Irrelevant.
Here the pro-abortionist leopard blames the pro-lifer for not being persuaded to change his spots.
The pro-abortionist fails to realize that it is his own responsibility to don a mantle of respectability.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Irrelevant.
The pro-abortionist, knowing that the truth of the message has gotten through, but still "needing" to be in denial, reacts as if it's all about him, not realizing that his denial is simply being put on display for the edification of all of the pro-life groups that will be referenced this way.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous and irrelevant.
Here the pro-abortionist projects his own lack of substantive topically relevant posts onto those who expose his sophistry.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous and irrelevant.
In this phrase the pro-abortionist exhibits one of the typical moral relativist utilitarian traits: oppositional defiant disorder.
The pro-abortionist transfers and displaces those from his past onto the pro-lifer, resisting to come out of denial about the truth of the personhood of the newly conceived.
Notice that all along the pro-abortionist's entire post is an unprovoked ad hominem leveled at the pro-lifer, which is the pro-abortionist's typical defiant behavior in lieu of substantively topical material.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous. Immaterial.
Here the pro-abortionist falsely claims an adjective accolade he inaccurately attributes to having been spoken by the pro-lifer.
The object of the pro-abortionist's false statement is to set up an ego target of the pro-abortionist's own making, and then shoot it down.
As I stated before, the pro-abortionist has no substantively relevant material that he can post as a rational conjecture to the science of the opening post, and, since the pro-abortionist doesn't "like" what the opening post means, but can't offer rational substantive scientific conjecture, the pro-abortionist simply immaturely fires on the messenger.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous. Irrelevant.
And here it is, the "shoot down" part of the pro-abortionist's ad hominem.
Notice again, at no time does the pro-abortionist post topically relevant material.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Erroneous. Irrelevant.
And the pro-abortionist fires his final ad hominem shot.
The pro-abortionist, lacking any substantively relevant accurate scientific information with which to refute the opening post, being unable to emotionally accept what the personhood of the newly conceived means, typically fires away at the messenger, hoping that by destroying the messenger in his mind that he will also destroy the message.
Obviously, his tactic fails, as he as done this many times before, and must keep doing it to keep his denial down and to keep at bay the continually resurfacing truth he just can't handle emotionally.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
