Abortion??? anyone??

[dahermit]

Your own intellectual limitations do not change the facts. You only expose your own inability to wrap your mind around the biological reality.

Me, you and everyone else. We are all just talking monkeys who cannot possibly make that connection. You expect too much from humans.

Logial fallacy. False delimma. Which I would choose to rescue is irrelavent. Either way, human beings are left behind to burn. That is the sort of loaded question that very poor debaters resort to. I could say that 6 children were in the room. A white child, a native american child, a chinese child, a black child, a korean child, and an hispanic child and you can only get two out. No matter which two you take, I get to accuse you of racism for leaving the others. It is a foolish senario and means nothing.

You, as all others would snatch up the children, regardless of any intellectual protests. And you would likely shed very public tears for the poor souls left behind in the dishes at the memorial service.

You will notice that my previous "inquisitors" have scattered to the tall grass.

Or perhaps due to your answer(a dodge...something about not knowing what we would do...was it not something like that?) to the same question, have realized that your disingenuous answer last time indicated the extent of your dishonesty and became disinterested. You are not exactly the type to garner lots of new friends.

My victories are legion. 45 is approximately the number which have taken an anti abortion on demand position as the result of my arguments.

Not only are your victories legion, they are only surpassed by your tremendous ego.

I have never had a serious political discussion with more than a handful of people in my entire life. If you have actually had an extensive discussion with enough people that you have actually converted 45 to your point of view, you must be someone to avoid at parties. Maybe they tell you that they now agree with you just to get rid of you.

 

[palerider]

Me, you and everyone else. We are all just talking monkeys who cannot possibly make that connection. You expect too much from humans.

I expect little from liberals and am pleasantly surprised when one exhibits genuine critical thinking skills. You are not surprising me.

You, as all others would snatch up the children, regardless of any intellectual protests. And you would likely shed very public tears for the poor souls left behind in the dishes at the memorial service.

Even when your logical fallacy is pointed out and explained to you, you must explore it further. You are becoming less surprising all the time.

Or perhaps due to your answer(a dodge...something about not knowing what we would do...was it not something like that?) to the same question, have realized that your disingenuous answer last time indicated the extent of your dishonesty and became disinterested. You are not exactly the type to garner lots of new friends.

Pointing out logical fallacy is never a dodge, or disingenuous. On the contrary, it was your question itself that was disingenuous. Setting up a false dilemma is always disingenuous. Does having the foundational flaws in your reasoning pointed out bother you?

Not only are your victories legion, they are only surpassed by your tremendous ego.

If you want to analyze someone, perhaps you shoud start with yourself. Ask why your ego wants to hold to the intellectualy indefensible pro choice position rather than the obviously superior anti abortion on demand position. The ego of a flat earther is far more tremendous than the ego of one who can defend his or her position with rational argument.

I have never had a serious political discussion with more than a handful of people in my entire life. If you have actually had an extensive discussion with enough people that you have actually converted 45 to your point of view, you must be someone to avoid at parties. Maybe they tell you that they now agree with you just to get rid of you.

Again, your own intellectual shortcomings have no actual effect on reality. And as I said, and you apparently ignored as your last statement ignores the facts entirely, I have had a great many people, who I never spoke to send me messages stating that my argument with (whoever) swayed them. Ignoring facts, doesn't change change them.

Perhaps you would avoid me at a party. Maybe having your intellectual shortcomings exposed in public isn't your thing.

 

[dahermit]

So tell me; what sort are you? You admit that my argument has prevailed and other than a decision by the supreme court (hundreds of which have been reversed), the pro choice position seems to be indefensible.

The supreme court is the one who gets to decide what is, or is not constitutional. By default in Marbury v. Madison, but nevertheless a precedent that for all purposes, results in what they rule is always "right"(unless of course, you want to talk; moral). The fact that rulings are later reversed is immaterial inasmuch as that is the nature of new presidents appointing new judges as they retire. The current ruling is what is the current interpretation of the constitution. If a person cannot agree, get over it, wait for a new court ruling or get over one's self.

Again, you have presented a very good argument in the debate, your teacher must be proud of you. And don't worry, the pimples will go away in time and you will not have to sit alone in your room with your computer; you will be able to go back in public again. Although it is good that you have so many friends on line.

 

[dahermit]

Pointing out logical fallacy is never a dodge, or disingenuous. On the contrary, it was your question itself that was disingenuous. Setting up a false dilemma is always disingenuous. Does having the foundational flaws in your reasoning pointed out bother you?

I wish to setup just one more false dilemma. If you truly believe abortion is murder, why have you not physically intervened to save fetuses from being aborted or an embryos being experimented upon, as you would (presumably) if you saw a child about to be murdered? How many have you saved? It is so much easier to post a handsome avatar, adopt a cool screen name, and play a hero debating on the boards than to actually risk anything for one's "convictions" isn't it? Oh, those false dilemmas.

 

[palerider]

Again, you have presented a very good argument in the debate, your teacher must be proud of you. And don't worry, the pimples will go away in time and you will not have to sit alone in your room with your computer; you will be able to go back in public again. Although it is good that you have so many friends on line.

Ad hominem attacks now? You couldn't make a religious discussion out of this and you obviously can't defend your own positon, so now it is time to crawl down into the gutter and prostitute your intellect by making personal attacks?

I dare say I am older than your parents and just because acne is a problem for you doesn't mean that it is for everyone else.

 

[palerider]

I wish to setup just one more false dilemma. If you truly believe abortion is murder, why have you not physically intervened to save fetuses from being aborted or an embryos being experimented upon, as you would (presumably) if you saw a child about to be murdered? How many have you saved? It is so much easier to post a handsome avatar, adopt a cool screen name, and play a hero debating on the boards than to actually risk anything for one's "convictions" isn't it? Oh, those false dilemmas.

I have been contributing both time and money to the legal battle since 1973. Not so very long ago, partial birth abortion was banned. The Guttmacher institute says that intact D&X procedures (partial birth abortions) amount to about 0.17% of all abortions. At about 1.3 milion abortions per year, the ban represents about 221,000 per year that don't get performed. It has been almost 5 years since the ban which works out to a bit over 1.1 million abortions that have not happened.

Further, there are numerous cases winding thier way through the lower courts as we speak that have been selected specifically because they will force the court to consider not a woman's theoretical right, but actually what she is killing.

Now you have lost the debate, prostituted your intellect for the sake of cheap personal insult, and had your latest false delimma cut up into easily digestable pieces and served up to you on a plate. How much more abuse do you want at my hands?

 

[dahermit]

Ad hominem attacks now? You couldn't make a religious discussion out of this and you obviously can't defend your own positon, so now it is time to crawl down into the gutter and prostitute your intellect by making personal attacks?

Here are a few of yours:

Perhaps you would avoid me at a party. Maybe having your intellectual shortcomings exposed in public isn't your thing.
Does having the foundational flaws in your reasoning pointed out bother you?
Again, your own intellectual shortcomings have no actual effect on reality.
I expect little from liberals and am pleasantly surprised when one exhibits genuine critical thinking skills. You are not surprising me.
Your own intellectual limitations do not change the facts. You only expose your own inability to wrap your mind around the biological reality.

"...so now it is time to crawl down into the gutter and prostitute your intellect by making personal attacks?"

 

[dahermit]

What I asked:Originally Posted by dahermit

I wish to setup just one more false dilemma. If you truly believe abortion is murder, why have you not physically intervened to save fetuses from being aborted or an embryos being experimented upon, as you would (presumably) if you saw a child about to be murdered? How many have you saved? It is so much easier to post a handsome avatar, adopt a cool screen name, and play a hero debating on the boards than to actually risk anything for one's "convictions" isn't it? Oh, those false dilemmas.

You responded:

I have been contributing both time and money to the legal battle since 1973. Not so very long ago, partial birth abortion was banned. The Guttmacher institute says that intact D&X procedures (partial birth abortions) amount to about 0.17% of all abortions. At about 1.3 milion abortions per year, the ban represents about 221,000 per year that don't get performed. It has been almost 5 years since the ban which works out to a bit over 1.1 million abortions that have not happened.

Further, there are numerous cases winding thier way through the lower courts as we speak that have been selected specifically because they will force the court to consider not a woman's theoretical right, but actually what she is killing.

