Way to be purposefully thick. You know exactly what I meant, but I'll clarify it for you anyway:...
I'm thick, and yet you don't get the obvious comparison that was being made? All people in any group of people (the "host") are parasites? Worse yet, in many cases, "Parasites" by their own informed choice? The two sentences were meant to be read together; the second clarifies the first.
an old person doesn't require oxygen and nutrition coming from another person's circulatory system in order to survive. A fetus prior to 22 weeks does. That clear now?
I knew what you meant.
Oh goodness gracious. Have you ever seen the movie Footloose? You could learn something from it, old-timer.
Shockingly, not everybody agrees with you, yes, even people who's age you have no way of knowing; as if relative age means a person can't tell truth.
To apply your (I'm having to guess) implied argument equally; Ok, than, don't ban anything people do, because they'll still do it anyways! Even things you think are actually wrong; like, say, banning things people will do anyways.
Again, if I mention only one species, and you can't figure out what species I'm talking about, then your reading comprehension skills need a refresher.
You're exhibiting the bad habit of assigning stupidity for no good reason. There was exactly zero in the language of my post that indicated that I didn't know what you were indicating.
I pointed out your lack of usage because it's common for people to do nearly everything they can to de-humanize those they are trying to make themselves feel ok about being intentionally killed. Ie: the dirty huns, the evil-hook nosed banker jew, and in this particular case, evil life-destroying parasitic blobs of flesh, and so on. It's a common tactic. If you're going to try and justify intentionally killing a human, acknowledge what you're doing.
I know good and well some women will be upset by what the child in their womb represents to them; sometimes very much so. That fact is not something to avoid. It's something to acknowledge and address honestly.
What you call "fallacies" most would call "science and data."
Really?
How do you know what "I call fallacies" ...? Should I make it a habit to assume things about you that I can't know? Especially derogatory things?
As far as learning any truth from science - If P, than Q, Q, therefore P.
Example: I see that the streets are wet after it has rained, so I conduct an experiment to see if streets get wet from rain. I observe that the streets are wet after it has rained (P). Because my experiment says rain makes streets wet(Q), I state that if a street is found that is wet, it must have rained(P).
Repetition of the experiment by many others, and accounting for as many other factors as you humanly can won't eliminate this basic fallacy; it is inherent in all experimentation. You can never account for unknown unknowns. Even that raging fundie christian bible thumper bertrand russel acknowledged this inherent problem. That's not even addressing the fact that you can't observe truth with any of your senses or find it with your unaided mind.
You can try anything you like, but you're always going to lean on a fallacy to justify this statement:
Forcing a raped woman to go through with her pregnancy, while giving her no option to terminate from the very moment of conception, is just ridiculous and cruel.
This last bit is funny: you think that I'm being underhanded by stating the fact that the Bible has no bearing on the laws of the land?
No, I think you were being underhanded for trying to make me
give up everything I believe on a topic just because you ask me to. Again, I'm perfectly happy to discuss any sort of justifications that come down the pipe. Are you unwilling to do so? If you think something's really bad or laughably false, than you ought to be able to refute it, so everyone else can see why it's wrong.
You say I'm not going to the founders for my constitutional knowledge of "separation of church and state?
No, I didn't. Perhaps I should have bolded the "If." I was pointing out that if you appeal to the constitution, you have to define and use the language in the same way they did. "Church" (aka, establishment of religion) did not mean to them what the modern irrational and hateful expansion of that word means in the case of the first amendment argument.
----
Yet again, you presume to know things that you have no way of knowing, in this case what I've read over my whole life.
Have you bothered to read the early drafts proposed for the first amendment? Have you read the state ratification discussions of the first amendment? Do you even know if the federalist and anti-federalist letters touch on the first amendment?
Do you have any idea if I have or have not?
How did the founders define "Establishment of religion?" Not as "anything non-secular in the public square," which is how it's wrongly defined these days by many. As a matter of fact, the first amendment didn't make individual state churches illegal. It made a
federal government established church illegal; there were several individual states that had government established churches; said states voted to ratify the constitution and they retained their government churches.
So if you are arguing that the Bible should be some sort of authority in regards to the laws of the land then you're greatly mistaken, as Mr. Jefferson just told you, particularly in the underlined portion above.
I haven't made an argument on that topic. All that I've said that touches on that particular facet is that law is based on ethics and because of this can only come after the ethics are decided.
