I’m not seeing hypocritical, unless of course the person doing the cutting is using birth control.
There is some difference, at least in my understanding of sin. The closest of “wrong-headed and immoral and hypocritical” to “sin” is immoral. Hypocrisy simply refers to the adoption of inconsistent positions and behavior. Wrong-headedness is an opinion about the wisdom of an action.
“Immoral,” though related to “sin,” is not a synonym. In my definition of sin, we have both the sin we inherit from our first ancestors, original sin, and the sin we commit ourselves, actual sin; the latter being a thought, work, action or omission contrary to God’s law.
Since I suspect we do not share agreement on what constitutes God’s law, or indeed if there is even any such thing, there’s a huge difference.
“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”
Eliot Rosewater, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Kurt Vonnegut
Works for me.
So what? A watching a sonogram doesn’t do anything at all for the effectiveness of an abortion.
You’ve already established that you support ineffective, nuisance impediments to legal activities. Why are you against getting a finger up your man-twat before you enjoy a steak?
Hypocrite much?
Good point.
I’m sure Bricker will accept your argument and stand strongly in support of rectal exams before eating steak as legal and in accordance with American ideals.
Also, did I mention the 24 hour waiting period at the restaurant?
Umm . . . when in relation to the rectal exam does that begin?
It’s so far just wishful thinking that a probe up the vagina is effective at preventing abortion.
I’m sure the restaurant will have an “employees must wash hands” policy.
Saying “well, here’s a position you support. Here’s another position that is vaguely similar but comically exaggerated, that you do not support. Lol ur a hypocrite” is a ridiculous argument. Unless you’re being extra-clever and gotcha-ing Bricker because that’s very similar to the kind of ridiculous argument that he does like to make himself (although not much in this thread). If you’re gotchaing him, I’m all in favor of it. If you actually think you’ve presented a meaningful objection to his position, not so much.
I was referring to the Catholic church’s hypocrisy in telling people to live in peace and then making that impossible or difficult with overpopulation; or in speaking against sexual sin and then protecting child-molesting priests; or in claiming to minister to the neediest of the needy but making things worse (okay, that goes back to the first part of this paragraph); not to mention “Mother” Teresa claiming to care for the sick and dying but denying them pain-killers since she thought suffering was so very noble and would bring them closer to God.
Hey now, let’s not get Big Government involved with excessive regulations. Let the buyer beware of the finger up their ass
That’s their policy, not mine!
Nope. The effectiveness of the abortion is not the goal, so why would you try offering it up here?
And I didn’t say I was against it. I said that under our current caselaw, it likely wouldn’t survive.
My mistake. Having hit the requisite birthday somewhat recently, I was told a sigmoidoscopy was the accepted best practice.
In any event, one part of my objection remains: even if this is the appropriate path for a medical professional, it’s not for a waiter.
I disagree that I have ever, in the history of this site, advanced an argument that rests on such ludicrous grounds as Lobohan’s does here.
The Wisconsin law, despite the lie inherent in the thread title, clearly specifies that the choice of transducer is up to the woman – a vaginal probe is by no means mandated.
And I am certainly willing, as I have said before, to concede that the law doesn’t work if the numbers don’t support it, but you are not willing to support it even if the numbers show a measurable effect.
Once again, can you answer why he should support it when lowering the number of abortions is not his goal? Bryan’s goal, as far as I can tell, has always been to minimize obstacles to receiving an abortion. This goal is not advanced by requiring an ultrasound regardless of the number of abortions prevented.
Ah, but all of our waiters are trained medical professionals. We do recommend that for your comfort, you tip your waiter generously prior to the rectal examination.
The correct analogy, I think, would be to require the waiters to be doctors, so as to put an undue burden on restaurants that serve meat. So that it’s similar to the efforts to regulate abortion clinics out of existence.
My argument is sound, but silly. Which is only to prove what an utter clot of shit you are.
You want to humiliate and shame people who get a legal medical procedure that your cult doesn’t like. That makes you a profoundly shitty person. Just like someone who would force people to eat the way they want.