Now you have lost the debate, prostituted your intellect for the sake of cheap personal insult, and had your latest false delimma cut up into easily digestable pieces and served up to you on a plate. How much more abuse do you want at my hands?

Where did I ask about how much time and money you spent...I asked how many fetuses you actually intervened to save. I have not heard of you being arrested for physically stopping an abortion (murder) yet.

I did not ask about cases in the court.

I will ask again: If abortion is murder why are you not at this moment standing between an abortion doctor and his "victim"? Or, are you going to dance with it again?
It is easer to play the hero on the Internet than actually be one, isn't it? Give me a little more abuse please, I enjoy hearing you tell me and everyone else how you have beaten me...no false modesty now.

 

[BigRob]

What I asked:Originally Posted by dahermit
You responded:
Where did I ask about how much time and money you spent...I asked how many fetuses you actually intervened to save. I have not heard of you being arrested for physically stopping an abortion (murder) yet.

I did not ask about cases in the court.

I will ask again: If abortion is murder why are you not at this moment standing between an abortion doctor and his "victim"? Or, are you going to dance with it again?
It is easer to play the hero on the Internet than actually be one, isn't it? Give me a little more abuse please, I enjoy hearing you tell me and everyone else how you have beaten me...no false modesty now.

You do not have to physically intervene in every instance of murder to be opposed to murder in general.

 

[palerider]

What I asked:Originally Posted by dahermit
You responded:
Where did I ask about how much time and money you spent...I asked how many fetuses you actually intervened to save. I have not heard of you being arrested for physically stopping an abortion (murder) yet.

I did not ask about cases in the court.

I will ask again: If abortion is murder why are you not at this moment standing between an abortion doctor and his "victim"? Or, are you going to dance with it again?
It is easer to play the hero on the Internet than actually be one, isn't it? Give me a little more abuse please, I enjoy hearing you tell me and everyone else how you have beaten me...no false modesty now.

You want to know why I am not bombing clinics? Simple. Because to intervene in what is presently a legal practice is denying people the very rights that I am interested in protecting. As I said, this is a legal human rights issue which can only be dealt with through the courts.

Once more, how much more abuse do you want to take at my hands? I am fully prepared to hand it out, but one would think that after losing so many points, one would grow tired.

And I am not one for false modesty. I have clearly won the debate. I do wholeheartedly invite you to bring forward any single point you believe you have scored if you dispute my overwhelming victory.

 

[top gun]

What I asked:Originally Posted by dahermit
You responded:
Where did I ask about how much time and money you spent...I asked how many fetuses you actually intervened to save. I have not heard of you being arrested for physically stopping an abortion (murder) yet.

I did not ask about cases in the court.

I will ask again: If abortion is murder why are you not at this moment standing between an abortion doctor and his "victim"? Or, are you going to dance with it again?
It is easer to play the hero on the Internet than actually be one, isn't it? Give me a little more abuse please, I enjoy hearing you tell me and everyone else how you have beaten me...no false modesty now.

dahermit put away your rational thought and walk away from the zealot.

Palerider is stuck on stupid and he's decided he'll just piss into the wind forever never able to win. (and before he jumps in like stopping abortions of choice at viability was some big accomplishment it wasn't because that's the way it always should have been interpreted)

They will never be able to force the genie back into the bottle and prohibit abortion up to viability (when the fetus could reasonably live outside the womb without the mother). Women make up over 50% of the voting public and add on top of that that the majority of men also agree that abortion is a woman's personal decision and add on top of that that younger people are constantly coming of age and they overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose... and this is just one last pathetic attempt to control women as his time clock runs out.

You know when you hear about the nut jobs that kill doctors because they are so very worried about the life of something that can't even live on its own... that's camp palerider.

The fact abortions have been going on steadily since the dawn of time and the fact that no one can force a women to carry something around in their own body for nine months if they want to get rid of it just doesn't sink in to that thick Cro-Magnon head.

In no other law is their a requirement that any person is legally mandated to donate their own personal body for the use of anything or anyone else so that it could live.

There is no Constitutional argument because at the time of the writing of the Constitution life was considered at birth. There is no religious argument because in America according to the Constitution itself, there shall be no religious test for government.

