Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Sun Wukong]

Yes, analogies are always two different things. If you're going to object to an analogy, it's not enough to say "those analogous things are not literally the same," you have to point to a meaningful dissimilarity. Now you pointed to several dissimilarities as though you thought they were meaningful, but you won't explain why. You're coming off as, simultaniously, very pedantic, and evasive.

And again, we see through you.


Oh, so you did check? And what were their findings? Cite your source please.


We misinterpreted our own argument?

>Yes, analogies are always two different things. If you're going to object to an analogy, it's not enough to say "those analogous things are not literally the same," you have to point to a meaningful dissimilarity. Now you pointed to several dissimilarities as though you thought they were meaningful, but you won't explain why. You're coming off as, simultaniously, very pedantic, and evasive.

I know anaologies are always two different things. There was no dissimilarities involved verbatim. And one cannot merely be simultaneously pedantic and evasive without having to be the parallel opposite in unison.

Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.

>And again, we see through you.

There is nothing else to see but cipher itself.

If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.

>Oh, so you did check? And what were their findings? Cite your source please.

You implied there was first. it is not my burden of proof to investigate.

Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability. And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

[Ktilqr]

Pro life or pro choice?

If the conception is due to non-consensual sexual activity (being too drunk to insist on a condom counts) or a state-approved contraceptive failure then abortion should be allowed up until the time the foetus is able to survive after birth without severe medical intervention.

If the foetus is severely defective or the mother suffers severe medical complications as a result of the pregnancy then "mother comes first". If she dies or becomes incapacitated as a result of giving birth then the chance of the child being cared for or for future healthy children is lost. This includes the mental health of the mother not just physical health.

BUT abortion is NOT a form of contraception, and should not be seen as such. Abortion should always be considered a medical intervention, and the woman must be fully informed as to what steps will be taken, what side effects she may suffer etc....

[Sun Wukong]

Really? Because your "plausible truth" is "factually untrue."

No it isn't. Sanitation and economic despair are equally cause and effect infinitely.

Except "economic despair" doesn't have anything to do with not having invented the Germ Theory of Disease yet. You shouldn't have dragged this into history. You clearly don't know anything about history.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

>Yes, analogies are always two different things. If you're going to object to an analogy, it's not enough to say "those analogous things are not literally the same," you have to point to a meaningful dissimilarity. Now you pointed to several dissimilarities as though you thought they were meaningful, but you won't explain why. You're coming off as, simultaniously, very pedantic, and evasive.

I know anaologies are always two different things. There was no dissimilarities involved verbatim. And one cannot merely be simultaneously pedantic and evasive without having to be the parallel opposite in unison.

Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.

>And again, we see through you.

There is nothing else to see but cipher itself.

If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.

>Oh, so you did check? And what were their findings? Cite your source please.

You implied there was first. it is not my burden of proof to investigate.

Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability. And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

>Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.

Firstly, they are. Human psychology examines the minute details of ideals and ideologies, and when confronted, evade.

Of course, i am not those things.

For A, you are wrong. Read back once more.

For B, you must really start mentioning the exact statement being extrapolated.

>If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.

So, you will not try to provide anything fruitful? Wonderful! Be on your own with your psychological synopsis.

>Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability.

Which they are. You cannot deny the fact that the lack of modern and/or proper supplies would lead to the death of infants that cannot receive proper treatment.

>And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

Yes, and they are all true, due to the fact that economically instable regions will have poverty, and as such, less sanitation. This did coincide with feudalism, as economic prosperity was greatly restricted during the Feudal Era.

>They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

They are all true, as stated before. The burden of proof is not on me.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

No it isn't. Sanitation and economic despair are equally cause and effect infinitely.

Except "economic despair" doesn't have anything to do with not having invented the Germ Theory of Disease yet. You shouldn't have dragged this into history. You clearly don't know anything about history.

>Except "economic despair" doesn't have anything to do with not having invented the Germ Theory of Disease yet. You shouldn't have dragged this into history. You clearly don't know anything about history.

And here you are claiming things that you cannot even align properly into a debating forum analysis. You clearly cannot piece two ideas into a logical equilibrium.

[Vestr-Norig]

I am generally negative towards abortion. That being said, I do thing it should be allowed under certain circumstances, such as rape, or where the mother's life might be in danger.

[Sun Wukong]

Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.


If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.


Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability. And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

>Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.

