I really liked this article and thought the comparison was very thought provoking. Quite interesting when you think about the outrage on each front. See what you think:
Yeah, I agree. The owner of AmericanVision is a pretty nastypiece of work. An Act of God
[ July 25, 2007, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Thank god I can turn to AmericanVision.org to provide me with a completely worthwhile and fair interpretation of Byrd. I wonder what they have to say about those 'queers.'
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I don't get your links.... Or your statement for that matter.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Yeah, I agree. The owner of AmericanVision is a pretty nastypiece of work. An Act of God
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They're just pointing out that you linked to an astonishingly odious site, Jay.
That said, if you grant the "pro-life" position on the central issue of the abortion dispute -- that fetuses are living beings entitled to the full range of human protections -- then indeed the editorial makes a valid rhetorical point. In my experience, though, if you grant that position already, you're probably already "pro-life." So at the end of the day, it's really only preaching to some of the most insecure members of the choir.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't get your links.... Or your statement for that matter.
Your site is one of those weird, fixated pro-ministry soundboards and it doesn't actually tell us anything about Byrd which is worth listening to.
The article is seriously nothing but "Senator Robert Byrd cares about dogfighting. And yet EVERY DAY A BUNCH OF BABIES ARE MURDERED. By ABORTIONIST MURDERERS. It's TERRIBLE. It's MURDER. He allows MURDER. Bloody painful MURDER. Here is a picture of MURDER. Did we mention that we think abortion is MURDER. In conclusion, our society is sick."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting…. See I didn’t take it that way at all. I for one of course thought the Vic story was horrible, but never looked at it like how Gary pointed out in the article. To be upset about a dog getting killed, but to not be 10 times as outraged for an innocent baby being killed really says something about us as people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, we can't be outraged about both?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It says that not everybody believes that embryos are babies.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I guarantee you I would be outraged if someone was piting babies against each other in a battle to the death.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Interesting…. See I didn’t take it that way at all. I for one of course thought the Vic story was horrible, but never looked at it like how Gary pointed out in the article. To be upset about a dog getting killed, but to not be 10 times as outraged for an innocent baby being killed really says something about us as people.
Ok let me give a blunt comparison. Let's say I am a politician who gets mad one day when I find out that there's an unwanted pet dumping operation in my town. I might take some time out at Congressco™ to say "Fegh, that's disgusting, and these guys are creeps."
Then imagine I subsequently have an article about me in a PETA newsletter that segues bluntly into saying "OH MY GOD HOW COULD CONGRESSMAN SAM BE SO OUTRAGED ABOUT THIS AND NOT CARE ABOUT THE BILLIONS OF ANIMALS WHO ARE MURDERED? SOCIETY IS SICK!"
I'd probably furrow my brow at the article and think that they need to get a grip. it's possible to be outraged at more than one thing at once and it's kind of pointless to preach blatantly to the choir when it's pretty established that I'm not going to think of meat eating as murder anytime soon.