Abortion

[palerider]

A feotus is not a child.

Sorry guy, but once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Even federal law conceeds that at any stage of development, an unborn is a child. You just don't seem to be able to get anything right do you?

A dead person is a human being.

What a joke. Even you acknowledge that the dead are persons and the law says that one must be a human being in order to be a person. Your entire position is based on misinformation. Tell me, if everything you say is proveably wrong, why do you keep talking. Or are you one of those people who just wants everyone to know how wrong you are?

Put that into your rights equation and see where what comes out.

It doesn't change a thing. What did you expect adding nothing to an equation would do to it? I guess you aren't very good at math either are you?

Does a corpse have a right to life?

Since they don't have a life, the question is irrelavent. Just like everything else you say. I believe that you should change your name from dawkinsrocks to dawkinshasrocksforbrains.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are clearly mad.

A foeuts is one stage of devleopment, a child another, an adult another, a corpse another.

You have to distort these stages to defend your argument which is clearly counter-intuitive

 

[palerider]

You are clearly mad.

Well one of us is anyway. Since I am able to back up my position with credible evidence and you can back up yours with exactly squat, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine who it is.

A foeuts is one stage of devleopment, a child another, an adult another, a corpse another.

Science, federal law, and webster's dictionary all say you are wrong. I have provided the science already, websters defines child as an unborn or recently born person, and here is a clip from federal law:

(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

You have to distort these stages to defend your argument which is clearly counter-intuitive

Since I can provide credible materials to support my position and you can not, it is clear that it is you who must distort in an effort to defend your position. If you use actual definitions, credible science, and the law as support, you would be making the same argument as me. Clearly, that isn't the case.

As I have said before. You have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. You were outmatched before you ever got started.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your views are worthless.

You are a gross hypocrite on the subject of pro-life. You have stated that if someone gets tried, convicted andexecuted you won't lose any sleep if that person is innocent

It is a good job that most governments of the western world take no notice of hypocritial nutters like you.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Your views are worthless.

You are a gross hypocrite on the subject of pro-life. You have stated that if someone gets tried, convicted andexecuted you won't lose any sleep if that person is innocent

It is a good job that most governments of the western world take no notice of hypocritial nutters like you.

Dawkins, either refute his arguments with facts and evidence of your own, or resign from the debate, but either way you're sounding like a spoiled child who just got his favorite toy taken away from him.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are clearly mad.

A foeuts is one stage of devleopment, a child another, an adult another, a corpse another.

You have to distort these stages to defend your argument which is clearly counter-intuitive

I went to go get a legal definition of a child. I had hoped to find something that said it was a human under a certain age so that I could say that an unborn was both human and under that age. But the definition is satisfying beyond my wildest hopes. Here it is: (I bolded one part)

"(1) A son or daughter of any age, sometimes including biological offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster children and children born outside of marriage. (2) A person under an age specified by law, often 14 or 16. For example, state law may require a person to be over the age of 14 to make a valid will, or may define the crime of statutory rape as sex with a person under the age of 16. In this sense, a child can be distinguished from a minor, who is a person under the age of 18 in most states. A person below the specified legal age who is married is often considered an adult rather than a child. See also emancipation. "

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/53666A28-C98A-4AE9-A4B1062564739566/alpha/C/

 

[palerider]

Dawkins, either refute his arguments with facts and evidence of your own, or resign from the debate, but either way you're sounding like a spoiled child who just got his favorite toy taken away from him.

He isn't capable Mr. Carpenter. He is what he is and the fact that he is completely unable to defend his position and has turned to impotent name calling instead says all that needs be said about him.

Folks like him aren't bright enough to realize when they have been beaten.

 

[palerider]

Your views are worthless.

You are a gross hypocrite on the subject of pro-life. You have stated that if someone gets tried, convicted andexecuted you won't lose any sleep if that person is innocent

Care to bring a quote like that from me forward to prove that you aren't just a bald faced liar?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You keep obsessing over definitions that suit your case.

But try looking at the subject dispassionatly.

Nobody genuinely considers a few brainless cells to be a child. I know that the young Bush may have been a counter example but that is for another thread.

But the fact remains, you can dig up any definition you like, nobody buys that said brainless cells are a child.

You wouldn't even be able to tell what they were if they were served up on a platter in front of you.

 

[Libsmasher]

You keep obsessing over definitions that suit your case.

But try looking at the subject dispassionatly.

Nobody genuinely considers a few brainless cells to be a child. I know that the young Bush may have been a counter example but that is for another thread.

But the fact remains, you can dig up any definition you like, nobody buys that said brainless cells are a child.

You wouldn't even be able to tell what they were if they were served up on a platter in front of you.

YOU dare to allege "brainless"???!!!

 

[palerider]

You keep obsessing over definitions that suit your case.

But try looking at the subject dispassionatly.

I am looking at the subject dispassionately. I look at the definitions and the science and the law and they say what they say so I accept it. It is you who is attempting to redefine words, deny science, and ignore the laws. You are doing these things because you are unable to look at the whole picture dispassionately and accept what is.

Nobody genuinely considers a few brainless cells to be a child. I know that the young Bush may have been a counter example but that is for another thread.

I suppose you could apply that to the uneducated or the obtuse. Which are you?

You wouldn't even be able to tell what they were if they were served up on a platter in front of you.

Maybe you wouldn't. After all, you are not educated are you? I, however, and educated in the biological sciences and would know exactly what was on the platter in front of me.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And that is a perfect example of how ridiculous your views have to be to keep the argument going.

It is funny that all the science and law you seem to find is at odds with that which the governments of most countries rely on.

But maybe that is because they rely on genuine medical science and real law.

 

[palerider]

And that is a perfect example of how ridiculous your views have to be to keep the argument going.

It is funny that all the science and law you seem to find is at odds with that which the governments of most countries rely on.

But maybe that is because they rely on genuine medical science and real law.

As before, I wholeheartedly invite you to provide some credible science that states that unborns are something other than human beings. If those governments are basing their decisions on actual science, surely it is in print somewhere. Why don't you bring it here for all to see and become a pro choice hero?

The fact is that those governments like ours chose to ignore the science and simply declare that unborns are not human beings and therefore have no human rights in the exact same manner as we once simply declared that blacks were not human beings and therefore had no human rights.

That being the case, you are just engaging in yet another logical fallacy known as an appeal to popularity where you attempt to make the case that a particular course of action is just because others are taking the same sort of action. I know you don't understand any of this, but I talk to you about it anyway just like I talk to my grand children about things they don't necessarily understand now. Such talk stimulates them to go out and learn more than they already knew. Hopefully, it will have the same effect on you.

Take a look at your arguments. Do you notice that you haven't addressed a single thing I have said? You just make an impotent attack on nothing. Now notice my arguments. I take your arguments apart line by line. That is the difference between being able to actually defend your position and what you do which is just yammer like a monkey in a tree.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are wrong again.

A dead person is a human being and when you put that into your arguments they fall apart.

Your arguments also fall apart when you apply your pro-life rhetoric to war and to capital punishment which you support.

So I don't need to cite the mountain of information that justifies abortion.

Your position is untenable.

 

[numinus]

A dead person is a human being and when you put that into your arguments they fall apart.

I believe you meant 'was' a human being. You are contradicting the definition of 'being'.