A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

indeed.....so Chip, disgarding all the clutter and verbage in the above

Erroneous.

I posted no "clutter and verbiage".

What I did post was some great use of analogy in the process of exposing your pro-abortionist's sophistry ... which is, of course, why you prefer to "disregard" it.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

and irrespective of all other mutterings about Jewish holocausts.. etc.

And here you reference one of those great and wholly appropriate analogies!

So, the word "irrespective" really isn't appropriate.

Indeed this analogy was quite appropriate, to get the accurate point across that murderous abortion is just as heinous en masse as was Hitler's.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

your stance is that the mother has no rights at all

Obviously false.

How is it that you pro-abortionists can just pretend to ignore what is posted right in front of your face simply for the sake of attempting to support your sophistry is truly foreign to my way of being.

But, you manage to attempt it, ad nauseum.

I post you the link to the reality of rights ... but you post as if you don't get it.

I stipulate clearly that both the mother and her pre-natal offspring have rights ... but you contradict obvious reality and bear false witness against me.

Are you really that desperate? Do you really have nothing else?

Really, Scotsman, just because no one has the freedom of action right to murder another person, doesn't mean they don't have other rights.

Your blatant contradiction of what everyone else sees in this thread clear as day ... speaks very sadly of you.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

and any other action is simply murder.

Unclear. Erroneous generality.

You really need to learn how to post more clearly, as your statement here is very ambiguous.

But, if I should hazzard a guess ... what you're trying to say is that you obviously erroneous think that I'm saying that any time someone kills a pre-natal person it's murder.

But, again, I've clearly posted to the contrary.

How can you be so obviously careless with your words, Scotsman.

I have clearly stated on more than one occasion in this thread that if her pre-natal offspring is a real and present threat on her very life, the mother can take defensive action to protect her very life, and if in that reasonable act of self-defense her offspring is killed, that's simply not murder. It's sad, and she'll likely mourn the loss of her offspring, but she's not rationally guilty of wrong-doing in that matter.

Yes, over and over I've clearly stipulated this.

Yet, you perhaps pretend to ignore that fact, merely to suit your pro-abortionist purposes.

Pretending denial, as you apparently do, Scotsman, does not serve your integrity well.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Your initial post was a spliced together summary of the work undertaken by scientists and it shows that humans can indeed create other humans (life) but....so what!!

Despite your belittling attempt to demean my accurate scientific presentation with your "spliced together" ad hominem, your "work undertaken by scientists" reduction, and your blatant omission that what the opening post clearly scientifically presents is that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, you fail, once again, to make any point.

I realize you want to pretend that a person, a unique individual human being isn't created at the moment of conception, which you make clear by your "so what!!" negation of that person's existence.

But the answer to your "so what" is "everything" -- it means everything.

Because what it means is that abortion is the killing of a person, a human being.

And, what's more, it logically, rationally means that intentionally, premeditatively killing that person for reasons other than legitimate life or death self defense is the sociological behavior of murder.

"So what??"

You've got to be kidding! You can't possibly be that clueless.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

All you've done is comment upon what everyone knows........ women grow babies

Erroneous. Purposely inexact.

Your purposeful inexactness, your deliberate lack of relevant precision in your statement here betrays your pro-abortionist purposes.

You'd like to erroneously think that what is growing inside of the woman from the moment of conception is not a person, not a human being, but merely "something" that will "grow" into what will one day be a birthed baby.

But, you're sophistry concocted words are meaningless.

What everyone knows, Scotsman, yourself included, I would opine, is that women grow human beings, from the moment of conception, and that human being, that person, from the moment of conception, continues to grow into an embryo, a zygote, a fetus ... all the way through birth, when that person gets "baby" status, eventually toddler, child, pre-teen, teenager ... etc. status.

You'd like to forget all those growth statuses of a human being, though, wouldn't you, especially the pre-natal ones.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

yay women.

Careful, Scotsman -- you're close to treading on Top Gun's turf.

The next thing we know you two will be scratching and clawing at each other's cheerleading outfit to see which of you will be the lead cheerleader.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Okay now we move into the assigning rights phase i.e. what controls what....

False. Sophistry.

No one "assigns" rights, Scotsman.

Rights are endowed at creation, at conception.

As for "what controls what", you really do need to read the Realities of Rights thread I linked you to earlier.

