A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

....so what? Big deal we know that we've already discussed it! That was pointed out in post no.1!!!!?????

So in the end, you have no rational defense for your position. You favor allowing a woman to kill another individual with no judicial review, and no legal conseqences for any or no reason. That is what I thought, but it sure took you a long time to get around to admitting it.

 

[The Scotsman]

You favor allowing a woman to kill another individual with no judicial review, and no legal conseqences for any or no reason. That is what I thought, but it sure took you a long time to get around to admitting it.

..........nope! I favour allowing women the choice of terminating their baby up to 23 weeks into the preganancy........ but obviously the earlier the better wouldn't you agree...........

 

[palerider]

..........nope! I favour allowing women the choice of terminating their baby up to 23 weeks into the preganancy........ but obviously the earlier the better wouldn't you agree...........

No. I don't favor allowing anyone to kill anyone without judicial review and without legal consequences and I can legally, biologically, and rationally support my position, while any attempt to rationally support yours will stink of ageism.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What've we got....some kind o' Christian-Jihad, here???

​

 

[palerider]

What've we got....some kind o' Christian-Jihad, here???

​

Do you have anything to add to the conversation? I notice that you rarely do without regard to the topic. I don't see anyone here attemting to defend bombings so your reference to such amounts to either a red herring, trying to divert the conversation away from the facts, or an attempt to suggest that two wrongs make a right. In any case, your comment amounts to nothing more than a logical fallacy.

If you are up to having an actual discussion using your own brain rather than an endless stream of cut and paste that may or may not have any relevance to the topic, by all means, jump but if you aren't, then go foul up some other thread with your inanities.

By the way, I see nothing suggesting that Christians, or any other group had anything to do with this. Add begging the question or perhaps a genetic fallacy due to some "ist" quality in your personality to your steadily growing list of logical fallacies.

 

[The Scotsman]

Do you have anything to add to the conversation? I notice that you rarely do without regard to the topic. I don't see anyone here attemting to defend bombings so your reference to such amounts to either a red herring, trying to divert the conversation away from the facts, or an attempt to suggest that two wrongs make a right. In any case, your comment amounts to nothing more than a logical fallacy.

If you are up to having an actual discussion using your own brain rather than an endless stream of cut and paste that may or may not have any relevance to the topic, by all means, jump but if you aren't, then go foul up some other thread with your inanities.

hear hear......well said Sir!

 

[palerider]

hear hear......well said Sir!

I am surprised that they don't ban him. I see him all over the place, wasting bandwidth, never making an actual argument for or against anything, never using is mind, apparently depending on cut and paste material that he has not, in all probablilty researched to assertain its accuracy. People like that are a waste of intellect.

 

[top gun]

palerider;85367]Are you trying to improve on your argument?

Since we are only going around in circles saying the exact same things over & over and my position is the United States Supreme Court's position as well, I think the reality is what it is... and I'm of coarse fine with that. It is a fair and reasonable allowance for women to have control over their bodies and reproductive rights.

However when the viability stage is reached there should be a limit on abortion... except of course in cases of life of the mother. So when people say abortion should of course stay legal but with restrictions I too am in agreement. Viability is the limit.

As I knew would happen you duck & bob helplessly trying not to admit that collateral damage and things like next of kin rights of decision making over others that have an insufficient brain, one that cannot support life on it's own (such as a fetus before viability).

No positions are being changed. You will stick with your position, one that is not and will not be the legal reality and you will remain the quintessential anti-woman Clinic Creeper type... that's your choice to make.

I'll check back from time to time an post for awhile rubbing your nose in the fact that nothing has changed and Roe is still in effect just like I have for the last 3 years LMAO!

I think it's good that you post though... it gives women a good look at the more creepy bad things out there and reminds them that there will always be some bad men roaming around who would gleefully hurt them if ever they could get their hands on them.

ROCK ON LADIES... BE STRONG! Like I tell my daughters... you'll always have my respect and support and don't settle for anything less from others!

 

[palerider]

Since we are only going around in circles saying the exact same things over & over and my position is the United States Supreme Court's position as well, I think the reality is what it is... and I'm of coarse fine with that. It is a fair and reasonable allowance for women to have control over their bodies and reproductive rights.

