Abortion: Right or Wrong?

You have an interesting understanding of losing.

You are now denying saying that you wouldn't lose sleep over an innocent being executed provided they had been through a trial.

Denying what you have written before is kind of embarrassing.

I feel sorry for you

I have asked you repeatedly to bring forward any such quote by me. You keep insisting that I said it and yet, you seem unable to bring such a statement by me forward. That woud seem to indicate that no such statement by me exists which would seem to indicate that you have lied.

What is embarassing is to claim that someone said a thing and be unable to produce the quote. Sort of makes a liar out of you doesn't it?
 
Werbung:
I have asked you repeatedly to bring forward any such quote by me. You keep insisting that I said it and yet, you seem unable to bring such a statement by me forward. That woud seem to indicate that no such statement by me exists which would seem to indicate that you have lied.

What is embarassing is to claim that someone said a thing and be unable to produce the quote. Sort of makes a liar out of you doesn't it?

Pale, why are you even bothering to debate this imbecile?
 
Imbesiles are sort of people too.

No, really. This isn't so much for him. There are people who sit on the fence on this issue who don't often join in the discussion. When they see the pro choice argument torn into small, easily digestable pieces, a surprising number get off the fence and land on the anti abortion on demand side. Dawkins typifies the young, uneducated pro choicer who is nothing more than a parrot on a stick for the pro choice agenda. His defense of his position reflects what very many uneducated people believe. Expose it to hard fact and it shrivels like a raisin in the sun.

And there is a certain entertainment value for me in watching somene like dawkins attempt to defend an indefensible position. I am always curious (in a trainwreck sort of way) to see just how far they will debase their intellect trying to save face.
 
Homo sapiens gains certain rights as the individual ages.

For example, it doesn't gain the right to vote until it is 18.

It doesn't gain the right to life until it is at least sensient and aware.

Which is why it is legal to abort foetuses up to a certain age.
 
Homo sapiens gains certain rights as the individual ages.

For example, it doesn't gain the right to vote until it is 18.

It doesn't gain the right to life until it is at least sensient and aware.

Which is why it is legal to abort foetuses up to a certain age.

What ignorant nonsense.

Your post demonstrate your inability to distinguish between inalienable rights and civil rights.

Inalienable rights are those that accrue to the existence of a human person. Civil rights are those that one gains as a member of the body politic.

The legality of abortion hangs precariously on the question of when exactly a human person starts to exist -- hence this debate. Clearly, neither science nor logic support your argument.

Why you insist on thinking this way is not surprising, really. The idea of rendering human existence for another's profit or pleasure has been with us all of recorded history. Why not for convenience, eh?
 
But you know you are being disingneuous.

Everybody knows that a few cells with no brain is not a person.

It is accepted practice that life support machines are turned off when there is no brain activity.

This is because scientists agree that a fundamental part of a person is a functioning brain.

Neither you nor anyone else really gives a **** what happens to a few cells with no brain.

Especially when he leaves the whitehouse in a few weeks time
 
But you know you are being disingneuous.

Everybody knows that a few cells with no brain is not a person.

People are still talking to you in this forum, aren't they?

It is accepted practice that life support machines are turned off when there is no brain activity.

The determination of brain activity is in the province of the physician, no? If that were true, then the physician wouldn't bother with a waiver, now, would he?

This is because scientists agree that a fundamental part of a person is a functioning brain.

You mean the same scientists that say less than 2 % of the human genome is different from that of a bonobo?

And if brain function is the only standard, you would be a borderline case.

Neither you nor anyone else really gives a **** what happens to a few cells with no brain.

Especially when he leaves the whitehouse in a few weeks time

That is correct. I don't give a **** about you.

But that is not relevant to a person's right to live.
 
What ignorant nonsense.

Your post demonstrate your inability to distinguish between inalienable rights and civil rights.

Inalienable rights are those that accrue to the existence of a human person. Civil rights are those that one gains as a member of the body politic.

The legality of abortion hangs precariously on the question of when exactly a human person starts to exist -- hence this debate. Clearly, neither science nor logic support your argument.

Why you insist on thinking this way is not surprising, really. The idea of rendering human existence for another's profit or pleasure has been with us all of recorded history. Why not for convenience, eh?

Very well said. You are an exceptionally intelligent individual. How is it that you can be so wrong on capital punishment?:D:D
 
If a few brainless cells have the right to life then so does every living organism and you have got a lot of campaigning on your hands
 
Werbung:
Back
Top