing the truth. We also do not spread misinformation, or lies and do other things to them as they do to us.
Our actions prove we are more moral than they can ever hope to be.
Based upon what I know (ha, based on what I’ve merely experienced dealing with David), the above few paragraphs could not be more ironic. David has zero understanding of what it takes to be a parent, and I have every reason to believe recent claims that he abandoned his own child. Nor have I forgotten David’s pattern of lies (I have a long memory, and David’s dishonesty is a matter of fact). I’ve provided, across various topics, evidence to support my claims, and David… Well, let’s just say and he has a loose relationship with facts.
Bruce put a challenge out to David, for a fact-driven debate. Will David answer this challenge, or indulge in further character assassinations of him and me?