Roe vs Wade benefits everybody

[Caroljeen]

In your opinion.

1. "Fact"?[QUOTE\]
Do you not consider killing an unborn child morally wrong?

2. If abortion is murder as you define it... so what?
Seriously - what are the consequences of this? The pregnant woman doesn't go to jail, the abortion provider doesn't go to jail... what?

The woman will likely go through a depression. The cheapening of human life. The response of a just God to mass murder of unborn children that he gave life to will affect everyone.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Not all laws are good. Just because it is the law does not make it right.

Nobody has ever suggested that because abortion is legal, because it is not murder, it is right. That is a strawman of pro-lifers. They dishonestly claim that abortion is murder and when we point out that it is not murder, they claim "Oh, so that makes it fine, then?" It's dishonest, misleading and typical.

 

[DaGeo]

Pointing out others' errors is never inane.


Nope. It's true and obviously so.

Sorry if you don't like what words mean. Take it up with the dictionary. Don't blame me - I'm not the one being dishonest. That would be the people calling abortion 'murder'.

I like the dictionary. I just disapprove of equivocators who accept sadistic dismemberment of a living human as if ethical only because it’s “legal”

 

[DaGeo]

Nobody has ever suggested that because abortion is legal, because it is not murder, it is right. That is a strawman of pro-lifers. They dishonestly claim that abortion is murder and when we point out that it is not murder, they claim "Oh, so that makes it fine, then?" It's dishonest, misleading and typical.

Totally incoherent and irrational posting
Where’s the “strawman”
It’s the deadliest of dishonesties to claim that the sadistic dismemberment and murder of a living human being isn’t murder

 

[Temujin]

You may as well complete your circle of ignorance.

Wasn’t it you who thought Darwin invented evolution?
AND Then, you didn’t know what a transitional form was until I induced you to look it up.

But even then, you thought a transitional form was merely an “organism” but couldn’t objectify its place of significance in the fossil record. As a devotee of evolution, you should be minimally aware of the fundamentals of what you believe.

Now you’re exhibiting what appears to be sociopathic behavior. Not me saying, this is classic psychotic behavior. This type of behavior occurs when a person accuses others of doing things the person is guilty of.

Case in point, your last post. You’re falsely accusing me of saying or doing what you have said or done in your posts. You seem to do this as if deflecting negative attention from yourself

Anyone can gleam evidence from your posts and re-exhibit them by copy and paste. Your posts more than adequately verify your established ignorance regarding what you believe about evolution but about abortion as well.
Would you like me to copy and paste them for you? Perhaps even you are unaware of what you sound like. Think of it this way, perhaps your posts will help you see yourself as others see you

Cut and paste away. You haven't posted a true word yet, so using the words of others might improve your record.

It is true that I have a very different understanding of evolution, its mechanisms and terminology than you do, but that doesn't mean that you are right, or that I am wrong. As the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, I doubt you will grasp this, but that's not my problem.

 

[Temujin]

Totally incoherent and irrational posting
Where’s the “strawman”
It’s the deadliest of dishonesties to claim that the sadistic dismemberment and murder of a living human being isn’t murder

On the contrary. It is dishonest to claim what is untrue. It is untrue that abortion is murder, now or ever. It is also untrue to suggest that pointing out the obvious truth that abortion is not murder, is a moral judgement. Morality is personal and subjective. An individual judgement based on feelings. That abortion is not murder is an objective fact.

 

[Temujin]

I like the dictionary. I just disapprove of equivocators who accept sadistic dismemberment of a living human as if ethical only because it’s “legal”

I don't recall anyone saying that abortion is ethical because it is legal. In fact, as has been stated, the reverse is true. It is legal because most people consider it ethical. Now you are not "most people", for which we can all be thankful, so your dissenting minority opinion is noted.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I like the dictionary. I just disapprove of equivocators who accept sadistic dismemberment of a living human as if ethical only because it’s “legal”

Cite a single person - just one will do - who has said, on this thread, that abortion is ethical/moral because it is legal.

