1. You won't accept counter argument.
2. Your mythology has already proven to be intolerable to the majority of people and to the law.
I see.
I invite you and @weaver2 to look at this from the perspective of a conservative man.
I come into a thread titled "Most conservative males keep reposting nonsense they know is not true about abortion." on a political debate forum. The OP contains a short diatribe, asking why "conservative males, when talking about abortion, continue to post stuff that simply isn't true, quote known liars, perpetrate old wives nonsense about women and refuse to believe any of the legal, scientific facts or studies about women and abortion".
It goes on to state that "the topic of abortion to causes intelligent males to become mental and moral midgets".
Hence in the span of a few sentences, I (and millions more like me) have been called a liar, a willful ignoramus, and a mental and moral midget. The OP offers no specific examples. The initial replies to the thread, well-'liked' by left-leaning forum members, add insults to my religion (claiming, e.g. I "choose to remain willfully ignorant so that [
I] need not ever confront the weakness of [my] beliefs"), and insults to my person (calling me, e.g. a "mouth foamer" and a "retarded dishonest extremist").
The first list of alleged conservative lies is provided by @Lursa. It comprises 6 items. A second list is later added by @weaver2, which adds 9 items not on @Lursa's list. Of these 9, two ("abortions cause breast cancer" and "a fetus has the same legal standing as a living human being (sic)"[SUP]*[/SUP]) I've never seen anyone make, three are clearly moral judgments ("Women should just carry an unwanted unplanned pregnancy to term then give away the baby.", "A fetus is a human being.", "Women have no right to stop a life"), and two are religious arguments ("The Bible says abortion is wrong." and "Women [...] need to be guided by [husbands, clergymen, etc.]") that I've defended in religious discussions and don't care to debate in a more general thread. This leaves 2 items to add to the original 6, making 8 total.
I address these 8 items briefly. One "lie" (Lursa/1) is demonstrably true (i.e. not a lie). Two (Lursa/2 and Lursa/6) hinge on definitions, and are demonstrably true when the contested terms ("convenience" and "post-birth abortion") are disambiguated. One (Lursa/3) is a moral judgment. One (Lursa/4) is true save for a stipulation of "screaming" I've never seen argued. One (Lursa/5) hinges on the word "most"; that is, it's true of "many" but not true of "most". Finally, two (weaver/1 and weaver/13) partition reality: one of the two must always be true, and when one is true, the other must be false. (@weaver2 has since clarified that her grievance is when conservatives regard both statements as simultaneously true, "sometimes in the same sentence", which I've never seen.)
I receive three responses to my address. One by yourself, wherein you don't rebut my arguments but instead call them "insane and lunatic rantings", insisting "No one says abortion regret isn't real," which counters an argument I haven't made. One by @weaver2, that's thoughtful and that I respond to in #300. And one by @AGENTJ that provides no rebuttal but declares I'm "proving the OP 100% right and doubling down on lies and ignorance", sandwiched between "LMAO" and a popcorn-eating smiley.
When I solicit rebuttals, I'm told I "won't accept (sic) counter argument (sic).", which is likely correct but hardly the point on a debate forum. Also, that "[My] mythology (sic) has already proven to be intolerable to the majority of people and to the law.", a textbook appeal to the majority and well-known logical fallacy.
Put yourself in my shoes. What would you conclude about this thread? Would you conclude that your (that is, my) beliefs are unsound, immoral, and based on "stuff that simply isn't true"? Or would you conclude that this thread was created for the purpose of reviling and traducing you (and those of similar beliefs), with no intention of stimulating meaningful debate, and that this is precisely what it's accomplished?
[SUP]* I have seen the argument that a fetus ought to have the same legal standing as a child outside the womb, but this a very different argument and a moral judgment to boot[/SUP]
opcorn2:
