• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Four Fallacies of Abortion

Quag said:
Heck when he tried to "prove" God existed he wouldn't even define what God is.
Basically he ries to stay as ambiguous as possible about his faith while trying to get others to follow it.
Like I said he's not a very good preacher.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a non-starter. If God "wanted to be proven real" He'd enable that. He doesnt. That is why a true belief in the Lord is faith-based. No proof is (should be) needed.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
What do you call a liar who falsely calls another a liar? Gotta find that word.
I presented Minnie's posts and gave you the one example you asked for. It's a matter of record.
Click to expand...

Where? Which post #

You seem to have many failed "a-ha!" moments.
 
Angel said:
Yes, she plays the old switcheroo like you:

I posted:


years2late posted:

Then in #27 she performs the old switcheroo:

Follow the bolded to the red switcheroo.
The exchange goes from "human life" to "human life" to "human life" and then she switches to simply "living"!
You both argue in bad faith. And Lursa does this too in her posts.
Shame on the three of you, but you're not getting away with this sort of thing with me.


Bad faith on her part and now on your part.
Click to expand...

That you assume that pro-choice people believe a fetus in a human woman doesnt have human DNA and it has to be spelled out every single time is ludicrous.

We give pro-life people more credit than that. :doh She already clearly stated in the preceding lines that it was human life. Why would she not 'know that' in the next sentence? Why would she have to reiterate it?

If anyone needed a clearer picture of just how desperate you are to 'win on the Internet' this conversation could be used at the global illustration. Unfortunately, it's more like a global fail.
 
Angel said:
Stop the second-hand copying and pasting and speak for yourself -- and speak directly into the microphone:
Is the phenomenon designated "zygote," "embryo," and "fetus" in your opinion and on your view "a human life," "a human being"? Yes or no?
No tapdance.
Just a direct reply to a direct question. On your conscience.
Click to expand...

She did, and she backed herself up with a source. That is how it works.
 
Lursa said:
That you assume that pro-choice people believe a fetus in a human woman doesnt have human DNA and it has to be spelled out every single time is ludicrous.

We give pro-life people more credit than that. :doh She already clearly stated in the preceding lines that it was human life. Why would she not 'know that' in the next sentence? Why would she have to reiterate it?

If anyone needed a clearer picture of just how desperate you are to 'win on the Internet' this conversation could be used at the global illustration. Unfortunately, it's more like a global fail.
Click to expand...
Stop with the bull****. If you and the other prochoicers acknowledge that the Zef is a human life, then you must acknowledge that abortion ends a human life. Are you making these acknowledgements?
 
Angel said:
Stop with the bull****. If you and the other prochoicers acknowledge that the Zef is a human life, then you must acknowledge that abortion ends a human life. Are you making these acknowledgements?
Click to expand...

Of course abortion ends a human life. I've never denied such.

What else would the unborn inside a human woman be?
 
year2late said:
She did, and she backed herself up with a source. That is how it works.
Click to expand...
She acknowledged tha the Zef is a human life, but then in my follow-up, when asked to acknowledge that it follows that an abortion ends a human life, she started tapdancing.
Let's see you dance. If you acknowledge that the Zef is a human life, then you must acknowledge that abortion ends a human life -- yes?
 
Angel said:
#98 and #127
Click to expand...

How do those posts back up your assertions?

Again, more of your failed A-HA moments.

You are so dug into your "philosphy" that you fail to even try to understand another's words...and a basic understanding between nouns and adjectives in this conversation would help.
 
year2late said:
How do those posts back up your assertions?

Again, more of your failed A-HA moments.

You are so dug into your "philosphy" that you fail to even try to understand another's words...and a basic understanding between nouns and adjectives in this conversation would help.
Click to expand...
And I answered this latest repeat of a question in #105.
What is this argument by attrition?
 
Angel said:
She acknowledged tha the Zef is a human life, but then in my follow-up, when asked to acknowledge that it follows that an abortion ends a human life, she started tapdancing.
Let's see you dance. If you acknowledge that the Zef is a human life, then you must acknowledge that abortion ends a human life -- yes?
Click to expand...
A zygote, embryo, or fetus IS human life.

What are you confused about.

In an abortion an embryo or fetus is no longer living after the abortion,

What are you confused about?

What is she tap dancing about?

Now, if you ask if a person or human being dies in the process of an abortion....you will get a different answer.

No tap dancing.

Person is a legal definition. Legally a fetus is not a person in this country.

Human being means different things to different people. I use human being to mean a person. Which would mean someone who has been born. I consider a fetus that is gestating within a human to be human. But not a human being/person.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the term "human". When we say "human life" human is an adjective. So yes the fetus has human dna. And yes it is alive. Just not a separate person/being capable of surviving outside of the woman (with or without outside assistance)

Accurate use of words is not tap dancing.

Your personal philosophy is yours. We need not accept your beliefs and your personal moral construct based on your philosophy. Your personal philosophy is not up for debate. You "own" it.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
You have done no such thing. Show where you've engaged my argument and shown it to be "lame" and "stupid." And now "silly."
Click to expand...

