jasonrest wrote:
I understand that for some it's convenient to be of pro-choice, but you can't just huddle up, make mean faces, throw insults and expect things to fall into place.
And you, in turn, can't just don a sneer and pretend that you've presented any substance or logic to your position while demonstrating that acute reading incomprehension problem you have. Many arguments have been posted to you but you simply fail to appreciate them. They can't be faulted for your reading comprehension difficulties.
Quote:You have to respectfully present your argument and support it with facts.
But you don't right? You don't have to respect the people here. In your unintended hilarity you spend all your time trying to position yourself as their intellectual superiors at them and don't present anything other than the strength of your convictions as your "facts".
Quote:I am outnumbered yet, I respect all of your opinions while some have resorted to name calling and irrelevant jabs.
What utter nonsense. You've spent more of your time trying to portray your interlocutors as emotionally unstable and lacking the "tools" to respond to you yet you have the temerity to try to pretend you have somehow been above all the "jabs" and have been respectful.
Quote:And, again very simple questions that I have asked have gone unanswered and been replaced with behavior already mentioned.
You apparently lack the "tools" to recognize that unwillingness to engage you may have more to do with an aversion to jackasses. Your boorish attempt to lord over people in this discussion coupled with the vapidity of your own posts have more to do with why this is more about your personality disorders than any "topic". You fail to realize that this is of your own doing and that your own hubris made this about you.
Want facts? Here's a fact: you spent more posts trying to call people "dense" and "emotional" than presenting any facts then tried to decry others for failure to present facts and for being emotive. Don't be an emotional crybaby if you get derision to your misplaced sneer.
Quote:... I understand that pro choice is very popular but if you cannot post an intelligent response without slander then, don't bother.
You don't have a basic understanding of what slander is. But you have less of an understanding of what "an intelligent response" consists of.
Quote:
I understood fully, hence the word "amusing".
He was belittling the idea that women should be punished.
Do you have anything of substance to offer?
You said this in reference to boomerang. I find it "amusing" (your own smug code word for "understand fully") that you assume boomerang, who you called the only person worth talking to you in the thread, is a man when boomerang is a woman.
Consider that your condescending sneer for the women here may have more to do with why this isn't the "intelligent" discussion you purport to seek. Again, I urge you to consider the perfectly reasonable explanation: aversion to jackasses.
Quote:
If someone would present a valid argument, and stay on topic, I would be more than happy to compare our opinions in a logical manner.
What "valid argument" do you think you've constructed? I'd be more than happy to "compare our opinions in a logical manner". Given the glaring deficiencies in your ratiocination it may not be interesting very long though, so don't rush to indict my boredom when it may again just be an aversion to retardation.
I'll accept your challenge and start with what meager content in way of arguments you have constructed:
- RE "Again, without interference this is the understood chronological order of things, based on that, does not life begin at the time of conception? " - This argument is the logical fallacy called appeal to tradition. What
is "the understood (at least as you see it) chronological order" of things doesn't do anything to support what
should be.
- Your use of a picture of a dead fetus is a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion". In your hyper-emotional state you failed to realize that the strong feelings the picture elicits have precious little to do with logic.
- You went on to say: "By the way 11 week olds have beating hearts, and those look like legs and maybe arms too."
The tecnical term for this kind of fallacy is "basic retardation". See, if legs and arms are indications of life you should hastily ride your high horse down to your local morgue and prevent imminent slaughter.
- You responded to the notion that the mother of an unborn baby is alive and the fetus is not with "Untrue, you should educate yourself before taking positions on such a sensitive matter." Doing so you display, beyond your usual haughty posturing, only that you fail to understand the notion of subjectiveness, a notion fairly important to basic logic. But then you make it worse:
- "Yes, it could survive outside the womb" came your reply when asked if the fetus could survive on its own. You demonstrate inconsistency in your position because your earlier appeal to tradition and reliance on the natural "order" of things for the naturalistic fallacy you concocted would indict any unatural means of life support and "interference" in the natural "order". If you don't get this, a risk I consider significant, the natural order goes like this: 1) Fetus is removed from womb 2) Fetus dies. You support intervention for your side but not the other and it's a silly way of moving the goal posts in debate with you.
- You argued: "In reference to your post, why should someone be punished for another's lack of planning."
Indeed. Why should an unwanted child be punished for life due to another's lack of planning coupled with your zealous fanaticism with denying them a last-try at preventing the suffering?
- "Once past the second tri, a baby could in fact survive on its own...
There's more I can add but can you provide a source to the contrary."
Here you demonstrate your lacking comprehension of the concept of burden of proof in logic. You make a vapid claim and allude to having more substance to add but for good measure you ask your counterpart to prove a negative. You back up your claim. Provide a source of a fetus setting out
on its own without any "interference" that you decry and show me how it survives in the natural "order" of things (hint: you don't get to use thousands of dollars of medical equipment and physicians because you rejected their medical "interference" in aborting the fetus).
See, you don't get to claim the fetus is alive because it would "burst" onto the scene in "no time" without "interference" and then claim it's alive on the basis of its ability to survive "on its own"
with "interference". That inconsistency would just be daft and it doesn't even begin to address the facts (with numbers and all, something you haven't been capable of) boomerang presented you on fetus mortality rates that refutes your naive notions on how gestation works.
You went on to say "You said something that was untrue. I brought attention to it and you are unable to prove otherwise."
This is an
ipse dixit. You merely claimed it was true and offered no substantiation for it and still have the gall to deride someone for failing to prove the converse of
your unsubstantiated claim.
- "You're confusing the issue. Unfortunately your friend had complications that compromised the pregnancy. I'm sorry. Now, for a perfectly normal pregnancy with a perfectly normal baby, two minutes before that child was delivered, was it in fact alive?"
You define anything you don't care to address as "off topic" and move the goal posts again. If we are only talking about "perfectly normal babies" then I suppose it's fine by you to abort any that aren't "perfectly normal"? And if not why are the babies that are not "perfectly normal" an unnecessary "confusion of the issue" in your counterparts' arguments but not in yours?
- You continue to try to pass the buck on your burden of proof with "I think you also supported jane on her claim that an unborn cannot live without its mom. In all seriousness, did you find evidence supporting that? I have found plenty to the contrary and I just want to get it straight."
Then get it straight and put up the enormity of evidence you keep hinting at but never can quite compose for anyone. Stop deriding others for failing to disprove a claim you never substantiated. Substantiate the notion that a fetus can survive
on its own. Your example should show the fetus being able to do so with no outside "interference" and if medical supplies and equipment are needed the fetus should demonstrate an ability to pay for such services "on its own".
Quote:
If you have visited, with hopes of finding something relevant to the topic posted, I apologize
How very grand of you!
Quote:...it is still quite amusing to see those with so much emotion and hastiness in the beginning suddenly fade away when they meet a brick wall of sense
This is the funniest thing I've read this year. You?! The "brick wall of sense"??!! "He's a briiiick house..." No seriously, you do remind me a bit of a brick. You make precious little sense, bleed emotion all over the pages and try to portray people who are smarter than you (not a tall task) as unintelligent. You deride others but cry foul when someone calls you out on your petulance.
Quote:and when asked to support their claims with facts, they call you a name and walk away.
No, they also refute your arguments, and merely ignore your repeated attempts to make them disprove your own erroneous claim. That you feel they are "walking away" may again have more to do with a natural aversion for jerks than the inadequacies you project on them.
Quote:But, I'm seeing the insults are a common theme.
Hey, they are just staying "on topic". You fill a thread with derision of "emotional" women who lack the "tools" to respond to you and they call a spade a spade and say you are retarded.