Then you wouldn't use the word "control".

If you read the opening post in that thread, you would know that the three general classes of rights have a natural hierarchy as I list here in order of foundational and overriding application: the right to life, the right to security of person, and the right to freedom of action.

It really is very simple, Scotsman.

No need to pro-abortionistly sophistrically overcomplicate an uncomplicated matter.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

This is the crux of your position.

False.

It is, however, nice to know that you apparently went back to some of this thread's earliest posts and got yourself caught up.

The reference you chose to post, in what you were erroneously hoping to be your pro-abortoinist's coup de gras, was simply taken out of context by you in typical pro-abortionist misconstruence.

The bottom line there, Scotsman, is that if you feel that someone yelling at you is threatening your security of person, you have a right to take action, but if that person is truly not threatening your very life, then you can't kill that person simply because they're making you feel uncomfortable lest you be arrested for unjustified use of force and likely convicted of manslaughter ... or worse.

You really do need to read for comprehension, Scotsman.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

I am interested what happens if the growing baby is threatening the life of the mother?

There you go again, asking in repetition the same question over and over to which I've clearly stated the answer multiple times.

You do know that in so repetitively doing you are appearing either a bit senile ... or very desperate.

Which is it, Scotsman?

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

kill the mother? or kill the baby or let both die?

Okay, I'll answer that question once again for you.

Read the answer slowly so that it will sink in for you.

When the pre-natal person is directly threatening the mother's very life, the mother can choose to take self-defensive action, and if that reasonable course of action results in the death of the pre-natal person, that's what rights-respecting survival of the fittest is, and no wrong-doing has occurred.

It really is that simple, Scotsman, just as I've pointed out so many, many times in this thread.

Your utilitarian sophister's trick of pretending obvious realities don't exist is easily rejected.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

oh pahleeeaaase.......look this frenzied raving just puts people off - in truth its boring........ hysterical but boring. ttfn

Translation: "In truth, I, Scotsman, only want to pounce on absolute irrelevancies merely to divertively digress from the truth of murderous abortion that I just can't handle emotionally because the fact is that I have absolutely nothing scientifically or rights-based reality-wise to counter Chip's effective, accurate, obviously rational arguments."

Never be so blantant in your obvious denial ... in the presence of a psychologist.

What's truly boring, as you project, is you and your cohort's tired old frenzied rah rah irrationalized hysterial sophistries -- they do get old, easy to refute, but old.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[top gun]

Refer to your constitution. You have a right to live, not a right to have extrordinary measures taken on your behalf should you become so sick or injured that no reasonable hope exists for your recovery. Your arguments fail on every possible level and yet, you hold to them like a red faced bible thumper.

Well we all know that's you who is in reality both red faced from receiving your 36+ year long butt kickin' from the US SUPREME COURT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD and of course THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES... and Bibled in you thinly veiled religious ideology.

Be that as it may facts are still facts and I use them to show that abortion is not the only thing of it's kind that is totally legal because due to necessity and/or extremely critically important conflicting interests.

When knowingly by pre-strike analysis innocent little children are allowed to be killed as collateral damage... that's the very definition of a child being put to death without any right to prior judicial review.

When someone is alive and could be kept alive but they are not that is often because they are no longer "VIABLE". Still a human... but cannot live on their own without life support. This is much the same as with a fertilized egg up to "VIABILITY". The woman is the life support machine and the embryo has not even remotely developed enough brain function to be "VIABLE".

As far as the Constitution it doesn't have to say anything about "extraordinary means". To be consistent with your obviously inconsistent argument saying "one has the right to life" would mean we should do everything in our power to maintain that life no matter how degraded. Because knowing there will always be future medical advancements almost every medical problem would someday have a cure if life was just continued on.

Your "no extraordinary means" position would also translate over into saying when penicillin first came out that you wouldn't have to give that to a person ready to die from a raging infection because that would (at the time) have been new and extraordinary means to keep that person alive.

These are just some of the many reasons why you've been a loser for at least the last 36+ years...

 

[palerider]

Well we all know that's you who is in reality both red faced from receiving your 36+ year long butt kickin' from the US SUPREME COURT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD and of course THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES... and Bibled in you thinly veiled religious ideology.

