• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I was only slightly rude in response to ignorant responses which are also rude by their very nature.

I never claimed that you were stupid. You have shown that you were dishonest. You have employed various logical fallacies. Denying the explanations was dishonest.

Do you wish to try again? Do you think that you can do better this time? By the way others have notice your errors too which is why they tried to define "human" and "person" differently. But then you went back to he old equivocation fallacy again.
Again, you are making claims without backing them up with explanations or examples.

You have never once quoted me which goes against the very advice you gave me. Hypocrite.

Are you seriously claiming that the only reason that anyone would define "human" and "person" differently is because of me?

Is your unwillingness to admit you lied about your claim that the term "human" was subjective also because of me?

Is it your belief that everyone everywhere looks to me before deciding how they perceive reality?

You are so ridiculous and sloppy. You take no responsibility for what you say!

Also, I never claimed that "human" and "person" were the same. I only said that I would use both to describe an unborn baby.

That's not an equivocation argument.

Why can't you ever quote me?!
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Those aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem with "pro-life" folks is they are really only "pro-birth". They never give a thought to the life of the baby once it is born.
That's a ridiculous argument.

Are you saying that Trump shouldn't pardon an innocent man on death-row if he is unwilling to take care of the man for the rest of his life?

Besides, even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth (baseless assumption), would their indifference change the fact that the child was a living human being before birth?

You can have compassion on a baby by wanting to save it's life without needing to take on all the responsibility of taking care of that child.

There will always be those who want to adopt newborn babies. Always.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again, you are making claims without backing them up with explanations or examples.

You have never once quoted me which goes against the very advice you gave me. Hypocrite.

Are you seriously claiming that the only reason that anyone would define "human" and "person" differently is because of me?

Is your unwillingness to admit you lied about your claim that the term "human" was subjective also because of me?

Is it your belief that everyone everywhere looks to me before deciding how they perceive reality?

You are so ridiculous and sloppy. You take no responsibility for what you say!

Also, I never claimed that "human" and "person" were the same. I only said that I would use both to describe an unborn baby.

That's not an equivocation argument.

Why can't you ever quote me?!

I told you that if you apologized, and your post was not an apology, I would explain your errors to you. Though I already did so once. You keep projecting your flaws upon others here. You know I am not the dishonest one. You know that I am not the hypocrite. And of course I have quoted you. Whenever I hit the "Reply" button on your post I automatically quote you. And I never lied. You should be brighter than this. I think that you are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance due to your unjustifiable beliefs. You get angry because you repeatedly utterly fail when you try to defend your beliefs.

And please note, I did not say that you said that "person" and "human" were the same. Who is sloppy now? I pointed out that others used different definitions for those two terms to avoid your equivocation fallacy. It appears that you still have no clue how you used one even though I did explain it to you the first time around.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's a ridiculous argument.

Are you saying that Trump shouldn't pardon an innocent man on death-row if he is unwilling to take care of the man for the rest of his life?

Besides, even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth (baseless assumption), would their indifference change the fact that the child was a living human being before birth?

You can have compassion on a baby by wanting to save it's life without needing to take on all the responsibility of taking care of that child.

There will always be those who want to adopt newborn babies. Always.

But you cannot prove in any meaningful way, either scientifically or biblically that it was a "living human being" . You have yet to properly define that term. Also calling it a "child" make you guilty of assuming facts not in evidence. I know that it is a "child" to you. It is not so to others. You do realize that even the Bible was okay with chemical abortions under certain circumstances, don't you?
 

illykitty

RF's pet cat
Personal choice, for sure.

People seem to forget that pregnancy has many consequences and isn't as harmless as they think. There's many health risks associated with it even with our medical technology. To want to force women to be pregnant and give birth is unethical. It's not like I like the idea of terminating a foetus. If there was a way to stop the pregnancy without aborting, I'm sure most people would be on board, including me. But it's not possible at the moment, so it's the lesser of evils to allow abortions.

