Not at all. Your pathetic cry for help only suggests that you are incapable of defending your own position.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Abortion
- Thread starter palerider
- Start date
Not at all. Your pathetic cry for help only suggests that you are incapable of defending your own position.
Werbung:
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
"suggests' hell. It is one of the most painfully obvious observations I have seen in some time. To date, he has not substantiated a single point he has tried to make.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Andy, a foetus is not a child.
That is why it is called a foetus
That is why it is called a foetus
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Palefacedliar and numnutsulus.
See my post on the other abortion thread
I can't be bothered to reproduce it as I might have to abort it
See my post on the other abortion thread
I can't be bothered to reproduce it as I might have to abort it
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Such pathetic word games. At any age up to adulthood, a human being is a child. Science confirms this and the law agrees. Lets see some evidence to support your wild claims.
Fetus is just a noun we use to describe a human being at a particular stage of development. Just like toddler, blastocyst, teenager, zygote, adult, embryo, and old geezer. All of these words describe the same thing only at different stages of life.
Do feel free to bring some credible science here to support your wild claims.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Impotent name calling. Is that really the best you can do? And I welcome, and encorage you to bring forward any example of a lie that I have told.
Quite right. There really is no reason to be polite to this fellow. I never thought I would encounter someone who is so stupid, he is incapable of embarassment.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Numnuts, you are in a glass house.
Stop throwing stones
Stop throwing stones
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Dawkinsrocks, you are on thin ice.
Stop skating.
Which is to say, quit the name calling.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
So you must be a pro-lifer too considering the one-sidedness of your 'moderation'
vyo476
Well-Known Member
If they're calling you names then by all means report it.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
I am abused in almost every post I receive but I couldn't give a ****.
I give it, I can take it.
I give it, I can take it.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Actually you can't take it. Your arguments have failed so you resort to name calling in lieu of any rational argument.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You cannot produce an argument that is pro-life and consistently applies to potential people and actual people.
It is therefore impossible to tale you seriopusly.
If you actually took the view that all life is sacred I would have some sympathy with your views.
But your pic n mix approach makes your views worthless on this subject.
You keep saying that war is different to abortion but I would love to know why the lives of civilians (or soldiers for that matter) are not as precious as a that of a foetus.
Over to you
It is therefore impossible to tale you seriopusly.
If you actually took the view that all life is sacred I would have some sympathy with your views.
But your pic n mix approach makes your views worthless on this subject.
You keep saying that war is different to abortion but I would love to know why the lives of civilians (or soldiers for that matter) are not as precious as a that of a foetus.
Over to you
Werbung:
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
I have told you repeatedly that I am anti abortion on demand. You are the one who is attempting to call me pro life. As to my ability to apply my arguments to everyone, of course I can.
If you give each and every unborn his or her day in court and prove to a jury, beyond any reasonable doubt that the child is guilty of some crime and should forfiet his or her life and then give the child the requisite suite of appeals before sentence is carried out, you won't hear a peep from me on the issue of abortion.
My argument is that human beings are being denied their most basic rights.
You keep saying that even though you have yet to score a single point in this debate. You have, at this point, offered nothing more than your own very obviously uneducated opinion as evidence and not substantiated a bit of it while I have not made a claim that I can not corroborate. It is you who is not to be taken seriously.
Again, you are erecting a strawman to knock down as you are unable to effectively rebutt any part of my actual argument. I have never argued that life, or anything else is sacred. Sacred is a religious term and this isn't a religious argument.
Save your sympathy for yourself. You need it much more than I.
Again. Attempting to iintroduce the topic of war into a discussion on abortion is a logical fallacy. It is a red herring. If you can't argue the subject without injecting logical fallacy, why are you here? When you evoke a logical fallacy, it is as if your lips are moving but nothing is coming out. Either you can defend your position on abortion or you can not. Your constant use of logical fallacy suggests strongly that you can not.
I understand that the subject of logical fallacies and such are way over your head, but ignorance of a subject does not excuse you when you are in a debate with adults Here is a link where you can learn at least the basics with regard to logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
You might first read the information on the fallacy known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. That is where one argues that someone's claims are false because they are not consistent with their views on some other subject. Sound familiar? It should as it applies to your argument. Secondly, read the information on the fallacy known as a red herring. I have already explained that one to you, but read it anyway.
It has been all me since we started. I keep hoping that you will, at some point, at least attempt to make a valid point.
I am going to take a minute and provide you some information about debate and arguments from the site I provided a link to. Perhaps it will make clear to you what constitutes a rational argument and what doesn't. From the Nizkor project:
"There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true. "
My argument is a deductive argument. I argue that a woman does not have the right to kill another human being without legal consequences for any or no reason. My premises for that argument are as follows:
1. Unborns at any stage of development are human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
3. The right to live outweighs all other rights so long as you are not threatening the life of someone else.
Now prove any of those premises wrong, and you have the foundations of a valid argument. Fail to prove any of them wrong and your argument simply fails. Present any logical fallacy as an argument and your argument fails. Tell lies, and your argument fails.
You may be used to arguing with children who take your nonsense seriously. I am not a child and understand the rules and tactics of debate intimately and will point out your errors as you make them. In the end, if you can't put together a rational argument, devoid of logical fallacies, must be you who is not taken seriously.
Similar threads