Firstly, they are. Human psychology examines the minute details of ideals and ideologies, and when confronted, evade.

Of course, i am not those things.

For A, you are wrong. Read back once more.

For B, you must really start mentioning the exact statement being extrapolated.

>If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.

So, you will not try to provide anything fruitful? Wonderful! Be on your own with your psychological synopsis.

>Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability.

Which they are. You cannot deny the fact that the lack of modern and/or proper supplies would lead to the death of infants that cannot receive proper treatment.

>And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

Yes, and they are all true, due to the fact that economically instable regions will have poverty, and as such, less sanitation. This did coincide with feudalism, as economic prosperity was greatly restricted during the Feudal Era.

>They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

They are all true, as stated before. The burden of proof is not on me.

Dear god man. Learn to grammar.

And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

>Pedantry and evasiveness are not mutually exclusive, and you just demonstrated again why you exemplify both when you either:
A) Felt like quibbling about diabetes not being pregnancy for no reason at all, or
B) Felt that there was a reason, but quickly changed the subject win pushed.

Firstly, they are. Human psychology examines the minute details of ideals and ideologies, and when confronted, evade.

Of course, i am not those things.

For A, you are wrong. Read back once more.

For B, you must really start mentioning the exact statement being extrapolated.

>If you're trying to convince me you don't actually have anything to say, mission accomplished.

So, you will not try to provide anything fruitful? Wonderful! Be on your own with your psychological synopsis.

>Oh, no no no. You claimed that historical infant mortality was a result of economic instability.

Which they are. You cannot deny the fact that the lack of modern and/or proper supplies would lead to the death of infants that cannot receive proper treatment.

>And you said that poor sanitation was also a result of economic instability. And that this coincided with Feudalism. Those are your claims.

Yes, and they are all true, due to the fact that economically instable regions will have poverty, and as such, less sanitation. This did coincide with feudalism, as economic prosperity was greatly restricted during the Feudal Era.

>They're all false, and the burden of proof is on you.

They are all true, as stated before. The burden of proof is not on me.

Dear god man. Learn to grammar.

And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

Is that all that you can extrapolate? Grammar that is adequately constructed?

I can see your mind processes are faltering severely.

>And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

Alas, you claimed first.

[Godular]

Dear god man. Learn to grammar.

And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

Is that all that you can extrapolate? Grammar that is adequately constructed?

I can see your mind processes are faltering severely.

>And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

Alas, you claimed first.

Who claims first is irrelevant. The individual trying to say that something is true is the one who must present evidence to support that statement.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

Is that all that you can extrapolate? Grammar that is adequately constructed?

I can see your mind processes are faltering severely.

>And yes, the burden of proof for the claims you made, is on you. You can state otherwise all you like, but it won't make it true.

Alas, you claimed first.

Who claims first is irrelevant. The individual trying to say that something is true is the one who must present evidence to support that statement.

I wasn't necessarily presuming it to be the ultimate impermeable truth, either.

[Godular]

Who claims first is irrelevant. The individual trying to say that something is true is the one who must present evidence to support that statement.

I wasn't necessarily presuming it to be the ultimate impermeable truth, either.

Then your words have no weight.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

I wasn't necessarily presuming it to be the ultimate impermeable truth, either.

Then your words have no weight.

No truth is the ultimatum. Nothing truly has any weight of relevance.

[Godular]

Then your words have no weight.

No truth is the ultimatum. Nothing truly has any weight of relevance.

So you're just barking.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

No truth is the ultimatum. Nothing truly has any weight of relevance.

So you're just barking.

Nope.

[Godular]

So you're just barking.

Nope.

Yes actually, it is exactly what you are doing. You have just stated that 'nothing has any weight', which includes your own statements. You are essentially claiming that words are meaningless, a statement defied by the fact that you are capable of stringing words together into a sentence that I can then use to club you over the head with like a rolled up newspaper.

The whole point of debate is to establish a point of commonality and understanding. You need to present evidence to support your position so that we have a reason to accept your position, not state that evidence is a triviality and continue chugging along. If you refuse to support your statements on such a basis, you have no rationale for posting in this thread, and we have no rationale for accepting your statements at all.

You're just barking.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

Nope.

Yes actually, it is exactly what you are doing. You have just stated that 'nothing has any weight', which includes your own statements. You are essentially claiming that words are meaningless, a statement defied by the fact that you are capable of stringing words together into a sentence that I can then use to club you over the head with like a rolled up newspaper.

The whole point of debate is to establish a point of commonality and understanding. You need to present evidence to support your position so that we have a reason to accept your position, not state that evidence is a triviality and continue chugging along. If you refuse to support your statements on such a basis, you have no rationale for posting in this thread, and we have no rationale for accepting your statements at all.

You're just barking.

But I'm not doing any of the above. Rarely anyone else is citing information for their won prepositions either.

So, I must assert again, nope.

[Godular]

Yes actually, it is exactly what you are doing. You have just stated that 'nothing has any weight', which includes your own statements. You are essentially claiming that words are meaningless, a statement defied by the fact that you are capable of stringing words together into a sentence that I can then use to club you over the head with like a rolled up newspaper.

The whole point of debate is to establish a point of commonality and understanding. You need to present evidence to support your position so that we have a reason to accept your position, not state that evidence is a triviality and continue chugging along. If you refuse to support your statements on such a basis, you have no rationale for posting in this thread, and we have no rationale for accepting your statements at all.

You're just barking.

But I'm not doing any of the above. Rarely anyone else is citing information for their won prepositions either.

So, I must assert again, nope.

Yes, you are doing exactly this thing.

We have already presented evidence for our positions some thirty times at least for any number of different claims. Your approach has been to claim that there is no such thing as truth, and that words have no relevance. Your own words. I am using your words as evidence of this. Even were this not the case, it is no excuse for you to simply try and toss out words and hope that one of them sticks to the wall.

If your words have no meaning, you have no reason to be posting in this or any thread.

Further posts will not be responded to. Your words have no meaning, nor have they any weight.

[Politicoandrous Anthronegative Proplex]

But I'm not doing any of the above. Rarely anyone else is citing information for their won prepositions either.

So, I must assert again, nope.

Yes, you are doing exactly this thing.

We have already presented evidence for our positions some thirty times at least for any number of different claims. Your approach has been to claim that there is no such thing as truth, and that words have no relevance. Your own words. I am using your words as evidence of this. Even were this not the case, it is no excuse for you to simply try and toss out words and hope that one of them sticks to the wall.

If your words have no meaning, you have no reason to be posting in this or any thread.

Further posts will not be responded to. Your words have no meaning.

>Yes, you are doing exactly this thing.

Nope.

>We have already presented evidence for our positions some thirty times at least for any number of different claims.

Evidence without any links or sources.

> Your approach has been to claim that there is no such thing as truth, and that words have no relevance. Your own words.

Nor does any other, if I use your logic of proof supplantism.

> I am using your words as evidence of this.

Which are...?

> Even were this not the case, it is no excuse for you to simply try and toss out words and hope that one of them sticks to the wall.

Which I am not doing.

>If your words have no meaning, you have no reason to be posting in this or any thread.

As with your logic again, also with most of these posts due to the lack of "evidence".

>Further posts will not be responded to. Your words have no meaning.

Nor does yours. Goodbye and good day.

[Luminesa]

Then your words have no weight.

No truth is the ultimatum. Nothing truly has any weight of relevance.

Relativism: The Destroyer of Arguments.
You can't argue something if there is no possibility that there is a truth.

[Sun Wukong]

No truth is the ultimatum. Nothing truly has any weight of relevance.

Relativism: The Destroyer of Arguments.
You can't argue something if there is no possibility that there is a truth.

Amazingly, you're on the same side, disagree with each other, and are both wrong.

...I feel like I should get a bingo or something.

[Godular]

I just enjoy the notion of defending one's refusal to provide evidence to one's claims by saying that nothing has meaning.

Makes one wonder how he works a keyboard.

[Luminesa]

Relativism: The Destroyer of Arguments.
You can't argue something if there is no possibility that there is a truth.

Amazingly, you're on the same side, disagree with each other, and are both wrong.

...I feel like I should get a bingo or something.

Well, he said, "No truth is the ultimatum." I said, "Relativism." What's wrong in that
Statement?

[Greater Gibraltar]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

It begins before then. Life begins at conception

[Rusozak]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

It begins before then. Life begins at conception

But it doesn't have thoughts or feel pain until later.

[Wallenburg]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

It begins before then. Life begins at conception

Even if it does, I don't quite care. Nobody has the right to violate someone's bodily sovereignty.