Could just as easily be an explanation for ignoring cogent points put to you though. Just as a matter of interest, over the last few days who were you actually discussing your views on the subject with as you seemed to be talking mostly to Petaljam and quoting her, as she was quoting you.Absolutely - no rule against joining in to discuss any point.
However, What we are talking about is interrupting a discussion of one issue by responding to it with irrelevant points relating to a completely different discussion and then whinging when people dont want to derail their own discussion to deal with your tangents.
That's not what happened though. Did anyone else even bother replying to your claims, or was it pretty much only me who responded, pointing out where I felt they were unfounded?If I'm responding to a different question from another poster and you respond to that with completely irrelevant points to that initial exchange then it is butting in. When you then start whinging that these irrelevant points are not being addressed then that's just being silly.
You obviously didn't watch the video before commenting on it.Two minutes? How come it took him 20 years of carrying them out himself to work that out.
Slow learner was he? Or maybe the anti choicers just hadn't made him a good enough offer before that.
I'm aware of his spiel. I don't see the connection myself. How would it work?*You obviously didn't watch the video before commenting on it.
He explains how the death of his own child opened his eyes.
Former staffer who worked with Planned Parenthood describes having to cut through a babies face,
to be able to harvest the brain to get body parts to sell. :mad2:
Can't, I'm working. Has it improved any since the referendum to give human rights to pregnant women was passed? Probably not much yet. I expect it will be a long job - old habits die hard and all that.Turn on Joe Duffy. He is discussing the Irish health systems attitudes to women who are pregnant and their unborn children.
You are correct abortion is just a simple medical procedure. No risks no repercussions and only occurs when the woman's or child life is in danger. It does not involve killing a life, it does not happen when child birth may interfere with holiday or career plans and as women have no right to choose before conception there should be no arguments / even discussion about it. It is just like a tooth filling..I'm aware of his spiel. I don't see the connection myself. How would it work?*
And why would he be able to convince others of something he completely failed to notice himself while carrying them out every day of his working life until his child died in a completely unrelated way?
If abortion is so horrendous, wouldn't those who haven't seen any up close as he has, be much harder to convince? I mean, if that's what it took for a professional abortionist to "see the light", then it would probably take their entire family being murdered by a serial killer for a non abortionist who is simply pro choice for other women.
* ETA: Yes, God's revenge (or a grieving father's hallucinatory belief that this must be the explanation for the loss of his daughter) seems to be the subtext, alright. It shows how bonkers the whole story is that this interpretation actually makes more sense than any other. And if so, how evil the anti choicers are to exploit his grief in that way.