Try my very first post to you in this thread. You are giving us nothing more than silly comments that you have made up and then tried to pretend that they are the views of pro choice. Having not one single intelligent argument to offer for your side you are then reduced to making up silly arguments about the other side.
 
Angel said:
Yes, she plays the old switcheroo like you:

I posted:


years2late posted:

Then in #27 she performs the old switcheroo:

Follow the bolded to the red switcheroo.
The exchange goes from "human life" to "human life" to "human life" and then she switches to simply "living"!
You both argue in bad faith. And Lursa does this too in her posts.
Shame on the three of you, but you're not getting away with this sort of thing with me.


Bad faith on her part and now on your part.
Click to expand...

Stop lying about me. I have done nothing in bad faith.

If it is living and human, then it's human life. Good grief.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Stop lying about me. I have done nothing in bad faith.

If it is living and human, then it's human life. Good grief.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I cannot tell if he is just dense, or intentionally lying.
 
year2late said:
Yeah, I cannot tell if he is just dense, or intentionally lying.
Click to expand...

The fact that someone, repeatedly, needs something so specifically defined in order for their 'argument' to work shows a clear weakness in the argument. It's a manner of diverting attention from the primary argument and it also shows that unless it's perfectly phrased, their argument really doesnt hold up under scrutiny. That their argument is so rigidly and narrowly formed that it cannot withstand broader rebuttal.
 
year2late said:
A zygote, embryo, or fetus IS human life.

What are you confused about.

In an abortion an embryo or fetus is no longer living after the abortion,

What are you confused about?

What is she tap dancing about?

Now, if you ask if a person or human being dies in the process of an abortion....you will get a different answer.

No tap dancing.

Person is a legal definition. Legally a fetus is not a person in this country.

Human being means different things to different people. I use human being to mean a person. Which would mean someone who has been born. I consider a fetus that is gestating within a human to be human. But not a human being/person.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the term "human". When we say "human life" human is an adjective. So yes the fetus has human dna. And yes it is alive. Just not a separate person/being capable of surviving outside of the woman (with or without outside assistance)

Accurate use of words is not tap dancing.

Your personal philosophy is yours. We need not accept your beliefs and your personal moral construct based on your philosophy. Your personal philosophy is not up for debate. You "own" it.
Click to expand...
A human life is the life of a human being. The confusion is yours.
 
soylentgreen said:
Try my very first post to you in this thread. You are giving us nothing more than silly comments that you have made up and then tried to pretend that they are the views of pro choice. Having not one single intelligent argument to offer for your side you are then reduced to making up silly arguments about the other side.
Click to expand...
No engagement on your part -- just vitriolic comment. Get back to me when you have a counterargument.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Stop lying about me. I have done nothing in bad faith.

If it is living and human, then it's human life. Good grief.
Click to expand...
What lying? You defended her nonsense. If that wasn't in bad faith, then what was it? Reading deficiency?
 
Angel said:
A human life is the life of a human being. The confusion is yours.
Click to expand...

Again, you use the term of "human being" which I (and many others) reject as a fetus.

So when you say "human being" it translates to me the same as "person".

Using words that do not have a multitude of definitions can be helpful so we know we are talking about the same thing.


So yes a fetus is human and has life.

So no, a fetus is not a person or human being (which to me, means a born individual)


Person, in the context of a debate on abortion on a political internet discussion board is the legal definition...which means a born individual.
 
Angel said:
A human life is the life of a human being. The confusion is yours.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Nothing like proving my point:

Lursa said:
The fact that someone, repeatedly, needs something so specifically defined in order for their 'argument' to work shows a clear weakness in the argument. It's a manner of diverting attention from the primary argument and it also shows that unless it's perfectly phrased, their argument really doesnt hold up under scrutiny. That their argument is so rigidly and narrowly formed that it cannot withstand broader rebuttal.
Click to expand...

You go on and on about semantics...and yet your argument goes unsupported.
 
year2late said:
Yeah, I cannot tell if he is just dense, or intentionally lying.
Click to expand...

I wondered also until I saw post #166.

Now we know for a fact he was intentionally lying.

What he wanted to do was to play switcheroo
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
A human life is the life of a human being. The confusion is yours.
Click to expand...

That is your definition.

Another accepted definition is a "person".

A person in the context of an abortion debate - discussion of pro-choice and pro-life issues is a political. In context this means a human that has been born.
 
It is only after birth has occurred and a birth record has been created that a new member of the population becomes recognizable by government and protected by law, with or without the Womans consent.
 
year2late said:
Again, you use the term of "human being" which I (and many others) reject as a fetus.

So when you say "human being" it translates to me the same as "person".

Using words that do not have a multitude of definitions can be helpful so we know we are talking about the same thing.


So yes a fetus is human and has life.

So no, a fetus is not a person or human being (which to me, means a born individual)


Person, in the context of a debate on abortion on a political internet discussion board is the legal definition...which means a born individual.
Click to expand...
Your rejection of the term is based on the political/legal confusion generated by a national abortion debate driven by self-interest and moral imbecility. It is noted, but has no value or cachet in the moral discourse I am trying to conduct in the teeth of clueless resistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom