And your point is? If the basis of your argument is that it has stood so therefore it will continue to stand, then you are even less intelligent than I had thought and believe me, I don't think much of your intelligence quotient already. I mean really, you keep putting forward the same old logical fallacies over and over and they keep getting shot down over and over and you never even make an attempt to prove that they are not logical fallacy. How much slower could you possibly be?
So you support war and the non combattant casualties that go along with it? You have no problem at all with women and children dying when strikes put them in harm's way? Funny, I thought that you were horrified at civilian casualties of war. Excuse me, I didn't realize that you were a war monger. I didn't realize that you want to kill, that you wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in your teeth and eat dead burnt bodies.
You are trying to prove that two wrongs make a right and doing by introducing red herrings. You don't have a chance here topgun. Every fallacy that you concoct will be promptly identified and shot down. And rational argument, you don't have a chance because the facts don't support your position.
Lets review your most common falacies and do attempt to prove that your arguments are something other than fallacies.
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Tradition
Begging the Question
Red Herring (one of your favorites)
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Pity
Ad Hominem
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Do you need to have them explained to you?
So you do understand that eventually the facts will catch up to the decision and render it obsolete. If you understand this, why do you fight so adamantly against it?
My whole argument is about the rights of human beings. If you call than singular, then feel free. My argument, none the less, is fully supported by science and the law while all parts of yours remain completely unsupported.
Your ageist use of the term "those cells" is used with exactly the same mindset as a racist who uses the word ni**er in an attempt to dehumanize a human being. Aren't you proud?
Of course it is. Unless of course, you can prove that unborns are not human beings. Can you do that?
And once more for those who are simply too damned stupid to get it through their heads, the only time born is used is in association with the rights of citizenship. The fact that you keep referring to this obviousl loser highlights the inherent abject weakness of your argument.