Be that as it may facts are still facts and I use them to show that abortion is not the only thing of it's kind that is totally legal because due to necessity and/or extremely critically important conflicting interests.

When knowingly by pre-strike analysis innocent little children are allowed to be killed as collateral damage... that's the very definition of a child being put to death without any right to prior judicial review.

When someone is alive and could be kept alive but they are not that is often because they are no longer "VIABLE". Still a human... but cannot live on their own without life support. This is much the same as with a fertilized egg up to "VIABILITY". The woman is the life support machine and the embryo has not even remotely developed enough brain function to be "VIABLE".

As far as the Constitution it doesn't have to say anything about "extraordinary means". To be consistent with your obviously inconsistent argument saying "one has the right to life" would mean we should do everything in our power to maintain that life no matter how degraded. Because knowing there will always be future medical advancements almost every medical problem would someday have a cure if life was just continued on.

Your "no extraordinary means" position would translate over into saying when penicillin first came out that you don't have to give that to a person ready to die from a raging infection because that would (at the time) have been extraordinary means to keep that person alive.

These are just some of the many reasons why you've been a loser for at least the last 36+ years...

Sorry topgun. Logical fallacy does not represent rational argument no matter how badly you wish it did. War, and the facts of war is an entirely different topic and introducing them is no more and no less than a red herring. End of life issues also represents a red herring as there is duely legislated law that deals with end of life issues and each individual has the opportunity for due process.

Sorry topgun. You are no more relavent than a parrot on a stick who only knows 2 words. "it's legal. it's legal."

 

[The Scotsman]

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

I've already said........ I with agree you!!!!!

Here's what you've said in your summary of Wikipages (apparently)............

Geneticists of respected DNA science tell us that the first cell to become completely human is the cell of conception. Immediately after the haploid cells (half the chromosomes necessary to be a human) of sperm and egg unite, whether in the womb or a dish, that they begin to transform into and soon do become, before the first cellular division of growth, a complete diploid 23-chromosome human cell, of the human species. The process of egg and sperm uniting is called conception, and the result of that unity is likewise called a conception.

Geneticists of respected DNA science also tell us that the newly conceived human cell is unique from any other human being's cells with respect to genetic identification of the DNA presenting a cell of a uniquely separate human. Thus, if the conception takes place within the mother's womb, there is then from that point two separate sets of cells within the mother's skin: the cells that are "her's", with respect to her individual entity, and the cells which belong to the newly conceived human within her.

I agree!!!!!!!!!

Women produce babies.....mixing up a bit of this with a tad bit of that and wallop.....you have a brat!! ....my missus has had two, although we didn't go about it in a very scientific manner though No test tubes or catalytic crackers or neutron converters or DNA sampling doohdads..... we just did the usual thing.......wham bam thank you mam after a very nice meal in a very good restaurant in Hamburg!!!

so we've scientifically established beyond an doubt and without reservation that I agree with you.....there are indeed two methods of producing life:-
1) rumpy pumpy
or the more boring and but much less sweaty method....
2) dabbing around in a test tube

So....can we move on to the next bit now?

 

[top gun]

Sorry topgun. Logical fallacy does not represent rational argument no matter how badly you wish it did. War, and the facts of war is an entirely different topic and introducing them is no more and no less than a red herring. End of life issues also represents a red herring as there is duely legislated law that deals with end of life issues and each individual has the opportunity for due process.

Sorry topgun. You are no more relavent than a parrot on a stick who only knows 2 words. "it's legal. it's legal."

You of course mean as in constantly regurgitating the words "fallacy, fallacy" does not prove your argument.

Comparisons of like or similar things are often used as examples as to why fairness and consistency dictate a certain course for legal rulings. And that's what I've easily been able to do here.

So we are both left with reality...the outcome that has been legally debated and adjudicated by those much smarter than you or I whose whole lifelong careers are dedicated to the law & Constitutional interpretation.

Someone has to be the looser pale... see the clinics remaining open for 36+ years means it's you.

 

[The Scotsman]

Name a circumstance, personal, economic, or social in which you believe my right to, whatever, outweighs your very right to live.

.......well I guess for starters the usual one really.....a severly handicapped child with no prospect of living!

 

[Chip]

I've already said........ I with agree you!!!!!

False.

Though you may be saying so now, you were previously most certainly couching your words in obvious disagreement with the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Nevertheless, I will now choose to accept you at your word here on the matter, and refer back to this post if I find you hedging in the future.