I'm sure it's been pointed out, but pro-lifers seem to often not care about the baby's life after it's born. Examples:
-A lot say you don't have to keep the child, it can be adopted. Well, maybe in an ideal world that would be the case, but so many children are already alive and without parents. Where's all of those people wanting to adopt? I don't see them. This isn't a viable solution.
-Who's going to support the child after the birth? A lot of people don't seem to care about financial contribution. The woman has to carry the baby and then once it's born, you're on your own. It's like some kind of sadistic revenge on the woman for being sexually active.
-Hypothetical question, if a baby needs some life saving tissue from the father, should the father be forced to give it to the baby to save it? If no, why not? That's what you're asking a woman to do when forcing her to be pregnant against her will. You're taking away her choice of saying no.

Granted, it's possible that there are people who are consistent in their ethics, but they're very few from my experience and that of others.

Abortion isn't an ideal solution, but this isn't an ideal world. It's better than the alternative, women considered breathing incubators, not people with bodily autonomy.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
-Who's going to support the child after the birth? A lot of people don't seem to care about financial contribution. The woman has to carry the baby and then once it's born, you're on your own. It's like some kind of sadistic revenge on the woman for being sexually active.
I agree. It’s easy enough to find out the reasons people actually get abortions; plenty of them could be combatted in ways that would be supported by pro-choice people, too, but the anti-choice movement doesn’t seem to be interested in any anti-abortion measure that would end up with pregnant women or new mothers being happier or better off. They don’t seem to be actually interested in preventing abortion unless they can hurt women in the process.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
That's a ridiculous argument.

Are you saying that Trump shouldn't pardon an innocent man on death-row if he is unwilling to take care of the man for the rest of his life?

Besides, even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth (baseless assumption), would their indifference change the fact that the child was a living human being before birth?

You can have compassion on a baby by wanting to save it's life without needing to take on all the responsibility of taking care of that child.

There will always be those who want to adopt newborn babies. Always.

No, I am not. An adult man is responsible for himself, including why he is in prison in the first place. Why would you even try to make such a ridiculous comparison?

Yes, people do adopt children. But not at the rate that homeless children accumulate.

From The Washington Post:
An estimated 8 million to 10 million infants and children live in orphanages around the world, and aid agencies, churches and governments provide hundreds of millions of dollars in the hope that they can help vulnerable children find sanctuary in these institutions. This hope is badly misplaced. Orphanages are not safe places for children.

My organization, Disability Rights International, is working to dispel the widespread myth that building and filling an orphanage is a compassionate way to use charity or government money. In work in dozens of countries over two decades, we have witnessed thousands of children who live in disabling conditions, with heartbreaking consequences. We have seen neglected babies who rock back and forth, bite their hands and gouge their eyes as the result of mind-numbing boredom and neglect. We have seen infants and children, unable to feed themselves, left to starve because there is no one to feed them. In Romania and Turkey we found teens who weighed less than 30 pounds.

The examples of cruelty and neglect are almost endless: Babies tied to their cribs. Children with disabilities who go without medical care and are left to die. Infants who don’t cry when they wake because they learn there is no point in crying because no one will come. Over and over, the world’s orphanages become dumping grounds for poor children and those with disabilities.

Where are the pro-lifers? Why doesn't the life of these children matter as much as the life of an unborn child? The high estimate in the article was about 10 million children living like this. Divide that into the number of "Christians" in the world (an estimated 2.2 billion), and you can see that people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I did not claim that there was any contradiction.

