A great first step to ending Abortion!

PostmodernProphet said:
like you they are living humans......if they don't, you don't......
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow. Obviously one member of a category can have a particular quality without all members having it. I'm a living human and so is a two year old, but just because I have a right to vote doesn't mean the two year old does. You'll need to do better.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I see no reason why people who kill children should not get capital punishment...
Click to expand...

Yet we aren't talking about children here. We're talking about fetuses.

......to be fair, killing children sounds more like the Taliban.......its time to bring us back to civilization.......
Click to expand...

Actually, the Taliban agrees with you about punishing people for ending unwanted pregnancies.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you are a fucking idiot if you think killing your unborn children is advanced
Click to expand...

You are an immoral piece of shit if you think it's OK to use our system of laws to enforce your religious taboos against people who don't share your religion.

.......the day will come when abortionists will be treated like the slave owners of the 1800s........
Click to expand...

History is moving the other way, pumpkin. A few decades back, in the 1960s, your position was much more common -- abortion was illegal almost everywhere. But gradually nations have advanced, and abortion has become legal in a greater and greater selection of nations.
 
Oneuli said:
You are an immoral piece of shit if you think it's OK to use our system of laws to enforce your religious taboos against people who don't share your religion.
Click to expand...

sorry, your an immoral piece of shit if you think its okay to kill unborn children........no ifs, ands or buts about it.......
 
Oneuli said:
It's a forthright debate tactic. It would be odd, indeed, if people felt they needed to hide the fact one thing was better than another in a debate, don't you think?
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

Oneuli said:
Fetuses are unthinking clump of cells.

Fetuses are not conscious.
Click to expand...
Define "fetus" as you are using it...

Oneuli said:
First, let's aside the various myths about virgin births (of which Jesus is a relatively late addition). No point telling each other fairy tales, when we have a practical matter at hand.
Click to expand...
Some people believe it; others don't... I mentioned it for the people who do...

Oneuli said:
Anyway, we're back to that same old argument. It's like saying you can't drown if you never go near the water, or you can't get in a car accident if you refuse to get into a car, or the only way to avoid shooting yourself is never to touch a gun, etc. The problem isn't with the statements, which are true.
Click to expand...
Great. We agree here.

Oneuli said:
It's in the value of the lesson. If the focus of your drown-proofing training is "don't go near the water," you're setting your students up to drown, because they will, in fact, go near the water, and when they do they won't be armed with the lessons you might have given them as to how to minimize risks while doing so.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you are stuck on this idea that one can't possibly be armed with these lessons if they practice abstinence... I am armed with knowledge about "safe sex practices", yet I have still abstained from sex both before and after learning about those practices... It is not impossible to teach both.

Oneuli said:
Global warming isn't a religion.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering it meaningless and void argumentation.

Oneuli said:
Neither is the Big Bang theory, or the hypotheses around abiogenesis. They are testable science.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are religions... and no, they are not testable science. They are theories about past unobserved events; they are unfalsifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; those theories are not part of science.

Oneuli said:
It is a fetus. Fetuses have no right to life, either morally or under the law in most advanced nations (though, granted, in more primitive nations they sometimes are treated as having such a right).
Click to expand...
Define "fetus" as you are using it here...
 
gfm7175 said:
No, it's not.
Click to expand...

I get the sense that you believe that when you are beaten in a debate, it must mean someone cheated.

Define "fetus" as you are using it...
Click to expand...

I'm using the dictionary definition. Do you have a dictionary?

I'm not sure why you are stuck on this idea that one can't possibly be armed with these lessons if they practice abstinence
Click to expand...

I've never said anything of the sort. Would you consider responding to my actual argument, rather than an argument you've invented and attributed to me?

It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword, thus rendering it meaningless and void argumentation.
Click to expand...

It is nothing of the sort.

Yes, they are religions... and no, they are not testable science.
Click to expand...

No. Because they are testable science, they are not religions.

They are theories about past unobserved events; they are unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...

They are theories about past unobserved events and are falsifiable.

Define "fetus" as you are using it here...
Click to expand...

If you've bought a dictionary since last asking this question, look it up.
 
Wolverine said:
You are wrong, dna transfer happens at conception, which distinguishes every trait of that child, so obviously it's life!
Click to expand...
"Life" is irrelevant. Are all pro-lifers vegetarians, because "life"? I rather doubt it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Oneuli said:
I get the sense that you believe that when you are beaten in a debate, it must mean someone cheated.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I have been "beaten", though... I am just calling out your fallacious argumentation... You are using loaded language. That is a logical fallacy.

Oneuli said:
I'm using the dictionary definition. Do you have a dictionary?
Click to expand...
That is also a logical fallacy known as "appeal to definition"... Dictionaries do not define words; they do not own any word. They don't tell you what a word ought to mean...

Also, there is no "the dictionary definition". There are MANY dictionaries; many of them are different in wording, and often enough contradict each other. That's why I asked you how you are using the term "fetus"... I'm not going to randomly guess which dictionary you are fallaciously placing upon a pedestal of authority. I am looking for a definition so that I can picture what you are talking about when you refer to a "fetus", since you keep changing any other similar word over to "fetus"...

Oneuli said:
I've never said anything of the sort. Would you consider responding to my actual argument, rather than an argument you've invented and attributed to me?
Click to expand...
I already did...

Oneuli said:
It is nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Then define "global warming"... Give it your best shot to get it to refer to something, anything, outside of itself...

Oneuli said:
No. Because they are testable science, they are not religions.
Click to expand...
They are too religions. They are initial circular arguments with other arguments stemming from them. They are not falsifiable. They are about past unobserved events... There is no way to know what really happened...

Oneuli said:
They are theories about past unobserved events and are falsifiable.
Click to expand...
No, they are not falsifiable. How can humanity know what happened before humanity existed?

Oneuli said:
If you've bought a dictionary since last asking this question, look it up.
Click to expand...
Dictionaries vary from each other, even directly contradict each other at times. I don't know which dictionary you are fallaciously placing upon a pedestal of ultimate authority, so you need to provide the definition that you are operating under when you say "fetus"...
 
gfm7175 said:
I HAVE seen it... It states (bolded added by me): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

Not over it... but under it...

SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Your comprehension ability is rudimentary, at best. That "judicial power", obviously and necessarily, includes interpreting the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top