Here's what you've said in your summary of Wikipages (apparently)............

I've already told you and the irrepresible pro-abortionist Lagboltz that I did not "summarize Wikipages".

I presented the common scientifically known facts that can be found on many, many links and in your average high school textbook.

You pro-abortionists really need to let go of your prediliction to create truth-ignored sophistry.

It really gets old.

I agree!!!!!!!!!

Women produce babies.....mixing up a bit of this with a tad bit of that and wallop.....you have a brat!! ....my missus has had two, although we didn't go about it in a very scientific manner though No test tubes or catalytic crackers or neutron converters or DNA sampling doohdads..... we just did the usual thing.......wham bam thank you mam after a very nice meal in a very good restaurant in Hamburg!!!

so we've scientifically established beyond an doubt and without reservation that I agree with you.....there are indeed two methods of producing life:-
1) rumpy pumpy
or the more boring and but much less sweaty method....
2) dabbing around in a test tube

Misleading, inexact and a basis for sophistry.

First of all, to say that you "agree with me" means that you've accepted the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That is accurately what it would mean for you to say that you "agree" with me.

What you have actually posted here, however, is a focus that can function as a divertive digression as you hedge against accepting the foundational scientific fact I've highlighted in red.

You are focusing on "women", and you are focusing on "method".

So let me just clear this up for you so we'll know you are in agreement with me.

Men and women create conceptions, not just women. That's the normal way. And men, having an equal partnership in the creative act, have an equal voice in the welfare of the person they've thereby created ... an equal voice in the welfare ... and an equal culpability in the murderous abortion death of that newly conceived person.

If a woman does invitro without the cooperation of a man, etc., that changes nothing except for reducing responsibility and culpability to her, and, of course, any abortuary doctor who commits murderous abortion.

Who is responsible, accountable and culpable is always thereby situational, but, the truth remains, there is always someone or someones responsible, accountable and culpable in the welfare or murderous death of a newly conceived person.

And the fact that women carry a newly conceived person inside of them for the first nine months of that person's life does in no way detract from the reality I've highlighted in red above, and does in no way minimalize the right to life of the newly conceived person.

And again, the method of getting sperm and egg together to form a new entity called a conception, a new person, a unique individual human being, is toally and completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that a new human being is created at the moment of conception, and is thereby endowed at that moment with the unalienable right to life.

I just wanted to make sure you got that.

So....can we move on to the next bit now?

And what would that next bit be?

Would you like to tell me?

I mean, if you do agree as you say you do, that a person, a unique individual human being, is created at the moment of conception, then what's next?

Obviously the existence of that person means that person has already been endowed with the unalienable, inviolable right to life, and that from that moment on, no one, not the father, not the mother, not a doctor, not the state, not anyone, can murderously deprive that person of that person's life.

So, please tell me, Scotsman, what is this next bit to which you refer???

 

[samsara15]

Chip, your arguments have not persuaded anyone. Are you trying to persuade us or are you merely engaging in mental masturbation by preaching and railing at us? You claim to be a psychologist, and brilliant. Do you interact with your patients, or just preach at them? I'm sure you must interact, or you would soon be unsought for and out of business, and your so called brilliance is a false positive.

 

[The Scotsman]

First of all, to say that you "agree with me" means that you've accepted the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That is accurately what it would mean for you to say that you "agree" with me.

I thought we'd settled that???????????

Okay Chip lets start from the basics...... a man meets a woman - woman likes man and man likes woman (you know what women are right?) Okay just checking as I don't know how to scientificaly define one....anyway.... good. So you generally have a chat and drink and then you flash a dazzling smile and chuck in a bit of the old charming repartee and if all the signs go well, grrrrrrrrreat. So lets say they get married or co-habit or shack-up or whatever, then one night when the winds blowing hard and the wines' been flowing.... you get the drift huh..... BANG there's a power cut. What to do now? Have an early night maybe? So a bit of slap and tickle turns to some slurpy kisses and .....well a bit of humping and bumping and bingo!!

(let me know if your a bit hazzy here and I'll give you some links to some porn sites and you can do some research on the not so scientific methods of creating unique individual conceptions - babies I think they called them in my day..... I digress)

Nine months later WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA you're up to your neck in puke and nursing bra's.

