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
- 572,321
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 23, 2010 at 10:34 am
You’re stuck in a rut, John. I challenge you on one, and you simply pull up the number of another one. This would indicate to me that you are unequipped or/and unready to explore the paths of your argument.
Clearly, you must benefit from being so intellectually rigid. If you had the welfare of real children in mind, you’d be open to exploring what they and not you needed.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:37 am
I’ll squeeze past the ad homs and select one thing I can understand: “I challenge you on one.” Makes sense. Which one did you challenge me on?
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Then let’s start with this one: “Some ‘pro-choice’ arguments are incomprehensible; therefore, baby killing must stay legal.”
First, I think you mean “pro-life,” not “pro-choice.
Assuming that is correct, please show me where I say that any so-called “pro-life” argument is incomprehensible. (I never make that claim. I do, however, show the dissonance between what they say and what they do.)
If you can’t do that, then show me where I say abortion must be kept legal. I don’t; I simply say that you so-called “pro-lifers” ought to demonstrate a concern for human life by caring for it appropriately.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Again, I’m not reading now past your first paragraph because I know from experience that the others will make me forget the first, which is probably why you add them. OK, so, paragraph 1:
The topic here is whether or not abortion should remain legal; you say yes and I say no.
You arguments are always one of four, this being the fourth. Here deliberately or accidentally you offer gibberish. You say things like abortion should remain legal because you won’t give somebody your dog or abortion should remain legal because New York City is close to the Atlantic Ocean. Here you say abortion should remain legal because #9, #12, and #14. Gibberish all. This time I’m not asking you to hold back till I read the other three paragraphs later on tonight, so fire away.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 6:14 pm
OK, it’ later, and I’ve read the other three. Now comon, Charles, don’t get cute. This blog promotes the killing of young people. I disagree with that promotion. You have been one of my two respectful opponents. Don’t say, “Oh, I’m neutral.” You’re here because you are either pro-life or pro-death.
And I meant to say “pro-choice.” why would I say my pro-life arguments, as clear and forceful as they are, are incomprehensible? It’s you, Charles. One of your four pro-choice arguments is incomprehensible. The other three are equally absurd.
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 9:54 am
CG, do you not think that abortion should remain legal?
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Boy, Pat, you ask the hard questions.
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 6:08 pm
PAT, if I told you I am the lobbyist for those who wish they’d never been born, where do you think I would stand on abortion?
Well I am, and the only form of abortion I don’t think should be legal is coerced or fraudulently misrepresented abortion. Now, why don’t you go off and be gay or something? Such a question after all these months????
My argument with Dunkle is not about how I feel about abortion, but how I feel about so-called “pro-lifers” who do not and usually cannot care for life beyond the delivery room– as Dunkle himself is a too-typical example. He will not get off his hobby horse to address my view; nor will I get off mine. We are engaged in a classic struggle about framing the issue.
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 11:37 am
Calm down, CG. Somewhere in a thread you said something like you were pro-life. Chill out… But what did you mean when you said I should “go off and be gay?” What the frig is that all about?
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Surely you must remember that period of gender confusion you went through? Specifically, Dunkle was confused about your gender.
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 6:12 pm
John Dunkle, I am pro-life in a way you cannot comprehend: All you think about is death. I think about the needs of life, and I have met them in what ways I could for children I never wanted to see born. I am angry and contemptuous that you can’t even see that place, much less ever get there. But at the same time I realize that you have to meet your needs before you can meet any child’s needs, which is what the so-called “pro-life” movement is all about.
So, call me pro-killing, but it doesn’t change the facts of the real difference between your type and real “pro-lifers.”
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 11:38 am
OK, John, say it: “Wrong, CG, I dont think about death, I think about LIFE.”
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Yup.
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Well, let’s see. Charles is pro-life even though he supports the killing of the young. He prefers death to life. He helps children he hates. He is angry and contemptuous, etc.
Pat, we got a character on our hands. I’m glad he’s on your side.
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 6:07 am
John, I believe children should have more help in life than I got. I believe my son should be able to do better in life than I have. We’re all in this together, and that includes people I don’t like. I count on them to be at least as productive to civil society as I have been, and that includes that they do for my child what I can’t do myself, even when I find them ill-mannered, unatttractive, testy mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers. In order for them to be able to meet my expectations, I have to do my part to see that I do for their children what they themselves cannot.