All I said was that I was confused by your need to come up with a third term, rather than "human" or "person" for an unborn baby.
There are usually overlapping or hierarchic terms for the same things, denoting different aspects. Diagram human (n), human (adj), person and baby and their diagrams will only partially overlap.
Then I became more confused when you said that there was no reason for why I could not use those terms to describe an unborn baby.
"Baby" usually denotes a free-living, post-natal organism. "Sentient" focuses on self awareness, and "person" adds a moral aspect.
When you first explained the difference between "human" and "person" you used the comparison of a "human kidney" to a "human foetus."
Do you believe that a kidney and a foetus are really comparable?
Both consist of human (adj) tissues, but neither is an independent organism; neither has all the qualities that would qualify it for personhood and full moral consideration.
Removing a foetus is the same as removing a kidney, even though we both agree that the foetus is a separate "human" from the mother?
Now you're using 'human' as a noun, implying a discrete organism. Ie: organ vs parasite.
Since you claim that a human foetus is a "human", you would not consider the removal and destruction of said foetus to be "killing", "murdering" or "destroying" another human?
A foetus may be human, but I'd hesitate to call it "a" human. That implies a complete, free-living organism.
"Kill" can apply to anything alive.
"Destroy" is even broader -- I can destroy a television or an argument.
"Murder" is a legal term for an illegal killing -- like shooting an enemy soldier in a non-UN sanctioned war.
Has it been proven, beyond doubt, that a foetus lacks sentience?
No more than it's been proven that an unborn mouse lacks sentience, or the tree in my back yard, for that matter.
Lastly, in your opinion, when does a foetus become a person?
Ah, the $64.000 question.
I don't know. Personhood entails various qualities, which develop at different points. In terms of moral consideration in relation to abortion, though -- which I assume is the focus of your question -- I'd oppose aborting a healthy, viable, late trimester foetus, even though its status as a full person may not be clear.
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the late response.
I told you that if you apologized, and your post was not an apology, I would explain your errors to you.
An apology from me would be completely insincere because I do not believe that I have done anything that would warrant such.

I also don’t understand how you could beg me to apologize for some wrongdoing before you have even convinced me that I committed any wrongdoing.

How can you not see the faulty logic there?
You keep projecting your flaws upon others here. You know I am not the dishonest one.
Let’s start with an example from your very first post to me in this thread. In post #228, you asked me, “Since you cannot reasonably support your position how do you justify telling women what they have to do with their bodies?”

Considering that I never once told any woman what she could or could not do with her body - You began this discussion with me by being dishonest with your strawman.

Then in your very next post to me (#230) you used an appeal to authority (It’s not bad if it’s illegal!) - Which is, of course, another logical fallacy.

Since we all know you have repeatedly claimed that I had employed the use of logical fallacies (without successfully explaining how) - It is clear that you are the one projecting your flaws on me!
You know that I am not the hypocrite.
Well, I just successfully demonstrated that you are in fact a hypocrite.

You accused me of projecting and of being dishonest, when it was you who was guilty of both.

I guess that’s to be expected from someone who demands apologies before explaining why there is any need for the apology.
And of course I have quoted you. Whenever I hit the "Reply" button on your post I automatically quote you. And I never lied.
Yet, that doesn’t seem to be helping you.

If I could direct your attention to your first post to me again (#228) you “quoted” me by hitting “Reply”, but then you claimed that I had advanced an argument I never did (strawman fallacy).

You began our discussion with a lie.
You should be brighter than this. I think that you are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance due to your unjustifiable beliefs.
You wouldn’t be you without your ad hominem attacks.
You get angry because you repeatedly utterly fail when you try to defend your beliefs.
First, you can’t prove that I have gotten angry anywhere in this thread.

There is no real need for me to defend my beliefs since I am not trying to force anyone to abide by them.

Another reason there is no need for me to defend my beliefs is the simple fact that nothing you or anyone else has shared has been able to dispute my belief

You can’t help being dishonest, can you?
And please note, I did not say that you said that "person" and "human" were the same. Who is sloppy now? I pointed out that others used different definitions for those two terms to avoid your equivocation fallacy.
Ok.

If I never claimed that “person” and “human” meant the same thing, then where is the “equivocation fallacy” I am supposedly guilty of?

This makes no sense.
It appears that you still have no clue how you used one even though I did explain it to you the first time around.
Well, let’s see.

1.) You first erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” when I used my example of playing with my unborn children in the womb (post #249).

I had used that example as proof that they were “alive”, not that they were “human”, yet you and sojourner claimed that I had used that example to prove that they were “human”, when I never did.

So, that was another example of you being dishonest and using a strawman.

Even after I corrected you, you still claimed that I had employed the same “equivocation fallacy” in post #251, which is another example that you using the “Reply” button doesn’t help you at all.

If you don’t actually read what others write, then you cannot accurately respond to what they say.