So

I AGREE WITH YOU

I AGREE WITH YOU

I AGREE

I AGREE

I AGREE

I AGREE

how many more friggin times do we have to go through this.......

The missus and I created one.......actually two..............have you??????

Gadzooks man I hope if you're married your uniquely anti-sexually concepted personal companion (wife) is an understanding conception otherwise you seriously need to get out and meet other people Chip..... I mean seriously....... go out have a beer and chill man!!




Is your favorite word sophistry? Mines "fruit" I find it rolls nicely off the tongue and conjours up all sorts of .....well......fruity flavours and textures........sorry.......... I'm straying from the scientific..........ooops........please don't shout at me

 

[Chip]

Chip, your arguments have not persuaded anyone.

Irrelevant.

Here the pro-abortionist leopard blames the pro-lifer for not being persuaded to change his spots.

The pro-abortionist fails to realize that it is his own responsibility to don a mantle of respectability.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Are you trying to persuade us

Irrelevant.

The pro-abortionist, knowing that the truth of the message has gotten through, but still "needing" to be in denial, reacts as if it's all about him, not realizing that his denial is simply being put on display for the edification of all of the pro-life groups that will be referenced this way.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

or are you merely engaging in mental masturbation

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Here the pro-abortionist projects his own lack of substantive topically relevant posts onto those who expose his sophistry.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

by preaching and railing at us?

Erroneous and irrelevant.

In this phrase the pro-abortionist exhibits one of the typical moral relativist utilitarian traits: oppositional defiant disorder.

The pro-abortionist transfers and displaces those from his past onto the pro-lifer, resisting to come out of denial about the truth of the personhood of the newly conceived.

Notice that all along the pro-abortionist's entire post is an unprovoked ad hominem leveled at the pro-lifer, which is the pro-abortionist's typical defiant behavior in lieu of substantively topical material.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

You claim to be a psychologist, and brilliant.

Erroneous. Immaterial.

Here the pro-abortionist falsely claims an adjective accolade he inaccurately attributes to having been spoken by the pro-lifer.

The object of the pro-abortionist's false statement is to set up an ego target of the pro-abortionist's own making, and then shoot it down.

As I stated before, the pro-abortionist has no substantively relevant material that he can post as a rational conjecture to the science of the opening post, and, since the pro-abortionist doesn't "like" what the opening post means, but can't offer rational substantive scientific conjecture, the pro-abortionist simply immaturely fires on the messenger.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Do you interact with your patients, or just preach at them?

Erroneous. Irrelevant.

And here it is, the "shoot down" part of the pro-abortionist's ad hominem.

Notice again, at no time does the pro-abortionist post topically relevant material.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

I'm sure you must interact, or you would soon be unsought for and out of business, and your so called brilliance is a false positive.

Erroneous. Irrelevant.

And the pro-abortionist fires his final ad hominem shot.

The pro-abortionist, lacking any substantively relevant accurate scientific information with which to refute the opening post, being unable to emotionally accept what the personhood of the newly conceived means, typically fires away at the messenger, hoping that by destroying the messenger in his mind that he will also destroy the message.

Obviously, his tactic fails, as he as done this many times before, and must keep doing it to keep his denial down and to keep at bay the continually resurfacing truth he just can't handle emotionally.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

I thought we'd settled that??????????? Okay Chip lets start from the basics...... a man meets a woman - woman likes man and man likes woman (you know what women are right?) Okay just checking as I don't know how to scientificaly define one....anyway.... good. So you generally have a chat and drink and then you flash a dazzling smile and chuck in a bit of the old charming repartee and if all the signs go well, grrrrrrrrreat. So lets say they get married or co-habit or shack-up or whatever, then one night when the winds blowing hard and the wines' been flowing.... you get the drift huh..... BANG there's a power cut. What to do now? Have an early night maybe? So a bit of slap and tickle turns to some slurpy kisses and .....well a bit of humping and bumping and bingo!! let me know if your a bit hazzy here and I'll give you some links to some porn sites and you can do some research on the not so scientific methods of creating unique individual conceptions - babies I think they called them in my day..... I digress) Nine months later WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA you're up to your neck in puke and nursing bra's. So I AGREE WITH YOU I AGREE WITH YOU I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE how many more friggin times do we have to go through this....... The missus and I created one.......actually two..............have you?????? Gadzooks man I hope if you're married your uniquely anti-sexually concepted personal companion (wife) is an understanding conception otherwise you seriously need to get out and meet other people Chip..... I mean seriously....... go out have a beer and chill man!!Is your favorite word sophistry? Mines "fruit" I find it rolls nicely off the tongue and conjours up all sorts of .....well......fruity flavours and textures........sorry.......... I'm straying from the scientific..........ooops........please don't shout at me

