That happens every time a liberal holds a two year old child hostage with a knife at its throat until the pregnant mother kills her unborn child.
The point being made is that the woman's intent to have sex is irrelevant to the abortion issue because the pregnancy was NOT intended.
That's a false dichotomy. A fetus is neither a born human or 'parasite'.
If you had to choose between your four year old son and your four month old fetus, you would choose your four year old son because you know deep down that what you all push on this matter just isn't the case
lain: To be continued in a moment.Horsefeathers. That someone would save a baby over a great grandfather doesn't go to the value or right of either and the choice, even if everyone made the same one, would evidence our bias in value, not the value of the bias.
Abortion is willful taking of a human life without just cause. And it's premeditated, to tie a ribbon around it. How do you define murder?
Whether the pregnancy was intended or not is irrelevant.
Murder demands the death penalty.
Hmmmmmm..... I seldom disagree with you, however .... Perhaps I just am not getting your point. Who deserves the death penalty? Abortion docs? The 13 year old scared girl who had an abortion?*genuineoriginal said:
You do make a good point in there...but it gets lost in the vitriole.Crucible said:
You appear to confuse being loud, assumptive and declarative with having an insurmountable argument.
You're confusing the legal definition with a moral one. Legally, you can abort a great many unborn. There's no arguing on what the law is, only over what it should arguably be and why.
Rebutted in my last.
I'm half way agreeing with you.
That or you're wrong and can't reasonably defend yourself so you resort to this sort of sophomoric name calling...I know which of those two has my vote.
Rather, I reason my way into arguments and am always content to examine one by that light. I mostly have found that people who don't and aren't similarly at ease with the prospect, whatever their claims, tend to be the sort who've felt their way into a position.
Not a new tactic. Blame the challenger's nature and avoid the unpleasantness of having to actually defend a position.
Yes, they do. And they have some fairly important differences.
No, I wouldn't. Do you want to have that discussion or is this more chit-chat with gravitas in the subject?
Because I suspect the attempt at cure would be worse for the cause than the disease.
Again, I understand you feel that way, but until you manage something like it you're full of declarative stuff and nonsense.
It's a neat trick, but that's not really how it works or arguments would come down to two people simply declaring their superiority at worst and at best the superiority of an argument, superior or not.
Declare your position superior, those who differ stupid and/or dishonest and avoid the need to do what you're either unwilling or incapable of doing. Neat trick, that.
lain: