Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

(continuation)

Sorry, but now you are simply being intellectually dishonest. Slavery was based on the assumption that blacks were not human beings. Abortion on demand is based on an assumption that unborns are not human beings. The order of events is irrelavent to an analogy unless the argument is one predicatd on an order of events. This argument is predicated on a denial of human rights based on an assumption that the one being denied his or her rights is not a human being. Not even a nice try.

I can support my position. Lets here an argument as to why you believe the framers said created instead of born if their belief was that we are deserving of no rights until such time as we are born. They were perfectly aware that when speaking of human beings, there is a difference between the word created and born. They knew the difference.

And then you just have to throw in some fallacy so this time you point out that the courts are also just as capable of logical fallacy as you as if that were something to be proud of. In this case, you rightly note that the court can beg the question with the best of them and simply assume that the founders wrote with a certain intent with no evidence to support that assumption at all. The roe case is full of such assumptions.

One must be born to be a citizen. The word born refers to citizenship. If this were an argument about citizenship, you would have a valid point. They didn't however, state flatly that we are born with certain rights, but were endowed at the time of our creation (conception) with certain rights and among those is the right to life.

Perhaps you could refer to the dictionary of the day and look up the word created. Websters from just a few years later, for example defines created as "caused to exist". In fact, they stated with their eyes wide open that we come into being with certain rights. Again, the facts just don't support your argument. You simply must engage in logical fallacy. Here, you are blatantly begging the question. That is, you are making an assumption with no evidence at all with which to support that assumption.

caused to exist You can beat this dead horse as long as you want, its not coming back to life.

Feel free to believe that all you like. The fact of this discussion proves that it never died in the first place. Again, you beg the question. Logical fallacy with you topgun, all the way down.

Typical of you to not detail the actual reality, but the reality as you wish it were. One thing that has not been around for 36 years is a body of case law that, in fact, answers the question of personhood discussed in the roe case. That body of law is relatively new and is in fact, a key requirement to turning over roe. It is, in fact, the key to turning over roe.

And politicians don't overturn court cases and honest and rational judges don't decide cases based on what politicians want. Now you can argue that judges do that, and have done it before. In roe v wade for example, there was a clear agenda. Tell me, do you get some pride from that? That our supreme court would pervert justice to that degree in order that 40 million human beings could be denied thier most basic right? That sounds a great deal like the suni's in old iraq who took great pride in the fact that their guy could deny anyone any right he chose and back it up with the force of government.

[/QUOTE]

