It's certainly not conscious, in the sense that it's engaging its full functional repertoire of membranous electrochemical processes.
The fault in your logic is that you utilise this drivel to judge the issue.
I think it is very relevant.
The over-regulation of abortion is almost always justified by religious people wanting a religious state. Other times its a political/economic ideology like Communism.
Of course! This is at the crux of the problem.
You're leaving something out.
It's relevant to the conversation about whether or not that bloke is a piece of sh*t (he is). If you want to start a thread about that go nuts. This thread is about abortion and it's best if we stick to that subject.
This from a poster, who in another thread just updated us all on what you bought at Coles on the weekend. Hint: no one gives a sh*t.
This piece of sh*t, who bashes his wife is legislating on millions of women's medical options. And he punched her in the face because he didn't get sex quick enough. His wife states he loses his temper frequently.
Correct. It's a universal issue. Resorting to socio-political parochialism's only serves to derail the discussion.
Sloganeering aside, Gough is right about this. If your anti-abortion (or pro-life; whatever politically motivated terminology you want) position is based on sanctity of life principles, then there's no 'excusing' capital punishment.
This has pretty much become the norm of debates/discussion today. I believe it stems from making available platforms to each and every individual, even those really only capable of very binary absolutes and then placing equal countenance to arguments made by each and every individual regardless of their intellect or educational standards etc. It may be part of an egalitarian "ideal" but undoubtedly has implications for dissemination of information.
Yes, not necessarily mutually exclusive, but as I mentioned, if your founding principles is the sanctity of life, you'll have a hard time saying one form of killing is ok when another is not without being hypocritical. It all depends on your rationale.
Sounds like you're just looking for a reason to dismiss those who disagree with you rather than actually engaging in debate. The fact that some people who hold a particular belief are hypocrites or bad people does nothing to prove that the belief is inherently wrong.
No, I'm looking at a belief structure and pointing out where it is internally inconsistent in order to challenge it. If someone cites a principle as their authority for being for or against something, then that authority only holds any weight if it's consistent.
I guess that’s fine as long as it’s done with the understanding that you’re actually doing nothing to establish the morality of abortion, just the morality of a certain group of people who happen to be against abortion.
I might just start copy and pasting the words “ad hominem” to save myself time
And only apply it to one side. Jeepers the person that has been attacked the most is Cartwright.
Short memory..
WTF has this got to do with anything related to this discussion? Are you capable of delivering any thing above a generic soap opera level of discourse
