Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring; Coleus; narses; Salvation; cpforlife.org; Mrs. Don-o; Dr. Brian Kopp; metmom; trisham; ...
Seeing as how you misquoted me, I guess I am. Fairly typical.

And how is pasting your words "misquoting" you?

Here is your post:

To: Kaslin

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos. The genetics are, but they are no more from embryos than saying, “you have your grandmother’s eyes” means they were plucked out and transplanted.

Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

2 posted on Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:19:45 PM by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)

I put "pro-life" in quotes as they are not truly pro-life.

Why are they not pro-life? Because they oppose the destruction of life?

The progress of decades of hard work toward overturning Roe v Wade and getting the federal government out of the issue was stabbed in the back by nutbar narcissist Randall Terry. I consider him a "'pro-life"' scam artist" who is really in it for himself, not truly wanting abortion to end as that would mean he would be more of a nobody than he already is.

So, you condemn the entire pro-life movement because you disagree with the methods of Randall Terry even though he isn't even mentioned in the thread?

14 posted on 07/11/2010 5:42:36 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee
And how is pasting your words "misquoting" you?

Changing punctuation in a manner that changes meaning is misquotation.

Why are they not pro-life? Because they oppose the destruction of life?

No...because they would allow suffering and death if it furthered their agenda.

So, you condemn the entire pro-life movement because you disagree with the methods of Randall Terry even though he isn't even mentioned in the thread

Many times, you have twisted my words and meaning. I try hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do it out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. But it keeps happening, habitually(?).

I have no time to give you English lessons, but let me try again, in case you're being honest...

If I wrote something like the following:

"Conservative" Democrats might vote for that bill.
...would you claim that I had just written that all Democrats are conservative? No. In fact, wouldn't it seem that I'm questioning whether these voters are even really "conservative." Yet in a parallel construction, you twist my words and try to imply that I am claiming something I am not.

Perhaps Randall Terry has never spoken on embryonic stem cells, but I was asked to provide an example of a "'pro-life' scam artist" and he is perhaps the best well known. And I think that it's clear that there are people whose M.O. includes obfuscation, not honest discussion and solutions. Are you defending them? I hope not.

17 posted on 07/11/2010 7:20:41 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson