Iteration

Let's stack on this and ask "what evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?"

@Nationalist I don't care what the constitution mentions, just because something is currently legal does not mean it ought be the case. What is he argument that an unborn should not have rights, but the born should?

@TreeBeard Chance #3 to answer the question: You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them.If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no? If you do not answer the question after this, you will be ignored, you dishonest, weaselly coward.

@TreeBeard Chance #2 to answer the question: You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them.If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

@TreeBeard I will give you three chances to answer the question. If you continue to run away you will subsequently be ignored as I will conclude you are a dishonest coward. Chance #1 to answer the question: You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them.If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

@TreeBeard I will just repeat the question. You will not dodge it. You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them.If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

@TreeBeard Stop. Do not dodge the question. You know you are in a corner and you are embarrassing yourself. Answer the question. You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them.If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

@TreeBeard No, you will NOT dodge the question. You don't get to run away just because you are in a corner. You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them. If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no? Stop dodging the question.

@TreeBeard No, no, you will not dodge the question. Yes the question is a hypothetical, and this does not matter so long as the situation is logically possible, because it is an extension of your own argument. If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

No, no, now you are trying to alter the situation I proposed. You stated that "yes," a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them. Let's try to repeat the question and maybe you wont run away this time. If a woman were to randomly transport your mom into her body for fun, should she be allowed to kill her, yes or no?

@TreeBeard No, no, you know you are in a corner now, and you are trying to dodge the question. Let's see if we can repeat it. If I transported your mom into my body, should I be allowed to kill her: yes or no?

Lol, wait, no way. So if a woman were to transport a random person into her body for fun, she should still be able to kill them for any reason, even if it was Joe Biden or your mom?

Okay, so since you have granted an unborn should have rights, should a woman be allowed to place someone who has rights into her body, and kill them? This is a yes/no?

On abortion, I would argue that we should simply ban it, with extremely rare exceptions.

If there is any pro choicer than has an argument for abortion, please give me the argument, preferably in a syllogism (premises and a conclusion). As a general note, if you act dishonestly (for example, contradict yourself and deny the contradiction/refuse to concede) you will be ignored subsequently.

Okay, so another ramble. Got it.

Any further comment will be ignored until there is a reconciliation of the contradiction in your view, or a direct concession of the argument as a whole.

Anyway, given that you have agreed you have contradicted yourself (after previously denying it) and you are refusing to reconcile this contradiction, I think it is easy to conclude you are okay with holding an incoherent position. This is precisely the goal of this thread.

Oh so it was a contradiction? This would be a second logical contradiction, because you have now stated that it both IS and IS NOT a contradiction.

Lol, I can't. ? If you are genuinely taking the position that the statement "these people have no rights and it is not the case that they have no rights," is not a logical contradiction, you know absolutely nothing about basic logic. This is the reason the pro choice position is silly. They do not understand fundamental logic, and they run into contradictions in which they don't even know that they have contradicted themselves.

@Jedi_Master_Tallyn Is the statement: "these people have no rights and it is not the case that they have no rights," a logical contradiction. Yes or no?

@Jedi_Master_Tallyn Okay, now that will be your first logical contradiction. If they had no rights, they would not have protection from this so the contradiction is "these people have no rights and it is not the case that they have no rights." Do you acknowledge that this is a contradiction on your view, yes or no?

@Jedi_Master_Tallyn Okay, so a mentally disabled human or a young child who is not able to act rationally to such a degree, they would have no rights under your view? Yes or no, should someone be allowed to rape/stab to death these people?

Okay, so by rights as someone who is familiar with basic English, I mean legal and ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. Now, the question is, if you do not believe that unborn child has rights, what is the standard that determines whether or not someone should have rights?

@Jedi_Master_Tallyn I will give you three attempts to answer the question. After such, you will be ignored. This will be attempt number 1 You just stated that children do not/should not have any rights. If this is the case, do you then believe that someone should be allowed to stab a child to death, or even rape or eat them without punishment or consequence? Yes or no?