The problem is (and I am surprised that you are unable to see it) is that you can't defend the decision upon which your position is based. If you are going to rest your position upon a court decision, then you should be able to effectively support that decision. You can't. All you can do is endlessly refer to it, but you are unable to defend it. You can't defend it because it is entirely based on a flawed assumption and the justices themselves admit that should the state of knowledge or law change and legal precedent come to exist that supports the proposition that unborns are indeed human beings, and therefore persons, that the very court case you depend on will collapse.

However when the viability stage is reached there should be a limit on abortion... except of course in cases of life of the mother. So when people say abortion should of course stay legal but with restrictions I too am in agreement. Viability is the limit.

This is a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that viability is what makes a human being a person. If that case were arguable, then the court would have been able to make the argument that unborns were human beings but not persons because they were not viable. That is not the case because in the eyes of the law, human being, and person are one in the same. All human beings are persons.

Instead, in order to try and justify their decision, they were forced to assume that unborns are not human beings and therefore not persons and therefore not protected by the 14th amendment. The court itself said that if legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn is established, that unborns will be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment without regard to what a woman wants because her wants will not take precedence over the child's very right to live.

If you can prove that viability is what makes a human being a human being, then you have the embryo of an argument. Without it, you are just begging the question.

As I knew would happen you duck & bob helplessly trying not to admit that collateral damage and things like next of kin rights of decision making over others that have an insufficient brain, one that cannot support life on it's own (such as a fetus before viability).

There is no ducking and bobbing. The topic of war is not relavent to the topic of abortion. At best, you are arguing that two wrongs make a right which is the worst sort of argument to try and justify.

Further, end of life decisions are not applicable to beginning of life decisions. As I have pointed out, you have a right to live. You have no right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf indefinately. There is a decided difference between deliberatly killing an individual and letting one who is so sick or injured that there is no reasonable hope of recovery die. The fact that you attempt to compare the two highlights the weakness of your argument.

No positions are being changed. You will stick with your position, one that is not and will not be the legal reality and you will remain the quintessential anti-woman Clinic Creeper type... that's your choice to make.

You are wrong again. I am sure that you won't change yours, but over the years, I suppose I have changed a few dozen minds and brought quite a few more than that down off the fence onto the anti abortion side of the argument.

Your name calling is as good as an abject admission of defeat and your bluster that things will never change marks you as a flat earther.

I'll check back from time to time an post for awhile rubbing your nose in the fact that nothing has changed and Roe is still in effect just like I have for the last 3 years LMAO!

The sad thing is that you don't even seem to be aware that things are changing rapidly. A ban on late term abortion has been upheld by the supreme court. That ban invited states to write laws further restricting abortion. Over half of the states now have laws that are aimed specifically at further restricting abortion.

In South Dakota, for example, the supreme court there upheld a law that requires abortion providers to tell women that they are contemplating killing a human being. As a result, planned parenthood left the state and filed suit. That is going to be the first case that the supreme court will hear that requires them to address the issue of what is being killed when an abortion is performed.

Changes are happening very quickly topgun and your blindness to them is, frankly, sad.

I think it's good that you post though... it gives women a good look at the more creepy bad things out there and reminds them that there will always be some bad men roaming around who would gleefully hurt them if ever they could get their hands on them.

Do feel free to point out any "creepy" posts that I have made. I stick to facts topgun. It is you who people see calling names and making accusations that you can't back up. You are the creepy one here whether you know it or not.

By the way, a large number of thinking women are coming to realise that abortion is just one more tool that men use to control women. If abortion is not a ready option, a large number of men who are adverse to comittment won't be getting the easy sex that they have grown used to in the past few decades. Without abortion as an easy out for comittement adverse men, women suddenly become empowered.

 

[Dr.Who]

What've we got....some kind o' Christian-Jihad, here???

​

What we have is that you like to see Christians doing bad things under every rock and behind every tree.

From the article you posted:

"Ferguson said he had no idea who would have wanted to hurt Pierce or why. "There are crazy people in the world, and what triggers them, I have no idea," he said.

"He's loved by everyone," said Paudert of Pierce. "He has a very large practice, particularly of elderly people that depend on him for their health."

He said Pierce had no known complaints or threats against him. "There is absolutely no motive as to why someone would want to plant a bomb on his car."