Erroneous.
But what "appears" to you is obviously seen through rose-colored sophister's glasses.
Palerider and I have posted accurate and relevant science and the reality of human rights, the rational common sense approach to discussing the matter.
You and your pro-abortionist cohorts, on the other hand, have whined on and on and posted obvious sophistry ... an unconjecturably irrational approach to argumentation.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous.
I realize that in your moral relativist utilitarian world, where everything is subject to disection ad nauseum in an attempt to "re-define" away harsh realities that are absolutely too much for you to bear, like an inconvenient hangnail, or the like, that the common-place word "rational" is sophistrically subject to your debate.
But, in truth, you only want to pounce on absolute irrelevancies merely to divertively digress from the truth of murderous abortion that you just can't handle emotionally and the fact that you have absolutely nothing scientifically or rights-based reality-wise to counter our effective, accurate, obviously rational arguments.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
No, as digressively diverting attention from the winning argument of the opening post to meander masturbatively about absolute nothings is simply not in order.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
