Abortion 201

[Angel]

You seem confused on why this article defeats your claims
First you posted the link to defend your claims that the morality of abortion is settled, the article prves you wrong. More importantly the article shows that philosophically speaking there is no correct answer to any of these questions.
Your moral argument has already been refusted as it is just your personal opinion, nothign more

First of all I posted the article for the edification of my fellow members, not to support any claim I made.
Second, the article proves nothing.
Third, you're back on the silent treatment.

 

[Angel]

Your own shortcoming of such led you to post a source that proved you wrong :lol:

This post is as silly and clueless as that other guy's. Read better and think more.

 

[Lursa]

First of all I posted the article for the edification of my fellow members, not to support any claim I made.
Second, the article proves nothing.
Third, you're back on the silent treatment.

It clearly proves that your argument that "the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life" is a universally moral constant, that it is self-evident....both of which have been your claims. You claimed that that is morally objective and your source clearly showed that it is not.

Your argument is now invalidated. I suggest moving on.

 

[Angel]

It clearly proves that your argument that "the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life" is a universally moral constant, that it is self-evident....both of which have been your claims. You claimed that that is morally objective and your source clearly showed that it is not.

Your argument is now invalidated. I suggest moving on.

It proves no such thing; stop these silly quaglike posts. Read better and think more.

 

[year2late]

It clearly proves that your argument that "the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life" is a universally moral constant, that it is self-evident....both of which have been your claims. You claimed that that is morally objective and your source clearly showed that it is not.

Your argument is now invalidated. I suggest moving on.

I expect the next thread will be "Abortion 301- The objectivity of my moral argument and why others must consider my moral argument their objective view"

 

[minnie616]

It clearly proves that your argument that "the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life" is a universally moral constant, that it is self-evident....both of which have been your claims. You claimed that that is morally objective and your source clearly showed that it is not.

Your argument is now invalidated. I suggest moving on.

This deserves to be repeated.

 

[minnie616]

It clearly proves that your argument that "the unborn are morally entitled to a right to life" is a universally moral constant, that it is self-evident....both of which have been your claims. You claimed that that is morally objective and your source clearly showed that it is not.

Your argument is now invalidated. I suggest moving on.

I expect the next thread will be "Abortion 301- The objectivity of my moral argument and why others must consider my moral argument their objective view"

Too funny !

Unfortunately I would not put it past him to make an Abortion 301 thread.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It proves no such thing; stop these silly quaglike posts. Read better and think more.

And then, at that very moment, all the irony in the entire universe and all known dimensions exploded.

 

[Angel]

I expect the next thread will be "Abortion 301- The objectivity of my moral argument and why others must consider my moral argument their objective view"

No, the next thread will continue the work of its forerunners in removing the talking-point argument. Without your talking points, you champions of abortion are embarrassingly at a loss for cogent posts. Thus, you follow Quag in any port in a storm meta-posting about the failure of a moral argument you are incapable of engaging.

 

[Quag]

First of all I posted the article for the edification of my fellow members, not to support any claim I made.

Right you posted an article that disproves your claims because you wanted to enlighten others :roll:

Second, the article proves nothing.

It proves that the morality of abortion is not settled

Third, you're back on the silent treatment.

Running away wotn make your failure go away

 

[Quag]

No, the next thread will continue the work of its forerunners in removing the talking-point argument. Without your talking points, you champions of abortion are embarrassingly at a loss for cogent posts. Thus, you follow Quag in any port in a storm meta-posting about the failure of a moral argument you are incapable of engaging.

101 failed because you made your "argument" out of a bunch of your personal opinions which meant the conclusion of your "argument" was nothing more than your personal opinion

 

[Lursa]

It proves no such thing; stop these silly quaglike posts. Read better and think more.

I posted the text from your source...color coded...it clearly stated the opposite of your argument. And I see you cannot even use that text and refute it to reinforce your own argument....all you wrote was basically 'nah huh!' So it is you that needs to be more adept at comprehension...or honest that you failed.

 

[minnie616]

.....

I posted the text from your source...color coded...it clearly stated the opposite of your argument. And I see you cannot even use that text and refute it to reinforce your own argument....all you wrote was basically 'nah huh!' So it is you that needs to be more adept at comprehension...or honest that you failed.

Well said.

