I love debating Freepers

[MissMillie]

Check out this exchange: (The original topic of discussion was Terry Schiavo)
***********************************************************************

Freeper: "Being pro-choice means the person feels "the right" to use death or to kill as an option to solve a problem or situation. Pro-life means there is NO option, other than life. You simply cannot be both."

***********************************************************************

Me: NO option, unless of course, we're talking about a convicted murder, but then all bets are off. Please be realistic, the GOP uses this "life is sacred" argument until it comes to the death penalty, and THEN they make the argument that they're allowed to "play God" when it comes to convicted murders.

***********************************************************************

Freeper: A convicted murderer is on equal footing as an innocent unborn baby?!?!?!? How can an infant baby be considered to be as evil as a murderer or child rapist and alike?!?!?

Your reasoning is outrageous and idiotic.

To put a murderer to death is a prolife action. We are protecting the innocnet people who have been harmed and hurt by evil behavior, thus saving more lives.

just in case you didn't know the definition for murder,

webster says....."the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and/or forethought, to slaughter or to kill inhumanly or barbarously, slay, assassinate" (maybe we can insert abortion provider in here as well)
***********************************************************************
Me: Doesn't your bible tell you that you should judge not, lest ye be judged? Who are you to decide who is on equal footing with whom?

Your argument "To put a murderer to death is a prolife action." makes me think of those folks who kill doctors....

And for the record, if you want to get into Webster's, you can look up "person" (which is by the way, the term used in the Constitution describing those to whom Constitutional rights apply) the definition uses the word "individual" (which an unviable fetus, BY DEFINITION, most certainly not an individual) and you'll get some sense as to why the courts have ruled the way they have on abortion.

In the case of Schiavo, the court upheld that there were people in her life that were impowered, by FL law to make decions pertaining to her life--namely, her husband. I find it interesting that the party that is so big on families and so adverse to government wanted the government to interfere on a decision that should be left to the family.

So much for the party of small government.
***********************************************************************
(Here comes the good part: I've countered her arguments, and aparrently, she's got nothing....)

Freeper: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "YOUR" BIBLE?
***********************************************************************
(So rather than being baited into a discussion about who believes in what and what beliefs are valid, I get a little sarcastic)

Me: You don't own a bible? Now that's a shame. I'm sure that since you own a computer you can look up bible verses online.

***********************************************************************
(Here it is: the grand finale! She couldn't counter my argument w/ any kind of sound reasoning, so she went for an escape, and apparently my sarcasm gave her exactly what she was looking for:)

Freeper: I do own a Bible ma'am, and yes I do know how to use it. I actually open it up, regularly. As a matter of fact, I am learn from it each time I open it (daily).

However, I do not simply quote a verse from anywhere that serves my agenda, as you do.

I would NEVER state that I know all of God's word, but I can say it is true and it is valid. It is correct for reproof and instruction. No where does it instruct us to do many of the things the Democratic Platform endorses.
And for that reason alone, I am not a Dem.

Your smug comment is obvious and I take offense. The issue was regarding Terri S. and somehow you twist and turned it into a death penalty issue, as well as, jabs on people of faith and Republicans in general.

You have succeeded in chasing yet another person away from this board for good. I am not interested in debating any issues with someone so "mean" and nasty.

********************************************************************
(I'm taking "'mean' and nasty" to mean that I had a pretty good argument and she didn't have a comeback. She said "good riddens and the end of her post, but I responded one last time.)

Me: Very interesting.... MY smug comment.

In case you forgot, the smugness started with "What do you mean YOUR bible?"

You knew full well what I meant, but you decided to bait me into some argument about who the bible pertains to. So I got sarcastic rather than fall into your little trap.

The issue on Terri Schiavo is simply this: there is a party that was entitled to make decisions regarding her medical care. That party was her husband. You wanted to have the government step in. The GOP always wants the government to step in, and then they always claim to be the party of small government.

The death penalty reference was merely an example at how contradictory your party can be. It has no bearing on the Schiavo case whatsoever.

I didn't make a jab at people of faith. I too am a person of faith. It may not mirror your faith, but it's faith nonetheless. And according to the constitution I'm just as entitled to practice it as you are yours. So don't go throwing your faith into my government. It doesn't belong there, and even the Bible says so. (And if you read your Bible as regularly as you claim to, you would know that. So yes, part of the Democratic platform IS in the Bible.)
**********************************************************************

It shouldn't amaze me, the tactics that they use, but it does. Whenever you say something they can't rebutt, they try to make you look like you're being offensive and nasty. "What do you mean YOUR bible?" Well, this is a woman, who, all over this board, references her Christian faith. I just assumed she had a bible. So she tried to infer that my words had some unkind meaning. That was her "out".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I'm having a similar conversation now.

My freeper is arguing that the decision of abortion rights based on a right to privacy was subjective and completely made up to protect abortion. I cited the 1891 case of Union Pacific v. Botsford which states: No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

That's only step one to determining the long held precedent that one has a right to privacy. God I love being right sometimes. :evilgrin:

[MissMillie]

2. And doesn't the 4th amendment we are to be "secure" in our persons

I know that is traditionally interpreted to be the right to be free from unlawful search, but it doesn't seem to me to be a stretch at all to say that this is a right to privacy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Sure it does

I'm arguing even beyond that, so as to leave no doubt that the right to privacy was drummed up out of nowhere in any manner of speaking.