- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Again, this is a definition of functionality. You're basically saying that because I can be killed, I don't have the right to life.
Keep building those strawmen. It seems to be your favorite way to win an argument, by arguing against yourself. Of course, you also lose the argument at the same time, but what the hey, if it makes you happy, who are we to complain?
Actually, I said since the broad has the right to murder babies, from conception, and according to you , it was "disovered", not created, that means all woman had this mysterious right. But all woman start out as babies (amazing, isn't it?) who presumably have this right to life thingy. But their incubator has this right to murder babies inside them thingy. The babies have it, too. So which right actually exists? One can't really have the right to life when your mother has the right to kill you, regardless of her choice to exercise it. You yourself claim that innate rights can't go away just because someon chooses not to exercise them.
So, since the incubator's right to murder babies inside her conflicts with the baby-inside-the-incubator's right to live, one of those rights cannot exist.
Since each right is equal, the only conclusion is that neither the right to kill babies and the right to live have any reality, and they're only moral concepts invented by the living.
I ain't wasting my time reading the rest of your drivel, until you acknowledge the logic presented above and either refute it or concede. If you simply restate your assertion without any attached logical argument or evidence, you're conceding.