I then asked you in post #269, “Claiming that a fetus is alive is not the same as claiming that it is human. So, how is this an “equivocation argument”?”

You never answered that question. You claimed that my post was too long to warrant a response, which makes no sense.

2.) The next time you erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” was in post #286, then you said, “You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human". “

That was what led me to contend in post #294, that the law defining what is or is not “human” has led to travesty after travesty throughout human history.

Then I explained that the law cannot logically define what is or is not “human”, because the law is subject to change, while a human being is not. Then I said,

“It is not the law, but science and logic, that proves what is or is not a human being.”

You responded to this in post #296 with -

“You would be wrong there. You are only looking at the negative results. And probably misinterpreting some of those.”

- You provided no explanation or example of how I was “wrong” or how I was “misinterpreting” anything.

- You also shared no example of a “positive result” of the law defining what is or is not “human”.

“And you are probably the last person that should be talking about science and logic.”

- Another ad hominem attack. Then you said,

“I have seen you reject the former and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the latter.”

- A claim to some anecdotal evidence in an attempt to support your ad hominem attack which you never presented.

3.) Your next erroneous claim that I had employed a logical fallacy was in post #306, when you responded to something I had said to another RF member, which was, “I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."

I explained in post #307 that my belief that an unborn child is both a “human” and a “person” was not an attempt to claim that a “human” and a “person” was the same thing”.

After all, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

You responded to that in post # 309 with “Oh my! Some people have no clue.” - Which is pure ad hominem.

I later went after you in post #312, pointing out your unreasonable behavior. Which you simply blew off with another ad hominem attack (calling me “rude”) in post #313.

So yeah…..

I see how you have tried to accuse me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” multiple times, but you’ve been unable to make it stick each time.

What I have “no clue” about is why you keep trying.
But you cannot prove in any meaningful way, either scientifically or biblically that it was a "living human being".
First, I have said multiple times that an “appeal to authority” (like quoting from the Bible) is a logical fallacy and it would be ineffective and unconvincing.

Lastly, since there are no compelling arguments against the fact that an unborn child is a “living human being”, what need would I have to “prove” the obvious?

Unless, of course, you have scientific evidence that supports the idea that the unborn aren’t “living human beings”....
You have yet to properly define that term.
Well, what have I proved?

My playing with my unborn children in the womb proves that there were “alive” and any DNA test performed on the unborn child - from conception to immediately before birth - would prove that they have human DNA - separate and distinct from both the mother and the father.

Can’t argue that they are a kidney or a “growth” then, can you?

So...what haven’t I “properly defined” yet?
Also calling it a "child" make you guilty of assuming facts not in evidence. I know that it is a "child" to you. It is not so to others.
If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I used the word “child” to describe it after it’s birth.

I said, “even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth”

I’m pretty sure - at least I would hope, but who knows nowadays with all you crazy people in the world - that everyone would agree that it is completely appropriate to refer to it as a “child” after it has been born.

Or is that an “assumption” I’m making?

So you see how you began our discussion by being dishonest with a strawman and now here you are at the end still employing those strawmen!

You are so dishonest it’s scary. I’m, like, sincerely afraid for you. How do you cope with reality when everything is a lie?
You do realize that even the Bible was okay with chemical abortions under certain circumstances, don't you?
Again. An appeal to the Bible is an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Ineffective and unconvincing.

Why do you keep trying to reference the Bible when you are an atheist and I never once used it as a basis for any argument?

However, you might be interested in reading post #237, where I shared my beliefs with sojourner concerning situations when the Lord may allow abortions,

“1.) If the unborn child is the product of rape,

2.) If the unborn child is the product of incest,

3.) If the unborn child poses a real threat to the life of the mother,

4.) Due to a physical malady, the unborn child would not survive child birth,”
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry for the late response.

An apology from me would be completely insincere because I do not believe that I have done anything that would warrant such.

I also don’t understand how you could beg me to apologize for some wrongdoing before you have even convinced me that I committed any wrongdoing.

How can you not see the faulty logic there?

Let’s start with an example from your very first post to me in this thread. In post #228, you asked me, “Since you cannot reasonably support your position how do you justify telling women what they have to do with their bodies?”

Considering that I never once told any woman what she could or could not do with her body - You began this discussion with me by being dishonest with your strawman.

Then in your very next post to me (#230) you used an appeal to authority (It’s not bad if it’s illegal!) - Which is, of course, another logical fallacy.

Since we all know you have repeatedly claimed that I had employed the use of logical fallacies (without successfully explaining how) - It is clear that you are the one projecting your flaws on me!

Well, I just successfully demonstrated that you are in fact a hypocrite.

You accused me of projecting and of being dishonest, when it was you who was guilty of both.

I guess that’s to be expected from someone who demands apologies before explaining why there is any need for the apology.

Yet, that doesn’t seem to be helping you.

If I could direct your attention to your first post to me again (#228) you “quoted” me by hitting “Reply”, but then you claimed that I had advanced an argument I never did (strawman fallacy).

You began our discussion with a lie.

You wouldn’t be you without your ad hominem attacks.

First, you can’t prove that I have gotten angry anywhere in this thread.

There is no real need for me to defend my beliefs since I am not trying to force anyone to abide by them.

Another reason there is no need for me to defend my beliefs is the simple fact that nothing you or anyone else has shared has been able to dispute my belief

You can’t help being dishonest, can you?

Ok.

If I never claimed that “person” and “human” meant the same thing, then where is the “equivocation fallacy” I am supposedly guilty of?

This makes no sense.

Well, let’s see.

1.) You first erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” when I used my example of playing with my unborn children in the womb (post #249).

I had used that example as proof that they were “alive”, not that they were “human”, yet you and sojourner claimed that I had used that example to prove that they were “human”, when I never did.

So, that was another example of you being dishonest and using a strawman.

Even after I corrected you, you still claimed that I had employed the same “equivocation fallacy” in post #251, which is another example that you using the “Reply” button doesn’t help you at all.

If you don’t actually read what others write, then you cannot accurately respond to what they say.

I then asked you in post #269, “Claiming that a fetus is alive is not the same as claiming that it is human. So, how is this an “equivocation argument”?”

You never answered that question. You claimed that my post was too long to warrant a response, which makes no sense.

2.) The next time you erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” was in post #286, then you said, “You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human". “

That was what led me to contend in post #294, that the law defining what is or is not “human” has led to travesty after travesty throughout human history.

Then I explained that the law cannot logically define what is or is not “human”, because the law is subject to change, while a human being is not. Then I said,

“It is not the law, but science and logic, that proves what is or is not a human being.”

You responded to this in post #296 with -

“You would be wrong there. You are only looking at the negative results. And probably misinterpreting some of those.”

- You provided no explanation or example of how I was “wrong” or how I was “misinterpreting” anything.

- You also shared no example of a “positive result” of the law defining what is or is not “human”.

“And you are probably the last person that should be talking about science and logic.”

- Another ad hominem attack. Then you said,

“I have seen you reject the former and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the latter.”

- A claim to some anecdotal evidence in an attempt to support your ad hominem attack which you never presented.

3.) Your next erroneous claim that I had employed a logical fallacy was in post #306, when you responded to something I had said to another RF member, which was, “I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."

I explained in post #307 that my belief that an unborn child is both a “human” and a “person” was not an attempt to claim that a “human” and a “person” was the same thing”.

After all, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

You responded to that in post # 309 with “Oh my! Some people have no clue.” - Which is pure ad hominem.

I later went after you in post #312, pointing out your unreasonable behavior. Which you simply blew off with another ad hominem attack (calling me “rude”) in post #313.

So yeah…..

I see how you have tried to accuse me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” multiple times, but you’ve been unable to make it stick each time.

What I have “no clue” about is why you keep trying.

First, I have said multiple times that an “appeal to authority” (like quoting from the Bible) is a logical fallacy and it would be ineffective and unconvincing.

Lastly, since there are no compelling arguments against the fact that an unborn child is a “living human being”, what need would I have to “prove” the obvious?

Unless, of course, you have scientific evidence that supports the idea that the unborn aren’t “living human beings”....

