Sorry for the late response.
I told you that if you apologized, and your post was not an apology, I would explain your errors to you.
An apology from me would be completely insincere because I do not believe that I have done anything that would warrant such.
I also don’t understand how you could beg me to apologize for some wrongdoing before you have even convinced me that I committed any wrongdoing.
How can you not see the faulty logic there?
You keep projecting your flaws upon others here. You know I am not the dishonest one.
Let’s start with an example from your very first post to me in this thread. In post #228, you asked me, “Since you cannot reasonably support your position how do you justify telling women what they have to do with their bodies?”
Considering that I
never once told any woman what she could or could not do with her body - You began this discussion with me by being
dishonest with your
strawman.
Then in your very next post to me (#230) you used an appeal to authority (It’s not bad if it’s illegal!) - Which is, of course, another logical fallacy.
Since we all know you have repeatedly claimed that I had employed the use of logical fallacies (without successfully explaining how) - It is clear that
you are the one projecting your flaws on me!
You know that I am not the hypocrite.
Well, I just successfully demonstrated that you are in fact a hypocrite.
You accused me of projecting and of being dishonest, when it was you who was guilty of both.
I guess that’s to be expected from someone who demands apologies before explaining why there is any need for the apology.
And of course I have quoted you. Whenever I hit the "Reply" button on your post I automatically quote you. And I never lied.
Yet, that doesn’t seem to be helping you.
If I could direct your attention to your first post to me again (#228) you “quoted” me by hitting “Reply”, but then you claimed that I had advanced an argument I never did (strawman fallacy).
You began our discussion with a lie.
You should be brighter than this. I think that you are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance due to your unjustifiable beliefs.
You wouldn’t be you without your
ad hominem attacks.
You get angry because you repeatedly utterly fail when you try to defend your beliefs.
First, you can’t prove that I have gotten angry anywhere in this thread.
There is no real need for me to defend my beliefs since I am not trying to force anyone to abide by them.
Another reason there is no need for me to defend my beliefs is the simple fact that nothing you or anyone else has shared has been able to dispute my belief
You can’t help being
dishonest, can you?
And please note, I did not say that you said that "person" and "human" were the same. Who is sloppy now? I pointed out that others used different definitions for those two terms to avoid your equivocation fallacy.
Ok.
If I never claimed that “person” and “human” meant the same thing, then where is the “equivocation fallacy” I am supposedly guilty of?
This makes no sense.
It appears that you still have no clue how you used one even though I did explain it to you the first time around.
Well, let’s see.
1.) You first erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” when I used my example of playing with my unborn children in the womb (post #249).
I had used that example as proof that they were “alive”, not that they were “human”, yet you and sojourner claimed that I had used that example to prove that they were “human”, when I never did.
So, that was another example of you being
dishonest and using a
strawman.
Even after I corrected you, you still claimed that I had employed the same “equivocation fallacy” in post #251, which is another example that you using the “Reply” button doesn’t help you at all.
If you don’t actually read what others write, then you cannot accurately respond to what they say.
I then asked you in post #269, “Claiming that a fetus is alive is not the same as claiming that it is human. So, how is this an “equivocation argument”?”
You never answered that question. You claimed that my post was too long to warrant a response, which makes no sense.
2.) The next time you erroneously accused me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” was in post #286, then you said, “You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human". “
That was what led me to contend in post #294, that the law defining what is or is not “human” has led to travesty after travesty throughout human history.
Then I explained that the law cannot logically define what is or is not “human”, because the law is subject to change, while a human being is not. Then I said,
“It is not the law, but science and logic, that proves what is or is not a human being.”
You responded to this in post #296 with -
“You would be wrong there. You are only looking at the negative results. And probably misinterpreting some of those.”
- You provided no explanation or example of how I was “wrong” or how I was “misinterpreting” anything.
- You also shared no example of a “positive result” of the law defining what is or is not “human”.
“And you are probably the last person that should be talking about science and logic.”
- Another
ad hominem attack. Then you said,
“I have seen you reject the former and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the latter.”
- A claim to some anecdotal evidence in an attempt to support your
ad hominem attack which you never presented.
3.) Your next erroneous claim that I had employed a logical fallacy was in post #306, when you responded to something I had said to another RF member, which was, “I would refer to the unborn as both a "human" and as a "person."
I explained in post #307 that my belief that an unborn child is both a “human” and a “person” was not an attempt to claim that a “human” and a “person” was the same thing”.
After all, those terms aren't mutually exclusive.
You responded to that in post # 309 with “Oh my! Some people have no clue.” - Which is pure
ad hominem.
I later went after you in post #312, pointing out your unreasonable behavior. Which you simply blew off with another ad hominem attack (calling me “rude”) in post #313.
So yeah…..
I see how you have
tried to accuse me of employing an “equivocation fallacy” multiple times, but you’ve been unable to make it stick each time.
What I have “no clue” about is why you keep trying.
But you cannot prove in any meaningful way, either scientifically or biblically that it was a "living human being".
First, I have said multiple times that an “appeal to authority” (like quoting from the Bible) is a logical fallacy and it would be ineffective and unconvincing.
Lastly, since there are no compelling arguments against the fact that an unborn child is a “living human being”, what need would I have to “prove” the obvious?
Unless, of course, you have scientific evidence that supports the idea that the unborn aren’t “living human beings”....
You have yet to properly define that term.
Well, what have I proved?
My playing with my unborn children in the womb proves that there were “alive” and any DNA test performed on the unborn child - from conception to immediately before birth - would prove that they have human DNA - separate and distinct from both the mother and the father.
Can’t argue that they are a kidney or a “growth” then, can you?
So...what haven’t I “properly defined” yet?
Also calling it a "child" make you guilty of assuming facts not in evidence. I know that it is a "child" to you. It is not so to others.
If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I used the word “child” to describe it after it’s birth.
I said, “even if "pro-lifers" really didn't care about the child after it's birth”
I’m pretty sure - at least I would hope, but who knows nowadays with all you crazy people in the world - that everyone would agree that it is completely appropriate to refer to it as a “child” after it has been born.
Or is that an “assumption” I’m making?
So you see how you began our discussion by being
dishonest with a
strawman and now here you are at the end still employing those
strawmen!
You are so dishonest it’s scary. I’m, like, sincerely afraid for you. How do you cope with reality when everything is a lie?
You do realize that even the Bible was okay with chemical abortions under certain circumstances, don't you?
Again. An appeal to the Bible is an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Ineffective and unconvincing.
Why do you keep trying to reference the Bible when you are an atheist and I never once used it as a basis for any argument?
However, you might be interested in reading post #237, where I shared my beliefs with sojourner concerning situations when the Lord may allow abortions,
“1.) If the unborn child is the product of rape,
2.) If the unborn child is the product of incest,
3.) If the unborn child poses a real threat to the life of the mother,
4.) Due to a physical malady, the unborn child would not survive child birth,”