Now I'm not saying you couldn't get a zealot Supreme Court to change things for a minute... that's one reason why it's so important that the Democrats win this year, but it would all really be a moot point anyway except for say maybe a one year delay. People running for Congress knowing their ticket had been punched by the women's vote would rush a change in with a Constitutional Amendment allowing it once again.

Let's face it. Here's someone speaking directly to the paleriders of this world...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

 

[palerider]

dahermit put away your rational thought and walk away from the zealot. [/uote]

I see you are still unable to differentiate between logical fallacy and rational thought.

repertoire [You know when you hear about the nut jobs that kill doctors because they are so very worried about the life of something that can't even live on its own... that's camp palerider.

I see you have added deliberate and bald faced lying to your repertoire. As always, I do encourage you to bring a quote from me supporting such action.

The fact abortions have been going on steadily since the dawn of time and the fact that no one can force a women to carry something around in their own body for nine months if they want to get rid of it just doesn't sink in to that thick Cro-Magnon head.

Murder has also been going on since the dawn of time and clearly, outlawing it hasn't stopped it. No law can stop someone from doing a thing that they have decided to do. The law merely provides a means of punishing those who do it anyway. I see that logial fallacy is still a large part of your argument. Perhaps that is why you so readily endorse it as "rational".

In no other law is their a requirement that any person is legally mandated to donate their own personal body for the use of anything or anyone else so that it could live.

Maybe you should research conjoined twins. Very often, one is entirely dependent upon the other because of shared organs. The law does not permit separating them, however, unless both will die unless the separation is done. Once again, your argument doesn't hold water.

There is no Constitutional argument because at the time of the writing of the Constitution life was considered at birth. There is no religious argument because in America according to the Constitution itself, there shall be no religious test for government.

Can you show me that in either the constitution? Of course you can't. The founders said that we come into being with certain unalienable rights, not that we are born with certain unalienable rights. Again, and as always, your argument fails.

 

[dahermit]

You want to know why I am not bombing clinics? Simple. Because to intervene in what is presently a legal practice is denying people the very rights that I am interested in protecting. As I said, this is a legal human rights issue which can only be dealt with through the courts.

Once more, how much more abuse do you want to take at my hands? I am fully prepared to hand it out, but one would think that after losing so many points, one would grow tired.

And I am not one for false modesty. I have clearly won the debate. I do wholeheartedly invite you to bring forward any single point you believe you have scored if you dispute my overwhelming victory.

You have won the debate. You have convinced me that abortion is murder. If a murder is being performed, you have a moral and legal responsibility to intervene and may use deadly force. If you really believe murder is being done and do nothing than you are a weakling and a coward who stands by, Palerider. When murder is being committed, one does not react with feeble excuses such as: "...this is a legal human rights issue which can only be dealt with through the courts...". This is not a legal human rights issue! This is MURDER! MURDER of the INNOCENT!!! Have you not won on this point?!!

"Because to intervene in what is presently a legal practice is denying people the very rights that I am interested in protecting." What??? Where is the passion against the most horrendous crime in our time?! Dead human babies! Thousands of them! Did not you say: "...the right to life is superior to all the other rights..."? What happened to your moral high ground?

Main Entry: 3pale
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): pal·er ; pal·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin pallidus, from pallere to be pale -- more at FALLOW
1 : deficient in color or intensity of color : PALLID <a pale complexion>
2 : not bright or brilliant : DIM <a pale sun shining through the fog>
3 : FEEBLE , FAINT <a pale imitation>

You have chosen your screen name appropriately. You present yourself as a hero, a champion of the undefended. But lack of action shows that you likely do not truly believe what you have been trying to convince others of. If it was murder, you would act.

I hear in a shrill pale voice: "...I have clearly won the debate., I have clearly won the debate.,..my overwhelming victory...I have clearly won the debate. my overwhelming victory!"

In my right hand pocket I carry a small handgun with which I would intervene given the situation of any murder being committed in my presence. A murder is such that I do not have the choice not to act. I do not bluster about it. I do not wish to garner the adornment of a hero. I am not pale.

 

[dahermit]

You do not have to physically intervene in every instance of murder to be opposed to murder in general.

Sssssssh now son, the adults are talking.

 

[palerider]

Ahhhh. The impotent Ad hominem. I do enjoy it so after each and every victory.