Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Nut Flush
I’m still deciding whether I should even respond to this latest one (#177), but you know you’ve gone off the deep-end when you’re butchering my quotes, adding five bracketed words to them and passing it off as a logical inference.

"to deal with...remaining alive" really changes the meaning? Really?

Why, if bracketed words bother so much, let's leave your quote intact, then:

If the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child"???

Of course, you NEVER really finished that sentence, did you? To finish the sentence, you really needed to have said: "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child..." remain alive?)

It's only because you never really finished the sentence to begin with that I addressed it...that's hardly "going off the deep end."

But that's typical of "Pro-choicers." To be "pro-choice" grammar-wise is a free-floating intransitive verb. Pro-choicers don't finish the sentence..."choose what?" Flavor of ice cream? What color of ice cream cone?

What's being "chosen?"

BTW, how do you deal with an alive baby who becomes dismembered & feels pain in the process? All A-OK because the baby had the "wrong genes" -- like the genes of a rapist-father? (I mean what? Pre-borns aren't created w/nerves or something?)

185 posted on 01/13/2011 2:29:20 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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