<blockquote data-quote="palerider" data-source="post: 83544" data-attributes="member: 176">(continuation)Sorry, but now you are simply being intellectually dishonest.&nbsp; Slavery was based on the assumption that blacks were not human beings.&nbsp; Abortion on demand is based on an assumption that unborns are not human beings.&nbsp; The order of events is irrelavent to an analogy unless the argument is one predicatd on an order of events.&nbsp; This argument is predicated on a denial of human rights based on an assumption that the one being denied his or her rights is not a human being.&nbsp; Not even a nice try.&nbsp;I can support my position.&nbsp; Lets here an argument as to why you believe the framers said created instead of born if their belief was that we are deserving of no rights until such time as we are born.&nbsp; They were perfectly aware that when speaking of human beings, there is a difference between the word created and born.&nbsp; They knew the difference.And then you just have to throw in some fallacy so this time you point out that the courts are also just as capable of logical fallacy as you as if that were something to be proud of.&nbsp; In this case, you rightly note that the court can beg the question with the best of them and simply assume that the founders wrote with a certain intent with no evidence to support that assumption at all.&nbsp; The roe case is full of such assumptions.&nbsp;One must be born to be a citizen. The word born refers to citizenship.&nbsp; If this were an argument about citizenship, you would have a valid point.&nbsp; They didn&#039;t however, state flatly that we are born with certain rights, but were endowed at the time of our creation (conception) with certain rights and among those is the right to life.Perhaps you could refer to the dictionary of the day and look up the word created.&nbsp; Websters from just a few years later, for example defines created as &quot;caused to exist&quot;.&nbsp; In fact, they stated with their eyes wide open that we come into being with certain rights.&nbsp; Again, the facts just don&#039;t support your argument.&nbsp; You simply must engage in logical fallacy.&nbsp; Here, you are blatantly begging the question.&nbsp; That is, you are making an assumption with no evidence at all with which to support that assumption.caused to exist You can beat this dead horse as long as you want, its not coming back to life. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>Feel free to believe that all you like.&nbsp; The fact of this discussion proves that it never died in the first place.&nbsp; Again, you beg the question.&nbsp; Logical fallacy with you topgun, all the way down.&nbsp;Typical of you to not detail the actual reality, but the reality as you wish it were.&nbsp; One thing that has not been around for 36 years is a body of case law that, in fact, answers the question of personhood discussed in the roe case.&nbsp; That body of law is relatively new and is in fact, a key requirement to turning over roe.&nbsp; It is, in fact, the key to turning over roe.And politicians don&#039;t overturn court cases and honest and rational judges don&#039;t decide cases based on what politicians want.&nbsp; Now you can argue that judges do that, and have done it before.&nbsp; In roe v wade for example, there was a clear agenda.&nbsp; Tell me, do you get some pride from that?&nbsp; That our supreme court would pervert justice to that degree in order that 40 million human beings could be denied thier most basic right?&nbsp; That sounds a great deal like the suni&#039;s in old iraq who took great pride in the fact that their guy could deny anyone any right he chose and back it up with the force of government.&nbsp; [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="palerider, post: 83544, member: 176"] (continuation) Sorry, but now you are simply being intellectually dishonest. Slavery was based on the assumption that blacks were not human beings. Abortion on demand is based on an assumption that unborns are not human beings. The order of events is irrelavent to an analogy unless the argument is one predicatd on an order of events. This argument is predicated on a denial of human rights based on an assumption that the one being denied his or her rights is not a human being. Not even a nice try. I can support my position. Lets here an argument as to why you believe the framers said created instead of born if their belief was that we are deserving of no rights until such time as we are born. They were perfectly aware that when speaking of human beings, there is a difference between the word created and born. They knew the difference. And then you just have to throw in some fallacy so this time you point out that the courts are also just as capable of logical fallacy as you as if that were something to be proud of. In this case, you rightly note that the court can beg the question with the best of them and simply assume that the founders wrote with a certain intent with no evidence to support that assumption at all. The roe case is full of such assumptions. One must be born to be a citizen. The word born refers to citizenship. If this were an argument about citizenship, you would have a valid point. They didn't however, state flatly that we are born with certain rights, but were endowed at the time of our creation (conception) with certain rights and among those is the right to life. Perhaps you could refer to the dictionary of the day and look up the word created. Websters from just a few years later, for example defines created as "caused to exist". In fact, they stated with their eyes wide open that we come into being with certain rights. Again, the facts just don't support your argument. You simply must engage in logical fallacy. Here, you are blatantly begging the question. That is, you are making an assumption with no evidence at all with which to support that assumption. caused to exist [B][COLOR="Navy"]You can beat this dead horse as long as you want, its not coming back to life. [/COLOR][/B][COLOR="Navy"];)[/quote] Feel free to believe that all you like. The fact of this discussion proves that it never died in the first place. Again, you beg the question. Logical fallacy with you topgun, all the way down. Typical of you to not detail the actual reality, but the reality as you wish it were. One thing that has not been around for 36 years is a body of case law that, in fact, answers the question of personhood discussed in the roe case. That body of law is relatively new and is in fact, a key requirement to turning over roe. It is, in fact, the key to turning over roe. And politicians don't overturn court cases and honest and rational judges don't decide cases based on what politicians want. Now you can argue that judges do that, and have done it before. In roe v wade for example, there was a clear agenda. Tell me, do you get some pride from that? That our supreme court would pervert justice to that degree in order that 40 million human beings could be denied thier most basic right? That sounds a great deal like the suni's in old iraq who took great pride in the fact that their guy could deny anyone any right he chose and back it up with the force of government. [/color] [/QUOTE]

Verification