This page is dedicated to the Pro Life violence of John Dunkle,
We do not agree, but in the spirit of discourse, here it is,
Please opine.
Call (800) 804-8868
Call (800) 804-8868 for immediate information on Abortion Care.Abortion Blog Stats
- 574,684
Abortion.com FaceBook
-
Join 239.8K other subscribers
Archives
Top Posts
Time To New President
January 20, 2020Twitter Updates
Tweets by abortiondotcomPlease Opine
dameirvolin on This State Is Banning Intersta… Anonymous on The Donohue Show Anonymous on The Donohue Show Helen Johnson Brumba… on The Donohue Show Jonnielyn Velez on Republicans Want 12 Randos to… Emily on Abortion Commenting Category Cloud
Abortion
Abortion Law
Abortion Rights
Blogroll
Late Abortion
morning after pill
pill
Therapeutic Abortion
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information %d
August 19, 2010 at 6:37 am
John, are you losing it? Why don’t you re-phrase my question so that you can show us you are not in need of a thorough check-up? This is worrisome.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Charles, I’m on my son’s mac in South Bend. I can hardly make it work. I’ll be back to my own big hot computer tomorrow and will be able to spell everything out. Till then don’t say anything stupid, meaning don’t say anything.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 6:47 am
Not in a good mood, are we, John?
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm
haha, not even stupid — I’ll go below. More room.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 10:33 am
John: Since this is your blog, why dont you tell us how you got into the pro-life movement?
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I was living on Long Island the day, July 1, 1970, New York State made child-killing legal. Immediately a mill opened five miles from my house. I was the second sane person to arrive there.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I don’t know if this will work, Charles, but I wil rephrase your question. I hope, though, isn’t not another “give somebody your dog” question, remember? One of my sons finally rephrased that so that you accepted and I understood. Anyway, here goes.
Charles, “Why do you want to save the lives of people whom you have no plans to help afterward?”
John, “Because it’s just natural — if someone is drowning and someone else can save her, any normal person would save her. He wouldn’t stop to say, ‘Gee, I’d better not throw her this ring because then I’d have to support her till death.'”
And that is why, Charles, I called this #2 of your three absurd reasons for wanting to keep child-killing legal — #2 Anyone who tries to save a life must be willing to support that person until death.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:57 pm
In other words, you would have walked away from the mother of Elizabeth, who was put up for adoption to Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum, and who died a day-long death from Joel’s bludgeoning.
So, one criteria for me to be able to walk away from a baby that I want to see born is, “It doesn’t matter if she might be bludgeoned to death.” I’ll keep that helpful advice in mind.
I note that your son re-wrote the question to avoid the matter of a child actually being born in order to maintain your theme of being a “rescuer.” Too bad you can’t extend your concept of “rescue” to born children.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Scratch “the mother of” in the preceding post.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Even with the scratch, Charles, I don’t understand which this is of your three absurd arguments. So, I’ll have to add a fourth: some “pro-choice” arguments are incomprehensible; therefore, baby-killing must remain legal.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Your total focus on “rescue” is absolutely amazing, John! Have you no feeling at all for a child who spent eleven hours dying because there was nobody there who cared for her?
We touched upon your insensitivity in our side correspondence. I forebore at the time to comment on the element of creepiness it might contain, and lo! Here it is….
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 6:11 pm
paragraph 1: #3 (Killing young people is the best way to prevent later suffering; therefore, baby killing must remain legal.)
paragraph 2: #1 (John Dunkle and my father are sickos; therefore, baby killing must remain legal.)
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 7:03 pm
You’ve given up reasoning, John. In the face of facts that there are worse things than abortion, you fall back on irrelevant platitudes.
“The aborticentric lacks the psychological resources to engage in real sacrifice. In order to conserve his scant emotional energy (to cope with his underlying neurosis), he tries to become a hero on the cheap.”
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 7:08 pm
#4: (Some “pro-choice” arguments are incomprehensible.) On second reading, no, #1: (John Dunkle and my father are sickos.)
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 4:49 am
Wait a minute now, Charles. Do I detect an additional argument in #5 — “there are worse things than abortion”? That’s true! The child who gets her arms and legs pulled off might have grown up to be someone responsible for pulling the arms and legs off others. That would be worse. Is that what you are referring to?
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 5:29 am
Stop dealing in fantasies, John, The fact is that you want to ignore the realities facing born children in order to ride to heroism on your “arms and legs” imagery.
You want to ignore the fact that real children need more than “arms and legs” in order to have a fair chance. Think of Elizabeth’s abortion as just having been delayed until she was a fully sentient human being. Do you prefer it that way?
And thank you for pointing out how aborticentrists hate the idea that there are worse things than abortion. The relatives of Ted Bundy’s dozens of victims would probably disagree with you.
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 3:05 pm
This is #4 — “Some ‘pro-choice’ arguments are incomprehensible; therefore, baby killing must remain legal.”
And, on second thought, no (referring to #7), that is not an additional argument; it’s your old #3: “Killing young people is the best way to prevent later suffering; therefore, baby killing must remain legal.”
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 3:59 pm
NO! Taking care of young people is the best way to prevent suffering!
But you can’t SEE that, can you? You are sooooooo focused on the imagery or ripping off arms and legs, you can’t look beyond, to the needs of children to be protected, to be nurtured.
Thanks for being the poster child for aborticentrism, John. You typify it to a fare thee well.
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 7:38 pm
It’s taking me a while, but I think I am getting there, Charles — your first paragraph is right on because it focuses on the heart of the matter: are the group today under attack, the group whose members it is legal to kill, young people? I say yes because they are not old and they are not foxes or some some other animals. You say no. You used to call them humanoids and recently you implied they were fake babies, whatever those mean. That is really the only argument; if you thought they were young people, you would become an eloquent spokesmen for the pro-life side.
Your paragraphs 2&3 are the first of your four absurd pro-baby killing arguments — John Dunkle and my father are sickos; therefore, baby killing must remain legal.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 5:48 am
If fetuses are, as you say, “young people,” why do you walk away from them after ensuring that they will be born?
You’ve given me permission to walk away from children like Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum’s “Lisa” (born Elizabeth), who lived a live of torture and died slowly with their full complicity.
Your ability to exclude the prospect of what happens to children whom you insist be born is typical “pro-lifer.” And it’s monstrous. You’re a member of a very scary community.
I don’t think Ted Bundy thanks you for not being there for him when he was growing up. The families of his dozens of victims certainly don’t.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 8:01 am
I didn’t go past your first paragraph here, Charles, because I am sure you added the others just to confuse the reader of the first. And I have two responses to the first paragraph. First, I don’t ensure that they will be born. I don’t even know if they will be born. I can only hope. Second, suppose I was able to save them, just I was able to save that drowning girl by throwing her a ring. Does that mean I should not save them unless I was prepared to nurture them afterwords?
I’m on my way to the homes of two baby killers. I will look at and respond to the other paragraphs when I get back. Please don’t add anything before then to confuse the matter further.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Thanks for not adding to the confusion while I was away. There is enough here already. Paragraphs 3,4,and 5 include all four of your absurd reasons for wanting to extend the legal execution of the young. Reason #4, though, stands out: “Some ‘pro-choice’ arguments are incomprehensible; therefore, baby killing must stay legal.”
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 6:42 am
#9, #12 and #14, John.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 7:56 am
Are you going to make me spell everything out, Charles? You know my numbers represent the four unreasonable and absurd statements you repeat to promote the continued legal killing of young people (the above again is #4).
LikeLike