You won't be able to, of course, because that's a strawman of pro-lifers. And you won't admit it, because that's another pro-lifer trick.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Totally incoherent and irrational posting

Yet you were able to respond to it and pick out salient points.

Where’s the “strawman”

The strawman is that pro-lifers say that because abortion is legal, it is ethical. You yourself used the same strawman in your previous post.

It’s the deadliest of dishonesties to claim that the sadistic dismemberment and murder of a living human being isn’t murder

It is simply and obviously correct to state that where it is legal, abortion is not and cannot be murder.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Ok, where do we start, you believe in evolution but don’t know what a translational form is????

This is just dishonest and typical of creationists. Nothing he said indicates that he doesn't know what a transitional form is - in fact he correctly goes into it in a later post.

He asked what you meant by transitional form because he, like everyone else who has tried to discuss the issue with creationists, know that none of them understand the terms associated with evolution and frequently misuse them. Since, as he correctly said later, all species are transitional forms, he asked what you meant by the term so that he doesn't waste time pointing at species about whom you will wrongly say "That's not a transitional form!"

It's not surprising that rather than civilly and reasonably answer his question, you went on an amusing little insult spree caused by your Dunning-Kruger-related lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[Magdalena]

I don't recall anyone saying that abortion is ethical because it is legal. In fact, as has been stated, the reverse is true. It is legal because most people consider it ethical. Now you are not "most people", for which we can all be thankful, so your dissenting minority opinion is noted.

Apparently it’s not the minority opinion. We voted down Pelosi’s barbaric abortion up until the moment of birth bill.

 

[Magdalena]

We are helping all people, but particularly young people, to understand the world we live in for what it is, rather than the imaginary one of woke they are being indoctrinated in

We’re teaching people to be responsible for their own actions, and respectful of life.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Apparently it’s not the minority opinion. We voted down Pelosi’s barbaric abortion up until the moment of birth bill.

No, it is indeed a minority opinion. Repeated polls show that the majority thinks Roe vs Wade should remain, and that every woman should have the right to abortion.

We’re teaching people to be responsible for their own actions, and respectful of life.

No, you're not. You might be trying to do so, but you're not.

 

[DaGeo]

On the contrary. It is dishonest to claim what is untrue. It is untrue that abortion is murder, now or ever. It is also untrue to suggest that pointing out the obvious truth that abortion is not murder, is a moral judgement. Morality is personal and subjective. An individual judgement based on feelings. That abortion is not murder is an objective fact.

Once again, you won’t address the fact that you support abortion even though abortion sadistically dismembers and legally murders a living human being.

Rather odd, your only recourse is to inadvertently invoke the Nazi murder law, yes, it still exists and yes some people here want to keep murder legal. Some cringeworthy abortion supporters even want to extend their right to kill upon those already born

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP

 

[Temujin]

Apparently it’s not the minority opinion. We voted down Pelosi’s barbaric abortion up until the moment of birth bill.

Oh, on that we can agree. Abortion after 20-24 weeks should be exceptionally rare, in my view. That's an important observation to make. There is a very wide range of opinion from abortion should be legal up until birth to IUDs are murder weapons. Most people are in the middle. Legal early abortion is a very common, mainstream view regarded as morally acceptable by a majority.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Otherwise it's forced birth in a country with the highest maternal mortality rate, no paid maternity leave, no universal, subsidized childcare, no continued birth parent care, and frequently inaccessible mental health care.

Youre a marxist. Right?

 

[Temujin]

Once again, you won’t address the fact that you support abortion even though abortion sadistically dismembers and legally murders a living human being.

You cannot have read much of what I have written on the subject, and probably understood even less. Your sentence here is nonsense, complete with a redundant and highly defamatory adjective, an inaccurate and misleading description of abortion procedure and an oxymoron. Nevertheless I fully accept that abortion destroys a human being, an unborn, developing member of the human species. What I don't accept that this destruction is in all cases, or indeed very many cases at all, morally inferior to the alternative of forcing a pregnant woman to carry that unborn developing human being to term.

Rather odd, your only recourse is to inadvertently invoke the Nazi murder law, yes, it still exists and yes some people here want to keep murder legal. Some cringeworthy abortion supporters even want to extend their right to kill upon those already born

Actually, given your record here, I simply don't believe you that some abortion supporters advocate infanticide. As for the Nazis, no, I rest my definition of murder on English Common law, the foundation of law both in my country and yours. The definition of murder is: unlawful killing of a person in being, in the King's (Queen's) peace, with malice a forethought. Abortion fails to meet this definition on two, arguably three points.

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP

You are making this stuff up all the time.

 

[DaGeo]

This is just dishonest and typical of creationists. Nothing he said indicates that he doesn't know what a transitional form is - in fact he correctly goes into it in a later post.

He asked what you meant by transitional form because he, like everyone else who has tried to discuss the issue with creationists, know that none of them understand the terms associated with evolution and frequently misuse them. Since, as he correctly said later, all species are transitional forms, he asked what you meant by the term so that he doesn't waste time pointing at species about whom you will wrongly say "That's not a transitional form!"

It's not surprising that rather than civilly and reasonably answer his question, you went on an amusing little insult spree caused by your Dunning-Kruger-related lack of knowledge on the subject.

Thank you for agreeing with me that he needs your “help” explaining himself better.

Your ad hominem attacks on me really don’t count as evidence, but if that’s all you got—have at it

Trouble is, you “helping” is just a case of the blind leading the blind.

Since you know so much about “transitional forms”, why don’t you put one on display rather offer your unscientific opinion in lieu of one. “All species” are not scientifically verified kinds of the type of “transitional forms” that prove evolution took place.

Evolutionists who insist that life originated from a single organism have yet to discover ANY scientifically verifiable transitional forms as proof.

But you must know what science doesn’t, so put it on exhibit

 

[DaGeo]

You cannot have read much of what I have written on the subject, and probably understood even less. Your sentence here is nonsense, complete with a redundant and highly defamatory adjective, an inaccurate and misleading description of abortion procedure and an oxymoron. Nevertheless I fully accept that abortion destroys a human being, an unborn, developing member of the human species. What I don't accept that this destruction is in all cases, or indeed very many cases at all, morally inferior to the alternative of forcing a pregnant woman to carry that unborn developing human being to term.



Actually, given your record here, I simply don't believe you that some abortion supporters advocate infanticide. As for the Nazis, no, I rest my definition of murder on English Common law, the foundation of law both in my country and yours. The definition of murder is: unlawful killing of a person in being, in the King's (Queen's) peace, with malice a forethought. Abortion fails to meet this definition on two, arguably three points.
You are making this stuff up all the time.

Your denials are getting more lengthy but less relevant. Can you explain this comical dichotomy.

I have a suggestion, why don’t you confer with “electric skeptic” before posting ????

 

[Temujin]

Thank you for agreeing with me that he needs your “help” explaining himself better.

Your ad hominem attacks on me really don’t count as evidence, but if that’s all you got—have at it

Trouble is, you “helping” is just a case of the blind leading the blind.

Since you know so much about “transitional forms”, why don’t you put one on display rather offer your unscientific opinion in lieu of one. “All species” are not scientifically verified kinds of the type of “transitional forms” that prove evolution took place.

Evolutionists who insist that life originated from a single organism have yet to discover ANY scientifically verifiable transitional forms as proof.

But you must know what science doesn’t, so put it on exhibit

Again, what do YOU consider to be a "scientifically verifiable transitional form"?What definition are YOU using for this term? Until you answer this, your question is meaningless, and therefore unanswerable. I suspect that you are not answering because doing so would reveal that you know very little about evolution and that you are vaguely aware of that. Quit the bluster and be specific. What precisely is it that you want us to show you, and why do you think it is relevant to the facts of evolution?