NO, NOWHERE in that post did you prove your claim " But then I've also heard them say women are like animals and can't control themselves."" NOWHERE Your "equivalent"...isn't...your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what was said, twisted by you to "say" something they NEVER said...
Only if she kills her fetus when she doesn't have to. I didn't say I was unwilling. I just said that if we are using trying to prevent abortions as the justification for free birth control, then it would seem logical to obtain the money from those getting elective abortions.
This ultimately goes back to a different and more fundamental issue in the abortion debate. So I consider it to be taking things off-topic in this particular argument. Once again, it's an example of a pro-lifer presenting an argument, and you responding that they are wrong, over a completely different issue that they were not bringing up. It's kind of like constantly trying to change the argument.
If she feels she has to then she has to...YOU don't decide that No, that isn't logical at all.. IF we are using trying to prevent abortions as the justification for free birth control then those opposed to abortion should pay for everything....
YOUR OP, the OPENING statement was erroneous, wrong, misleading and totally inaccurate.....and YOU tried to build an argument on it ...something that WAS NEVER SAID. You cannot build an argument filled with glaring errors..like claiming a ZEF is a person or a party....or claim people said things THEY NEVER SAID... NO, NOWHERE in post #9 did you prove your claim " But then I've also heard them say women are like animals and can't control themselves."" NOWHERE Your "equivalent"...isn't...your claim is a gross misinterpretation of what was said, twisted by you to "say" something they NEVER said...
What was quoted has the same meaning as what I said, within the meaning of the point I am trying to make in the opening post. Do you care to explain how that is not true? This seems to be an entirely semantic point, since the meaning of what's in those quotes applies the same exact way to my basic argument as the meaning of what I stated when I paraphrased it. If pro-choicers said humans are animals, that's obviously equivalent to saying women are animals, in a situation where we are only considering women. I don't understand why you persist in making such an obviously semantic argument.
NO, it does not .... You claimed somone said , ""But then I've also heard them say women are like animals and can't control themselves."" ...and have NEVER proven they did.. WHY don't you post EXACT quotes if you are so certain that is what they said ??????????????????????????? LOL, NO it is not......why TF didn't you use an exact quote if what you claim is true ???? I don't understand why you are trying to create an argument out of nothing ......why you are MAKING THINGS UP just to have an argument... It is not semantics ...it's your eroneous interpretation of what was said. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM ,' SOMEONE SAYING " women are like animals and can't control themselves.""
Because those pro-choice posters were referring to women not being able to control themselves when they said that humans were animals. Obviously you have not been able to figure out why those pro-choicers said "humans are animals" in an abortion debate?
FoxHastings said: ↑ WHY don't you post EXACT quotes if you are so certain that is what they said ? WHY don't you post EXACT quotes if you are so certain that is what they said ? No, that would be YOU who can't seem to figure it out....maybe because SCIENCE has a big part? That scary "science" thing ? Humans are scientifically "animals".... It doesn't logically or sensibly or intelligently follow that that translates to ""women can't control themselves" AND NO ONE SAID THAT AS YOU CLAIM
Because pro-choicers say something to obviously imply something else all the time. I totally believe using a little paraphrasing is totally appropriate and fair game in these circumstances. If it helps convey the meaning of what was actually meant, in a more straightforward and streamlined manner. Do you deny that that is what these pro-choicers meant? Yes or no, FoxHastings? Please explain why they would call humans animals in an abortion debate if they were not specifically referring to women not being able to control themselves.
, YOU do NOT get to determine what someone else "actually meant"....they actually meant what THEY posted, NOT what YOU want it to mean. Straightforward??? There was NO "straightforward " in your TWISTED interpretation of what was said. Do the intelligent thing...ASK THEM !!! Gee, maybe if you READ my posts you'd have your answer: No, that would be YOU who can't seem to figure it out....maybe because SCIENCE has a big part? That scary "science" thing ? Humans are scientifically "animals".... It doesn't logically or sensibly or intelligently follow that that translates to ""women can't control themselves" AND NO ONE SAID THAT AS YOU CLAIM
