I propose that the legal tangle is the result of federal court creating a “right” not found in the law (constitution), and instead of letting the people and the state legislatures form the law (which is the real right here) we got law handed to us by elites who know better than the rest of us.
No one in his heart believes that abortion does not cause mental anguish, and it is downright preposterous to claim that 24 week old infants do not feel pain. We are not stupid, no matter how many phony scientists and studies say that black is white. :blush: RobSome posters have shown that they is not worthy of argument, as comments seem to be made only to antagonize. I am going to try to never respond to them on this forum. Perhaps we should let the proabortion, atheists, and agnostics argue amongst themselves. They can all have a great time praising Obama and trashing Bush. Life is too short to bang ones head against the wall for no movement in the wall.
I agree. This approach makes a strong impact as well.
Good, so then it is possible to argue that abortion has no mental health consequences for the mother while simultaneously being anti-abortion.
You haven’t challenged anything when all you do is repeat anti-abortion propaganda. Do you think I haven’t heard it before?
This is precisely the attitude taken by Ms. Coleman that caused her intellectually deficient methodology. You cannot start real scientific inquiry to prove what you already “know” to be true.No one in his heart believes that abortion does not cause mental anguish, and it is downright preposterous to claim that 24 week old infants do not feel pain. We are not stupid, no matter how many phony scientists and studies say that black is white.Rob
The implication has been made that:
Unfortunaterly you also fail to see the conection between voting for pro-abortion politicians and 1.2 million abortions a year
First, no such implication has been made unless you wish to consider the obstinate defense you have made and the implications it derives.
The logic is spot on and you make the implication in your first sentence.
Your logic is flawed.
As I said, I never said that, and I don’t have an opinion on it.
I have challenged you a couple of times and you respond with railing against me.
Asking you if you dehumanize the unborn is not the same as suspecting you of that.
Lets get this straight, you are saying that:
Such a question is not asked in a vacuum. Asking repeatedly suggests you think that my opinion about the humanity of the unborn (and by extension the morality of abortion) is relevant to the topic of health effects for the mother. So either the question is off topic and I won’t respond or you wrongly believe that the immorality of abortion is sufficient to prove negative health consequences for the mother. Alternatively you might lack confidence in your ability to critically evaluate my claims and are looking for a way to attack my credibility; you want to be able to say “well of course TTC thinks abortions are safe, he dehumanizes the unborn.”
Your contraposition logic is faulty.
great observation.
Or it could simply indicate a failure to answer the question.
As you have wisely observed, questions do not appear in a vacuum.
Well, ad hominem is a serious charge. Do you have any evidence here that anyone has attacked your character and not your argument?
No one needs a damn study to know that they (the unborn) are us. If they are meaningless blobs of cells, so are we. Psychiatrist's couches are filled with men and women who desperately wish to be convinced that even though they have willfully killed their own flesh and blood, their own sorry lives are still worth living. The answer is "yes", but as long as one remains in denial, healing will not commence. :rolleyes: RobIf you won’t want to answer the question, fine. No need to throw a rhetorical temper tantrum.