Well, what have I proved?

My playing with my unborn children in the womb proves that there were “alive” and any DNA test performed on the unborn child - from conception to immediately before birth - would prove that they have human DNA - separate and distinct from both the mother and the father.

Can’t argue that they are a kidney or a “growth” then, can you?

So...what haven’t I “properly defined” yet?

If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I used the word “child” to describe it after it’s birth.

I said, “even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth”

I’m pretty sure - at least I would hope, but who knows nowadays with all you crazy people in the world - that everyone would agree that it is completely appropriate to refer to it as a “child” after it has been born.

Or is that an “assumption” I’m making?

So you see how you began our discussion by being dishonest with a strawman and now here you are at the end still employing those strawmen!

You are so dishonest it’s scary. I’m, like, sincerely afraid for you. How do you cope with reality when everything is a lie?

Again. An appeal to the Bible is an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Ineffective and unconvincing.

Why do you keep trying to reference the Bible when you are an atheist and I never once used it as a basis for any argument?

However, you might be interested in reading post #237, where I shared my beliefs with sojourner concerning situations when the Lord may allow abortions,

“1.) If the unborn child is the product of rape,

2.) If the unborn child is the product of incest,

3.) If the unborn child poses a real threat to the life of the mother,

4.) Due to a physical malady, the unborn child would not survive child birth,”


Too long, didn't read. All I could see was a long list of lame excuses, false claims, and failures on your part.

Do you want to start again? Do you think that you can debate properly?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.
Having fewer of us in a means that is painless, prior to self awareness, and before any reasonable sense of personhood can be granted is certainly getting fewer of us from war, chemical poisonings, environmental pollution, and other means that cause harm to self-aware and fully conscious beings.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Too long, didn't read. All I could see was a long list of lame excuses, false claims, and failures on your part.

Do you want to start again? Do you think that you can debate properly?
At least your consistent in our willful ignorance.

Your version of a "proper debate" is to ignore what your opponent says?

I'm not surprised in the least.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
No, a bunch of falsehoods and nonsense was posted by you. When you can debate properly I will gladly help you.
How can you make any claims about what I wrote after claiming you didn't read my post?

If you did read my post, why don't you share any examples of these supposed "falsehoods" or "nonsense" that you claim are there?

I mean, you complained earlier that my post was too long to read (which makes no sense), so there must be a lot of material to pick and choose from to support your claims of "falsehoods" and "nonsense".

It is interesting that throughout the entirety of our discussion you have never once quoted me or offered examples to back up your claims against my arguments.

Why don't you break your cycle of laziness and cowardliness and actually try to support the things you claim instead of just making case after baseless case?

I will continue to wait for your participation in this discussion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How can you make any claims about what I wrote after claiming you didn't read my post?

If you did read my post, why don't you share any examples of these supposed "falsehoods" or "nonsense" that you claim are there?

I mean, you complained earlier that my post was too long to read (which makes no sense), so there must be a lot of material to pick and choose from to support your claims of "falsehoods" and "nonsense".

It is interesting that throughout the entirety of our discussion you have never once quoted me or offered examples to back up your claims against my arguments.

Why don't you break your cycle of laziness and cowardliness and actually try to support the things you claim instead of just making case after baseless case?

I will continue to wait for your participation in this discussion.
Please pay attention. I said that I skimmed it, reread my post. Poor reading comprehension may explain this inability to understand. I could see false claim after false claim with excuse after excuse. It was too boring to deal with. When you have to "blow up" a post by putting a paragraph to every sentence, which were often taken out of context, it makes for a worthless post.

If you can debate properly I will gladly do so. But in a proper debate you appear to know that you will lose so you try to make emotional and personal attacks. Those are not worth responding to.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
At least your consistent in our willful ignorance.

Your version of a "proper debate" is to ignore what your opponent says?

I'm not surprised in the least.
I find that discussing this subject with hardcore feticide rights people is about the same as discussing biology with creationists. They simply ignore science, redefine words to suit their agenda, and launch personal attacks when their arguments fail.

I have to be in just the right mood to wade in to the mess.
Tom
 
Top