[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
By the way, the words ‘you say’ were taken out!
here is the original sentence - “It will warn you that you may be guilty of inconsistency when you say abortion is murder but perhaps might say killing a chimpanzee is not.”
I took out everything in (parenthesis) to clear up the sentence, helped a little.
YOU were speaking like it was ME? Am I correct? Yet how would the sentence be worded differently?
I’m trying to get you to realize the language doesn’t fit other ways.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What the hell? Are you seriously this retarded?
abortion is murder but perhaps might say killing a chimpanzeeIS NOT
Even adding on those two fucking words adds a truckload of clarity to that. Stop being such a fucking retarded dishonest little prick.[/quote]
[/quote]
I guess you are that dumb.
It will warn you that you may be guilty of inconsistency when you say abortion is murder but perhaps might say killing a chimpanzee is not (murder).
The word in brackets was omitted the first time around, but I would assume a chimpanzee would understand what I meant. Well, you are either that dumb or perhaps you are trying to distract us from the main issue here.
lets keep this simple and easy. Using medicine that is universally accepted, define the unborn.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I guess you are that dumb.
It will warn you that you may be guilty of inconsistency when you say abortion is murder but perhaps might say killing a chimpanzee is not (murder).
The word in brackets was omitted the first time around, but I would assume a chimpanzee would understand what I meant. Well, you are either that dumb or perhaps you are trying to distract us from the main issue here.
Think whatever you want, little guy from kiwi land down under.
I’m glad you are willing to challenge people’s thoughts. Yet if you are going to dig down and look for questions, you also have to look for the answers. When you get to those answers, you can NOT ignore them.
I’ll ask again, define the unborn with medicine that is universally accepted.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I guess that’s a no to English being a first language.[/quote]
The current laws in this country are incredibly hypocritical. I hope this case goes to the supreme court and the judges rule to follow the way of science and NOT an opinion.
That ass clown should have his license to practice medicine revoked. What the hell kind of Doctor goes out of his way to add additional stress to a pregnant woman who is already at risk of miscarriage?
How obvious it it that mak and eph just want attention? They refuse to defend their thinking/beliefs. I wonder if they have been right about everything, their whole lives? Should I feel honored by their presence? . . . . well, I don’t.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How obvious it it that mak and eph just want attention? They refuse to defend the way they believe. I wonder if they have they been right about everything, their whole lives? Should I feel honored by their presence? . . . . well, I don’t.[/quote]
I stopped responding to you after you proved you were incapable of speaking in comprehensible English.
If you want to proclaim women have no rights over their body, that’s fine. But don’t expect those of us with any semblance of intelligence to support you.
Do YOU realize what verbs were tied with which nouns? Obviously not.
We’ll try this. Here is your statement again with the words I’m talking about highlighted: “It will warn you that you may be guilty of inconsistency when you say abortion is murder but perhaps might say killing a chimpanzee is not.” Do you understand yet? Look at the verbs tied to the nouns - my god it is [i]NOT[/i] that fucking hard!!
Instead of being an adult you insist on acting like a young, immature child who is also close minded. Do you realize people who come up with conspiracy theories argue the same way?
One more time, I’ll repeat my self: ‘I’m glad you are willing to challenge people’s thoughts. Yet if you are going to dig down and look for questions, you also have to look for the answers. When you get to those answers, you can NOT ignore them.’
When you would like to grow up and have an ADULT conversation, I would be more than happy to continue this debate.
Please define the unborn using science that is universally accepted.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I stopped responding to you after you proved you were incapable of speaking in comprehensible English.
If you want to proclaim women have no rights over their body, that’s fine. But don’t expect those of us with any semblance of intelligence to support you.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please define the unborn using science that is universally accepted.[/quote]
[quote]Moron also wrote:
I’ll ask again, define the unborn with medicine that is universally accepted.[/quote]
There is no universal acceptance, because morons like you decide you know best without running tests and analyzing the data.
I’m not interested in arguing with someone who has minimal hold on English and decides to call me closed minded when let’s face it - nothing will ever change your mind. If you give me rational scientific evidence instead of “Oh won’t someone please think of the children!” then we’ll talk (and if it is actually rational evidence I’ll probably change my mind). Try not to pick your sources from obviously religious websites either, I’m not going to bother clicking on those (obviously biased) links.
Fuck me, I think I’m starting to understand what Gould and Dawkins meant when it comes to debating with loonies like you.
No universally accepted method? Is science not accepted by everyone in the universe?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
. . . . decides to call me closed minded when let’s face it - nothing will ever change your mind. [/quote]
You prove to me that the unborn are NOT alive, I will concede this debate and help you change everyone’s mind. As a side note, I will never edit the previous statement, EVER.
Where did I post any religious website, let alone even related to this discussion? And “probably” doesn’t mean much. Either you will or you won’t. Disagree?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If you give me rational scientific evidence . . . . then we’ll talk (and if it is actually rational evidence I’ll probably change my mind). Try not to pick your sources from obviously religious websites either, I’m not going to bother clicking on those (obviously biased) links . . . . [/quote]
My original question still stands unanswered, please define:
the unborn -
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please define the unborn using science that is universally accepted.
I’ll ask again, define the unborn with medicine that is universally accepted.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
There is no universal acceptance, because morons like you decide you know best without running tests and analyzing the data.
[/quote]
Makavali, if you’re so reasonable and rational, why don’t you try answering his question instead of engaging in tantrums, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks?
Surely if your position is based in evidence you’d have no problem presenting it.
hahaha, I was reading the article that eph posted, but KJ beat me to calling you out mak. Just an fyi, I will be in Patagonia for the next ~10 days so I won’t be able to respond, yet I know others will defend the position.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…slowly but surely, state by state:
Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
[/quote]
Real women have babies, not jobs.[/quote]
Too bad that’s not what the bill says. The bill criminalizes actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor’s care
Gee, how unreasonable of them. [/quote]
…true, true. I believe this bill was introduced after a case where a young woman payed a guy 150 bucks to punch her in the stomach when she was 7 months pregnant. The bill states: miscarriages that are considered to have resulted from “intentional, knowing, or reckless behavior”. In the case of the stupid young woman it is clear, but who decides what’s reckless behaviour? A bill like this is just the beginning…