Irrelevant divertive digression, in blatantly intended ad hominem form, designed to both cover-up the fact that the pro-abortionist likely doesn't like the fact, or agree verbatum, that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception and is thereby endowed at that time with the human right to life.

If you did accept the truth of it, and could handle it emotionally, you would have moved on by answering the question I posed: "what would that next bit be?" that you yourself wanted to "move on to".

Obviously, my reiteration verbatum of the thread's topical conclusion still bothers you, or you would have moved on as I requested.

Instead, you posted a meaningless diatribe that functions to derail that "next bit" you wanted to move on to.

I can only conclude that you are afraid to go there with me.

And the only people who are afraid to pursue what this means are ... pro-abortionists.

But, in the interest of staying on topic and deflecting your unjustified ad hominem attack, I reiterate: what is that next bit you want to move on to?

 

[The Scotsman]

Chip........sorry mate but I can't decide whether this is serious or not!!! you're just cracking me up...........man this is hilarious stuff ...............

Look its late and I'll have natter again with you in the morning.

 

[Chip]

Chip........sorry mate but I can't decide whether this is serious or not!!! you're just cracking me up...........man this is hilarious stuff ............... Look its late and I'll have natter again with you in the morning.

Irrelevant. Erroneous. Divertive.

Here the pro-abortionist, given a chance to continue the discussion in a topically relevant manner, continues to divert with more implied ad hominems.

The pro-abortionist says he finds relevant material "hilarious".

What he really means is that he finds it scarry, and, he's bothered that he is so transparent.

The pro-abortionist will likely defer to continue discussing relevant material with "the next bit", indefinitely.

 

[palerider]

You of course mean as in constantly regurgitating the words "fallacy, fallacy" does not prove your argument.

Until you put forward something that isn't a fallacy, I don't have anything really to argue against. Arguing against a logical fallacy is no more and no less than the mental masturbation that concocted the fallacy in the first place.

Comparisons of like or similar things are often used as examples as to why fairness and consistency dictate a certain course for legal rulings. And that's what I've easily been able to do here.

Only by people like you who are so desperate to make a point, any point, that they must stoop to logical fallacy in an attempt, and unfortunately, most of the people you argue against have no more notion of what constitutes rational argument and the ins and outs of debate than you so you get to fool a certain number of people. I covered a great deal of my college tuition as a member of the debate team and unfortunately for you, and your poor argument I can identify and point out logical fallacy as quickly as you can spew it.

The primary problem with your attempt to analogize war and the civilian casualties that go along with it is that you are clearly against it. If you supported civillian casualties, perhaps there might be some very odd and questionable point in there because you support abortion. That isn't the case. As it is, you are promoting something you are against in an effort to justify something that you are for. In short, you are trying to argue that two wrongs make a right and tossing in a red herring, apparently, just for fun. As such, your argument is without merit. It amounts to just so much blah blah blah because there is no valid point in there.

So we are both left with reality...the outcome that has been legally debated and adjudicated by those much smarter than you or I whose whole lifelong careers are dedicated to the law & Constitutional interpretation.

I have never left reality, and you have yet to come to grips with it. You still have not, nor can you offer up the smallest rational support for the decision because the decision was based on a false assumption. That being the case, you are still standing there like a parrot on a stick repeating it's legal, it's legal ad nauseum. Hardly an argument in support of your postion .

Someone has to be the looser pale... see the clinics remaining open for 36+ years means it's you.

How long did it take to overturn slavery? How long did it take to get women the vote? How long did it take to overturn segregation? You hold a very narrow view of time topgun and that is why you can't see the eventual defeat of roe. Look back at the arguments used to support slavery, denying women's rights based on sex, segregation. They were rife with the very same sort of logical fallacy your own arguments stink of and the facts eventually put them down where they belonged. Roe will be struck down because it is the only rational thing to do.