It’s strange that your love of children doesn’t extend beyond the womb, and mine includes all sorts.
Keep focusing on Death! It becomes you.
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 9:48 am
Who says I love children in the womb? I don’t even know them!
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 10:57 am
Well, that’s just another nail in your aborticentric coffin, John. You’re really driven by a fixation and not a love of life…
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 8:16 pm
I don’t what I’m driven by. I just don’t like to see innocent people executed.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 9:38 am
1. The fetus is not a person. You are compelled to view it as such.
2. Since the fetus is not cognizant, it is neither innocent, nor, when its presence kills its mother, is it then guilty. Nevertheless, you are compelled to view it as innocent.
3. By believing the fetus to be both a person and innocent, you thereby have a justification for your actions as a harasser and stalker.
4. If you were to adopt objective standards to judge the fetus, the central core of meaning in your life– being anti-abortion– would evaporate. Your life would become in your present frame of mind, meaningless.
5. You can’t afford to let this happen, because you don’t believe you have anything to substitute for your anti-abortionism.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 11:19 am
Here again, Charles, I’m just going to deal with 1 now. Later today I’ll look at 2-5.
And 1 is your only real argument. That’s why when you argue differently, like Dunkle is a sicko, you talk nonsense . If the fetus is not a person, you are absolutely right to be with those who want to keep abortion legal. If she is already a person, you are absolutely wrong.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm
John, my position has consistently been the fetus is not a person until the primary caretaker chooses to endosw it with personhood. Your wife, not you, was the only person with that power for her five pregnancies. There is no way short of your own pregnancy that you can make any fetus a person. I omitted the distinction in my reply to keep it simple. So, to address your misperception of my view of the fetus: it CAN be a person, but not by anything I might say.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Boy you are a slippery dude, Charles. Okay, let’s just leave it at this: Charles is God. He determines when life begins (“when the primary caretaker chooses to endow it with personhood”). I still haven’t read past Paragraph 1 yet — later.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 11:01 am
I would still like John to talk about how he became such an activist. Was it one thing?
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 11:25 am
Back in the ’40s,’50s, and ’60s, Pat, abortion was like pederasty only worse, just another of the many horrors I became aware of as I matured. I couldn’t believe it when it became legal. I’m sure there are other reasons but that’s the main one.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 1:15 pm
John, it’s interesting that you became aware of “horrors” as you grew up. We already know about your knowledge of the Holocaust. Nobody knew about pederasty outside of antiquities students in the 40’s. In fact, even as late as the mid-Seventies, Penthouse magazine featured a character called “Chester the Molester,” intended to be a lovable pedophile.
After child abuse was identified in the mid-Sixties as a problem, even then it took over fifteen years for the culture to understand it.
How did you come to identify it as a horror long before the rest of the population?
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I traveled in a fast crowd.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 6:36 pm
You and St. Augustine! The horror came slowly, eh?
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 7:05 pm
2 is more nonsense: no one is guilty before he reaches the age of reason and the law extends that to 18 or so. And if you ain’t guilty, you’re innocent.
3: I am not a harasser and stalker. I warn the killers and confront their helpers.
4: I don’t know what “adopt objective standards” means.
5: I guess this means that you weren’t helping to kill babies, I’d have nothing to do. More nonsense.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 7:03 am
Dunkle not only are you evil and commit crime in my opinion,
Congrats! You are winning awards at the Abortion.com FB page!
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 9:48 am
Where? I can’t find that!
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 6:58 pm
You have been told so many times how to find it.
Are you not able to follow the simplest of instructions?
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 5:18 pm
no, still can’t find squat!
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 5:17 am
if you weren’t helping
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 11:25 am
Why do you always say stupid things John?
Just go to FB and search for Abortion.com,
Everyone is happy, as whenever you go somewhere and do bad things, that office is given funds to help women in need pay for an abortion.
As was mentioned you, by your actions are responsible for MORE abortions. The exact opposite of your life’s work.
Isn’t that ironic?
LikeLike