How would you feel?

[Josheb]

Do you have the right to live inside somebody's house without their permission?

Another false equivalence.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Another false equivalence.

Yes, or no - do you have the right to live inside somebody else's body without their permission?

(I know you're terrified of where this is headed - I wouldn't answer either, if I were you...)

 

[BMS]

Yes, or no - do you have the right to live inside somebody else's body without their permission?

(I know you're terrified of where this is headed - I wouldn't answer either, if I were you...)

Its the human reproductive process. You are objecting to.. that is not a rational response.
If the woman does feel like that then they shouldnt get pregnant because that is giving permission

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, or no - do you have the right to live inside somebody else's body without their permission?

When the person living in someone else's body is there because that very same person put them there, then they have every right to live there rent free until they're ready to leave.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, or no - do you have the right to live inside somebody else's body without their permission?

(I know you're terrified of where this is headed - I wouldn't answer either, if I were you...)

The only response appropriate for fallacies is to note them as such and ignore them. I know, in your mind, you think you have a cogent point but you do not. Your question is based upon a false equivalence and as such it is fallacious, and I will not entertain it because it is fallacious. I am not terrified of people who argue fallaciously, or their fallacious arguments.

You argue fallaciously a lot. The posts in this thread are rife with it. If you self-examined your own posts with a list of the basic fallacies in hand I have confidence you'll self-change your own argument.

 

[Eightcrackers]

The only response appropriate for fallacies is to note them as such and ignore them. I know, in your mind, you think you have a cogent point but you do not. Your question is based upon a false equivalence and as such it is fallacious, and I will not entertain it because it is fallacious. I am not terrified of people who argue fallaciously, or their fallacious arguments.

You argue fallaciously a lot. The posts in this thread are rife with it. If you self-examined your own posts with a list of the basic fallacies in hand I have confidence you'll self-change your own argument.

The answer that you refuse to give is

"no - a person does not have the right to live inside another person."

Which illustrates the hypocrisy of demanding that this right be granted to the unborn.

 

[Josheb]

The answer that you refuse to give is

"no - a person does not have the right to live inside another person."

Which illustrates the hypocrisy of demanding that this right be granted to the unborn.

No, what it demonstrates is a lack of reason in your argument, a lack you have yet to see. And, btw, you moved the goal posts: the original question was about living in someone's house uninvited. Your posts are filled with fallacy and the only response they require is to note them as such and move one. If and when I read something rational and relevant I'll respond in kind.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, what it demonstrates is a lack of reason in your argument, a lack you have yet to see. And, btw, you moved the goal posts: the original question was about living in someone's house uninvited.

Indeed.
To which I am sure you would also reply "no".

Why, then, do you not grant others the right to live in someone's house uninvited, but (seek to) grant the unborn the right to live inside someone's body uninvited?

Opposition to abortion is not about equalizing the rights of the unborn; it's about granting them extra rights.

 

[BMS]

The answer that you refuse to give is

"no - a person does not have the right to live inside another person."

Which illustrates the hypocrisy of demanding that this right be granted to the unborn.

Its how human reproduxtion works .. nothing we can do to help you come to terms with the world around you

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Let me know when you can stay on topic because this op is not about Exodus 20:13. I have not asserted the verse as a measure of the topic and you should not have assumed otherwise. Besides, proof-texting a single verse is always a fail, both exegetically and logically.

It wasn't me who brought it up. Don't jump on others for continuing a discussion that they didn't start.

Or, to be fair, jump on yourself, because you've continued that conversation.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

No, what it demonstrates is a lack of reason in your argument, a lack you have yet to see. And, btw, you moved the goal posts: the original question was about living in someone's house uninvited. Your posts are filled with fallacy and the only response they require is to note them as such and move one. If and when I read something rational and relevant I'll respond in kind.

If his posts are "filled with fallacy", then why do you never point those fallacies out? You just claim that they are filled with fallacy and avoid addressing them.

 

[BMS]

If his posts are "filled with fallacy", then why do you never point those fallacies out? You just claim that they are filled with fallacy and avoid addressing them.

not at all, its like someone complaining that evolution is unjust.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

not at all, its like someone complaining that evolution is unjust.

I have no idea what you think your statement means or has to do with what I said.

 

[BMS]

I have no idea what you think your statement means or has to do with what I said.

That is probably because, as you told us, you have different meanings to words than other people.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That is probably because, as you told us, you have different meanings to words than other people.

Not interested in your childish games.

 

[shnarkle]

The answer that you refuse to give is

"no - a person does not have the right to live inside another person."

False. Not only do they have the right to live inside another person, but anyone who evicts them as a matter of exercising rights which they clearly do not have is nothing less than pure evil.

Which illustrates the hypocrisy of demanding that this right be granted to the unborn.

It illustrates an incoherent and contradictory thesis. Those who are placed in this position within the other person are not there of their own volition, but the person who is supplying their body for them to live in has placed them there. They need to learn to live with the consequences of their actions. They need to take responsibility for their behavior.

 

[shnarkle]

Why, then, do you not grant others the right to live in someone's house uninvited, but (seek to) grant the unborn the right to live inside someone's body uninvited?

False equivalency. They are being invited to live in someone's house. The unborn is also being invited to live in someone's body.

Opposition to abortion is not about equalizing the rights of the unborn;

Actually that's exactly what it's about.

it's about granting them extra rights.

Anyone else who is invited to live, gets the right to live, therefore the unborn are not being given extra rights at all, but the same rights anyone who is placed into someone else's body, house etc. without their consent or volition. They have every right to remain there for the full term of their contract.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, or no - do you have the right to live inside somebody else's body without their permission?

(I know you're terrified of where this is headed - I wouldn't answer either, if I were you...)

It's quite an admission to project cowardice onto others.

 

[Eightcrackers]

False. Not only do they have the right to live inside another person

Not where abortion is legal, they don't.

Those who are placed in this position within the other person are not there of their own volition, but the person who is supplying their body for them to live in has placed them there.

An unwanted pregnancy is not at the volition of the pregnant woman.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

False. Not only do they have the right to live inside another person, but anyone who evicts them as a matter of exercising rights which they clearly do not have is nothing less than pure evil.

Wait...we have a right to live inside another person? Seriously?