I admire you taking on an unpopular position and can respect an opposing position when the debate is kept honest and respectful. In your case, you have failed to make a case and the cheap insults, moving the goalpost, and dishonesty only exposes your frustration. No one else in this thread is buying it either. A for effort.
Now you are just projecting. Help can be found here. https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection I have never insulted you nor moved the goal posts nor been dishonest. You making these false claims is both dishonest and disingenuous. Your appeal to the ignorant raging masses fallacy does not change the fact you want the State to uphold the rule of law and respect individual liberty when it comes to women but throw these principles in trash can when it comes to men. You are correct that this kind of hypocrisy is common among regular folks. The religious right engages in the same kind of behavior when they parade around calling for religious freedom but, then when it comes to reproductive freedom it is all - "God says this so and so I am justified in forcing my religious belief on others through physical violence - but I can't use this theocratic argument so I will make up nonsensical and fallacious justifications such as- its killing a life - its killing human life you murderous evil woman - and cling to those despite all logic and reason to the contrary". This is the same as what you are doing. Equally nonsensical arguments in order to justify violation of individual liberty on the basis of your personal belief.
You are correct. You never insulted me. Your attempts to insult me failed like your attempts to justify your weak position that was lost long before you started. In bold is another cheap shot, dishonest claim, and moving the goalpost. Predictable.
I did not attempt to insult you. That you want the State to uphold the rule of law and respect for individual liberty with respect to women but these principles into the trashcan with respect to men is a statement of fact. It is not my fault that you are insulted by your own beliefs. If you don't like what you see in the mirror - perhaps you should change your perspective rather than blame those who explain to you that your position contradicts itself and thus is hypocritical. If you are insulted by someone pointing out that you are engaging in the same kind of hypocrisy as the religious the Religious Right with respect to abortion - perhaps you should change your behavior rather than shoot the messenger.
I agree that one must suspend belief in biological science - as well as logic and reason- to claim that a single human cell (the zygote) is on par with a living human. Many that make this claim do not even believe it themselves. They prey on the ignorance and religious belief of the general public with misleading language and other nonsense for political purposes.
Nope!!!!!! Your insistence on focusing on a development stage nobody aborts is a clear indication you have nothing on topic to support your position. Oh and then there’s this.: https://www.biznews.com/thought-lea...how-science-now-supports-the-existence-of-god
This isn't science. This guy wants to concoct long odds out of factors we don't understand. That's not science. That doesn't involve an hypothesis that can be falsified. I'm fine with people believing in the supernatural. But, the claim here is that it is science. Let's remember that pretty much ever significant question about Earth and our universe started out with no answer other than "god did it". All other explanations sounded ridiculously unlikely or as apostasy. As we progress, the number of things requiring holy intervention has shrunk significantly. We still don't know the possible ways for life to form. We still don't know the size of our universe. We still don't know much about exoplanets. There are lots of things we don't know. Multiplying all the long odds tells us about man's progress in answering these questions. Suggesting that it indicates that God was required? Wow! This guy is REALLY full of himself.
Nonsense. I'm saying the proposed methodology isn't how science works. And, I'm saying his statistical approach has to make significant assumptions about factors that we don't understand. At one time we thought there was no water to speak of in our solar system. So, we guessed that water is rare, making life on some other planet or moon less likely. Then, we found there is water all over the place in our solar system. There is even water on Mercury - the hottest planet we have. And, we found that our planets have had periods where they were more Earth like in other ways, too. Even in our own solar system, there could be life that is long since gone or is at some early stage. We do not know. How many of the other assumptions of long odds are really no more than us not understanding life and the resources in our universe? So, it isn't science and it isn't a valid non-science approach, either. Intelligent Design is no more than deciding something looks hard (in part because that's what they wanted to find in the first place) and thus God must have done it.
You are the one babbling nonsense. Anti aborts claim that a zygote is a living human - you also made this claim. Just because you have no ability to back up this claim is no reason to get testy and try to move the goal posts. Just because you have yet to figure out why this status of the zygote is important to the debate - does not mean that others share your lack of understanding.
. Just because you have yet to figure out why this status of the zygote is important to the debate - does not mean that others share your lack of understanding. You were the one that was making the claim that a zygote is living human - Just because you have no ability to back up this claim is no reason to get testy and try to move the goal posts.
This gets the strange post award. Since an abortion does not produce a child - paying "child support" makes no sense. The second bit if strangeness is claiming "manslaughter" when you have not shown that a human exists.
I understand your frustration. Repeating the same false statements don't help you. You are very passionate about letting the man off the hook for his own actions. If only you picked a battle worthy of that effort.
What false statements ? It is a fact that you want the State to punish one person for the actions of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy. The main falsehood is your claim that the man is somehow responsible for the unilateral actions of the woman. Repetition of this silliness will not make it any less false You need to stop projecting and get a valid argument.
If you were confident in your position, you wouldn't resort to cheat shots, moving the goal post, and making false statements. (Already exposed on previous posts.) Would you like to have an honest discussion? First, is it ever acceptable to let children live like feral cats?
You want the State to punish one person for the unilateral actions of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy. That is a fact not falsehood, it is not moving the goalposts, and it is not a cheap shot. Blaming some person for a kid living like feral cats -who was not responsible for the decision to bring that child into the world - is just another way of restating your desire to punish one person for the unilateral actions of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy.
No it is not. Notice how I have the ability to answer your silly question - one that has little relevance to the issue being discussed - yet you continually avoid the fact that you want to blame one person for the actions of another with respect an unintended pregnancy. You can save the "well who will pay for that child" comment you have next because that is already answered in the previous post
Great. We agree on the most important issue. Next, is it reasonable for able-bodied parents with steady income to receive government assistance with childcare related expenses?
