Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Sorry chum, if you are going to argue for the right to life of a foetus on the basis that it is a human you have got to be consistent about the right to life of all humans and you aren't.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Abortion
- Thread starter palerider
- Start date
Werbung:
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Sorry chum. That is a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque to be specific. You may not like it, and you may lack the intellectual wattage required to get around it, but as it stands, it is a logical fallacy so I see your lips moving, but nothing is coming out.
To date, you have failed to show in any way that I am not consistent. You keep saying it, but like everything else you say, you can not substantiate it in any way. Do feel free to go back and bring forward any quote by me that shows an inconsistency if you like. My bet is that you will be unable. You may not like it, but I am one of the most consistent people you will ever argue against.
He's no pro-lifer. He's just biased against the genuinely stupid.
Consistently wrong according to The United States Supreme Court and nearly 4 decades of judicial precedent. But it's your time to waste...
As a Libertarian in most things but a Registered Republican in a two-party system, I wish that the pro-life crowd would just leave the GOP and start their own party. Take the anti-gay people with you please. It might set us back a little, but over time your party would fade out and the GOP could get back to the real business of saving this country from the lunatic left.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Great idea!
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Consistently wrong according to The United States Supreme Court and nearly 4 decades of judicial precedent. But it's your time to waste...
Sorry guy, but as always, you are completely unable to offer up a rational defense of the position. Any parrot on a stick can repeat "it's legal it's legal" ad nauseum, but till you can rationally defend the decision, you got nothing.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
How nice of you to come back and share with us your pale, smiling countenance! I was afraid you had died and gone to the bad place. I do so enjoy your pleasant and gentle posts under the watchful gaze of your glowering avatar.
We really should get together some time for tea and crumpets.
Well if the parrot on a stick is speaking the reality and that reality explains that abortion is legal and why then I'm fine with that. And I need not come up with any additional reasons because I agree with what has already been determined.
You on the other hand are the one who has nothing. As not only is abortion legal... been legal for 4 DECADES... but the high court that decides such things will be shifting to even a more pro-choice position in the next few years.
Sorry pale... put a fork in it... this ones done!
You know Mare I too was of notice of the missing pale!
And I must admit I was reasonably concerned that we might never hear from old pale again after the murdering of Dr. Tiller and all. I kept looking at those pictures of the perp wondering... could it be... the time-line of non participation was almost chilling.
But alas pale has not went that far yet and he can regale us with more of his coulda, woulda, shoulda hopes & dreams.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
You know Mare I too was of notice of the missing pale!
And I must admit I was reasonably concerned that we might never hear from old pale again after the murdering of Dr. Tiller and all. I kept looking at those pictures of the perp wondering... could it be... the time-line of non participation was almost chilling.
But alas pale has not went that far yet and he can regale us with more of his coulda, woulda, shoulda hopes & dreams.
I like our pale friend considerably more than any bitter harpy on some other thread, at least he has more than two thoughts to rub together in his head at the same time--even though I mostly disagree with them.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
You are big on "explaining" that abortion is legal. Explaining why, on the other hand, poses a problem for you because you simply haven't been able to do it.
The court decided roe based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. To date, you have been completely unable to substantiate that assumption. Since the basis for the decision is flawed, the decision itself is flawed.
Do feel free to explain how a single individual can be both a constitutionally protected person or an unprotected non human non person based entirely on the circumstances of his or her death within the context of a constitution that features a prominent equal protection clause. I'm waiting.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
You know Mare I too was of notice of the missing pale!
And I must admit I was reasonably concerned that we might never hear from old pale again after the murdering of Dr. Tiller and all. I kept looking at those pictures of the perp wondering... could it be... the time-line of non participation was almost chilling.
Your pitiful ad hominems give you away as nothing more than a knee jerk emotionalist topgun. Pointless display as I already knew what you were.
Werbung:
samsara15
Well-Known Member
This ground has been covered before, without any possibility of agreement from either party. pale undeniably can write very skillfully, but he fails to get to the roots of why many of the rest of us support abortion, and therefore still doesn't have a clue or any real idea of how it might be posssible to induce those of us who see the issue differently from himself to change our views. Name calling is a waste of time, on both sides of the issue.
Similar threads