 

[Angel]

I posted the text from your source...color coded...it clearly stated the opposite of your argument. And I see you cannot even use that text and refute it to reinforce your own argument....all you wrote was basically 'nah huh!' So it is you that needs to be more adept at comprehension...or honest that you failed.

Quag's posts are rubbing off on you. This business of his, and now yours, of pulling a line or passage in an entry canvassing a field and offering various views -- this business of his, and now yours, of crowing endlessly of self-refutation is silliness supreme. Since he, and apparently you too, have nothing else to offer, and if this sort of mischief floats your boat and satisfies your urge to post and your need to feel like you're engaging in discussion, then by all means carry on.

 

[Angel]

Right you posted an article that disproves your claims because you wanted to enlighten others :roll:

It proves that the morality of abortion is not settled

Running away wotn make your failure go away

Read better. Think more. Quit the querulousness.

Or your posts will continue to be a form of self-abuse, as we used to say.

 

[Quag]

Read better. Think more. Quit the querulousness.

Or your posts will continue to be a form of self-abuse, as we used to say.

lol
I do think you should read better then you wouldnt post links that go against what you are claiming, or better ye5t you would stop making false claims.
Now back to the actual problem with all of this.
Morality is subjective and your "arguement" is just your personal opinion
101 failed because of this and thus 201 cannot do anything other than fail as it is base don 101

 

[Quag]

Quag's posts are rubbing off on you. This business of his, and now yours, of pulling a line or passage in an entry canvassing a field and offering various views -- this business of his, and now yours, of crowing endlessly of self-refutation is silliness supreme. Since he, and apparently you too, have nothing else to offer, and if this sort of mischief floats your boat and satisfies your urge to post and your need to feel like you're engaging in discussion, then by all means carry on.

Angel, Lursa was the one who first replied to your use of the link, not I. You refused to adress what she pointed out. Then Minnie brought it back up and you still refused to engage. It was only after I ,as the 3rd person to point it out did you reply and you missded the mark completely

 

[Lursa]

Quag's posts are rubbing off on you. This business of his, and now yours, of pulling a line or passage in an entry canvassing a field and offering various views -- this business of his, and now yours, of crowing endlessly of self-refutation is silliness supreme. Since he, and apparently you too, have nothing else to offer, and if this sort of mischief floats your boat and satisfies your urge to post and your need to feel like you're engaging in discussion, then by all means carry on.

Are you saying that the various *stated* moral and philosophical views in the source that you provided *that disagreed with your position* are not valid?

If so, please post them (I bolded and color coded them for you) and refute them to defend your argument.

 

[Angel]

Are you saying that the various *stated* moral and philosophical views in the source that you provided *that disagreed with your position* are not valid?

If so, please post them (I bolded and color coded them for you) and refute them to defend your argument.

I'm saying these various views are reported in the piece of journalism; as such, they are neither valid nor invalid. The holders of those views presumably have reasons and arguments to offer to support their views. A piece of journalism about their views doesn't support or refute anything.

 

[Quag]

I'm saying these various views are reported in the piece of journalism; as such, they are neither valid nor invalid. The holders of those views presumably have reasons and arguments to offer to support their views. A piece of journalism about their views doesn't support or refute anything.

Your views are nothing but your opinions and as such dont prove anything ever

You need to learn the difference between your opinion and fact

 

[Angel]

Your views are nothing but your opinions and as such dont prove anything ever

You need to learn the difference between your opinion and fact

And your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such prove nothing ever, about my views particularly.

You need to find someone else to harass.

 

[Quag]

And your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such prove nothing ever, about my views particularly.

You need to find someone else to harass.

Im not harassing you Im actually trying to educate you ad make you realize yoru personal opinions are not facts they are just opinions.
So far it has proved in vain but I am patient

 

[Angel]

Im not harassing you Im actually trying to educate you ad make you realize yoru personal opinions are not facts they are just opinions.
So far it has proved in vain but I am patient

Did you not read the longer sentence?

"And your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such proves nothing ever, about my views particularly."

 

[Quag]

Did you not read the longer sentence?

"And your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such proves nothing ever, about my views particularly."

I did but your erroneous views dont change reality. You cannot prove your opinions to be anything other than opinions.

 

[Angel]

I did but your erroneous views dont change reality. You cannot prove your opinions to be anything other than opinions.

Ditto your views and opinions then. You're hoist by your own petard.

"Your view, that my views are nothing but my opinions, is nothing but your opinion and as such proves nothing ever, about my views particularly."