It is God that gave us technology. Before technology, God gave us more wars and plagues to make life possible (for the survivors). Now that we did away with all that, God is giving us abortion.
Your denial doesn't change the truth. People can read for themselves that your assertions regarding fetal homicide laws are laughable.
Not so much, but you are right, people will read and understand the laws for what they are. You are the only one here who has to misrepresent them.
Taking them for the literal meaning of what they say is not misrepresenting, claiming they say things they clearrly do not say is misrepresenting, which is what you routinely do.
What bothers me is that people often have different opinions on the three human death topics - abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Some will be for one but oppose the others. To me, they're all related to the value of human life. I firmly believe that we need to have a national discussion about these three issues, and either legalize them all, or abolish them all. Either human life - all human life - has an intrinsic meaning and value, or else it doesn't. Me personally - I support all three. I believe that abortion is a necessary evil, I believe that I have the right to end my life when I feel it's no longer worth living, and I believe that a jury of my peers has the legal right to sentence me to death should I deserve it. Whether or not human life is special is an age-old philosophical question - one that will debated long after we're all gone. I just hate the hypocrisy of people deciding that some life is worth saving, while others aren't.
To MegadethFan: SELF-PRESERVATION. Not general propagating the race preservation, but precise self-preservation. To say life is not special is to give the ruling class the authority and the justification to kill any group labeled undesirable. I fear for myself and my descendants. Who can guarantee we will not end up in a group targeted for extermination? For that matter, how can you be so sure you will not be a target? Also, your position takes socialisms governing philosophy You Must Rather Than You Must Not to its logical conclusion. It begins with you must purchase whatever the government tells you to purchase; it ends with you must kill. Lifers, as you call them, say You must not kill. Anti-lifers, as I call them, say You must kill. If not take part in the slaughter, then not object to the killing. Permission to kill is always the first step. A scapegoat is the only thing required. Note that most Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc., did not take part in the mass murders done by their governments, but they all gave their governments permission. Finally, mass murder under any name is totalitarian government unmasked.
No, what you are doing is omitting part of the law so you can misrepresent a single specific instance as a general meaning. It is false and dishonest more so because you well know the truth.
You know that is a lie. I post the link and quote the part applicable to my assertion. There is no misrepresentation at all.
what part is not true? and you do it to appear that what is applicable for a single purpose is meant as a broad statement. You know this well, yet you still do it. Of course there is and in your usual honest way you keep repeating it.
really? Only the lies YOU post are true, we get that. That is not the issue. The issue is what you represent those laws to mean. Because I show your fallacies? You have not refuted a single post I made.
You need to grow up junior. It is not my fault that you cannot understand the obvious discrepancy between Roe and them. Everyone else here seems to be able to see it just fine. Now that is just freakin hilarious.
Being a condescending prick does not mask ineptitude and fallacies. Yet oddly enough you are the only one making the assertion. To you, it is not surprising.
The proof is in YOUR posts. You are the one who resorts to condescending remarks when intelligent arguments elude you.
Well you are the supreme insulter on the board, so there ya go. Intelligence does tend to elude you most of the time.
Well yes, I can see how or why having stupidity pointed out can be offensive to some. Unlike you I still try to better myself all the time and sometimes like all others I too fail. Still the little intellect that I do have has been sufficient to unmask the lack of the same in many of your posts or to be able to point out when you purposely lie or evade the inconvenient truth, nor have you been able to refute what I posted. Sure you claim you do, but like most of the stuff you post it is just empty and unsupported assertion. Moreover it has been also enough not to have to resort to condescending like you do when intelligent reasoning evades you.
Your D-baggery doesn't mask your ignorance of this issue. . You resort to condescending insults at the drop of a hat. You are the supreme liar! You are very unlike me, but not in any of these ways.
It amazes me that you can throw out a condescending insult such as: and then only a few posts later claim: and in the same sentence accuse someone of condescending insults .. and then call them "The supreme liar" with no evidence to back up your claim. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?
Oh you are acting all butt hurt because the inadequacy of your posts is shown all the time. I am sorry if that is a cause of unpleasant feelings for you, as that is not the intent, only to unmask the emptiness of your ill informed rhetoric.