Search results

Meh - she's a walking irrelevancy, a disappointment to everyone who believed the pap about her being the smartest woman in America (or some such inanity like that). Frankly, she's proven over the years that whatever venom dribbles from those wrinkled folds is as harmless as the projectionism...

Best, and probably the most entertaining part of the article comes at the very end:

I'm sorry for your sadness. But I'll bite - how did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Excellent post! :thumbsup:

< duplicate post >

The goalposts were moved when justification was needed for arguments in favor of abortion. Your wikipedia link is utterly irrelevant - and just as disingenuous since any appeal to "science" in this manner is tantamount to seeking appeal to something supposedly authoritative so as to avoid...

"Fetus" is no more scientifically accurate than "baby." Appealing to "science" in an attempt to come up with some sort of sterile distinction is at best, disingenuous. But to your employ of phraseology instead of terminology, neither is "murdering your baby" less scientifically accurate than...

I suppose "baby" qualifies as a "hysteric, emotional" definition to those who favor aborting them?

Well you're mixing tenses now. First you assert they "aren't going to do that" - the "aren't" referring to a future event. Then when told you don't know that (i.e. the future), you assert the above - referring to a past event. Your argument is a logical fallacy - just because one ruling...

:confused: "biological?" "Biological??" ... just.... wow.

Tomato | tomato. Whatever one chooses to call him or her, the act of aborting them does in fact kill them - and in rather hideous ways too.

Confused - is this a valid argument for terminating babies? "Difficult circumstances?" Out of curiosity, what sort of circumstance do you believe justifies not even giving a baby a chance at life? This is an ad-hominem argument - a logical fallacy. Moreover, it's utterly irrelevant to the...

Presumably they'd be prosecuted because the abortion was... illegal. (among many other objectionable things) Any threat to Roe v. Wade appears to be the real fear here - despite a rather transparently weak assertion that that could never happen. Well, Mississippi also has more s's and i's in...

Some things are quite predictable. People really should read the posts they quote a little more carefully. For instance, my [actual] words were "In other words, it's virtually impossible to know whether or not the current "spike" (spanning about 40 - 50 years) we think we're seeing in global...

"On record" = about 140 years, since the 1880's when meterological record keeping began. And let's not pretend proxy data, which is all we have to give us an idea what climate was generally like prior to the 1880's, is remotely capable of giving us anything other than, at best, average...

No argument there - but those who believe outlawing guns, especially "scary" guns, that such laws will somehow solve the problem are ignorant of both basic human nature and the extreme leftist political ideology that is actually behind the call to outlaw all guns.

:) Nice try. :scratch: This is interesting - logic employed in an attempt to dispell a popular myth (and my point) actually reinforces both. Truth being truth, it therefore bears repeating - it's not the gun, it's the human being wielding it that determines how it is - or isn't - used. So I...

Sounds classically racist to me - tenor, tone, and content practically screams the definition of the term. I wonder what he really sees each morning staring back at him in the mirror? Himself, or a person of color? :scratch:

Just... wow. :( "To Serve and Protect" my dairy-aire. Shameful. One "positive" (understand) from this is that it dispels the popular myths that "guns are dangerous" and "guns kill." These cowards prove it's not the gun, it's the human being wielding it that determines how it is - or isn't -...

1225