And you are wrong in this as well. Are you suggesting that medical students are being taught opinion and not scientific fact? If that is your argument, how about providing some credible material that suggests as much. Hell, provide some credible science that states that there is no credible scientific evidence one way or another, but do provide something other than your own uneducated, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion.
The fact that you can provide nothing to support your position is obvious and your mewling response that medical school textbooks and respected peer reviewed medical journals are not credible would be laughable were it not so sad.
That may have been your intention, but you failed. All you did was attack a source. You didn't refute the information provided in any way. A circumstantial ad hominem doesn't constitute a refutation of anything at all.
And you base your opinion on what? My position is grounded firmly in science and the law. Upon what, exactly, is your opinion grounded in?
Without doing a bunch of research that you presumably are perfectly capable of doing yourself (cough smokescreen cough) off the top of my head, I can name Harold Taylor (murder for the death of a 11 to 13 week old fetus), Matthew Bullock (voluntary manslaughter in the death of a fetus), Jorge Mario Gurrola (second degree murder in the death of a 7 week fetus), , David L. Miller (first degree murder in the death of a fetus), Donald Comstock (homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle). If you want more, there are more out there. The body of legal precedent is quite large and growing all the time. Unlike you, I don't hold positions that I can not rationally defend and I don't make claims that I can't substantiate.
Emotional handwringing doesn't constitute a rational argument in any way. You said that if a legal authority states that a member or members of a particular group are not human beings that it is apparently OK. Hitler claimed that jews were not human beings. Hitler was a legal authority. Are you now saying that it is ok for some legal authorities to claim that human beings are not human beings but you get to decide in which cases it is OK and which it is not?
Personally, I would not call someone else morally depraved if I supported allowing one human being to kill another without legal consequence for any or no reason at all.
Again, emotional handwringing doesn't constitute a valid argument. Blacks suffered those horrors because that great authority (according to you) on what is and isn't a human being said that they weren't, in fact, human beings and therefore had no human rights. Did the court have any basis at all in fact for declaring blacks to be non humans?
Clearly, not much creedence can be put into what you "think" because you obviously don't arrive at your positions via any rational thought process. In fact, I am the one who has not lost sight of the human condition from the time life begins till the time it ends. It is you who chooses to ignore the human condition until such time as you decide to acknowledge it and give it a nod to recieve the protection of the law that you enjoy. You selectively decide who deserves to live and who does not. That sounds a bit like the thinking of a sociopath to me. How about you? Aren't sociopaths only concerned with their own needs and desires without regard to the effect those needs and desires may have on others up to and including killing them? And you think that I am sick?
You are making the claim that medical school textbooks and peer reviewed medical journals are not credible evidence? Can you substantiate that claim in any way?
Again, are you making the claim that medical school students are being taught opinion in lieu of fact? Can you substantiate that claim in any way?
You, lagboltz make a lot of claims that you are completely unable to corroborate. The fact that you can't corroborate them renders them invalid in this discussion. You still are not able to rationally defend your position.
Again, a non answer. It is clear that you are incapable of defending your position. Why not just admit that yours is an emotional stance not based on any sort of rational thought at all? You should just run away now and save yourself any further intellectuall humiliation.
