Abortion as Murder.

[Dr Grump]

^^^that would be called an appeal to authority^^^

instead of actually making an argument he attempt to negate by appealing to "legal minds more intelligent than you", which of course is meaningless drivel devoid of any substance.

IYO it might be 'meaningless drivel devoid of any substance'. But I can tell what it isn't - appealing to authority. As I suspected you have no idea what the term means.

Carry on....

your denial of the tactic you used and I displayed doesn't say much for your integrity.

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true. ( legal minds... have decided otherwise)
2.Source A is authoritative. (legal minds more intelligent than you<<< the source of their authority )
3.Therefore, p is true. (have decided otherwise)
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe I need to paste this again

Reading Comprehension

You really need to read further on that explanation within your link...there are two types. Neither of which are covered by you so far...

You might want to read your own comprehension link. You clearly have none...

 

[jillian]

once again

^^^an appeal to authority^^^^

do you know what that term means? on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction and discussion about decided cases? someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

He has no idea what it means...obviously...

I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....

 

[BenNatuf]

once again

^^^an appeal to authority^^^^

do you know what that term means?

yeah, and i've pretty much displayed it... do you?

on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction

how about the constituion and reading comprehension? yes the courts are the arbiters leagally and how they decide to apply the law is the law, but that does not mean they're always right, and certainly does not mean they can't be argued to be wrong, the simple fact that they are the court does not make them "right", it just makes their opinions authoritative

and discussion about decided cases?

how about the cases, the laws and how they are applied constituionally? Do you need someone else to tell you wht to think for everyhting or just what you shoulod think about the law?

someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

Why would you be so hard on yourself?

laws are written, they are in english for the most part, they have application which can be discovered in case law, they relate to specific authorities granted government in constitutions. They are generally logical (not to be confused with neccessary or even smart). Any person with good comprehensive ability and decent logical reasoning ability and a basic understanding of legal terminology can form a opinion on them and their application without needing the "advice" of a lawyer (which incidently is only as good as the lawyer) or anyone else to tell them what they "mean".

 

[BenNatuf]

the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.

what a maroon...

the little lib has no argument... what a surprize.

 

[BenNatuf]

once again

^^^an appeal to authority^^^^

do you know what that term means? on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction and discussion about decided cases? someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

He has no idea what it means...obviously...

whats obvious is that your denial has no merit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

The Unlawful Killing, With Malice Aforethought - Second Degree Murder
PC 187

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

 

[BenNatuf]

IYO it might be 'meaningless drivel devoid of any substance'. But I can tell what it isn't - appealing to authority. As I suspected you have no idea what the term means.

Carry on....

your denial of the tactic you used and I displayed doesn't say much for your integrity.

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true. ( legal minds... have decided otherwise)
2.Source A is authoritative. (legal minds more intelligent than you<<< the source of their authority )
3.Therefore, p is true. (have decided otherwise)
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe I need to paste this again

Reading Comprehension

You really need to read further on that explanation within your link...there are two types. Neither of which are covered by you so far...

You might want to read your own comprehension link. You clearly have none...

laughable. let me know when you have more than denial of the obvious. Your ignorance and dishonesty is displayed quite well. Why not just grow a pair and admit that you did inadvertantly use an appeal to authority as an argument, and because you'er to stupid to actually reccognize what you did on your own had to have someone show you?

 

[jillian]

the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.

what a maroon...

the little lib has no argument... what a surprize.

why don't you believe that you're too stupid to bother arguing with?

seriously. trust me. you are.

child, mommy needs her computer back.

 

[BenNatuf]

do you know what that term means? on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction and discussion about decided cases? someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?

He has no idea what it means...obviously...

I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....

yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

 

[jillian]

He has no idea what it means...obviously...

I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....

yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

it did nothing of the sort.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?

 

[Dr Grump]

I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....

yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

it did nothing of the sort.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?

what he's really saying is he knows as much as the justices. His argument is that "the founders wrote in plain english" and screw the lawyers for trying to say they know more than "the people".

 

[BenNatuf]

the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.

what a maroon...

the little lib has no argument... what a surprize.

why don't you believe that you're too stupid to bother arguing with?

seriously. trust me. you are.

child, mommy needs her computer back.

still got nothing huh?

 

[Dr Grump]

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

 

[jillian]

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

the little pissant keeps repeating certain buzz words because he heard someone use them.

why do you think someone like him, who clearly knows nothing, thinks he should be taken seriously?

 

[BenNatuf]

I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....

yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

it did nothing of the sort.

yes it did. It replaced the trimester system with strict viability. maybe you should actually learn what you're talking about before you type.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

evidently one of us doesn't.. and it would be you.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?

more tripe. If thats all you got, you ain't got much. grow up l'il lib.

 

[BenNatuf]

yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

it did nothing of the sort.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?

what he's really saying is he knows as much as the justices. His argument is that "the founders wrote in plain english" and screw the lawyers for trying to say they know more than "the people".

once again you prove you ahve only limited comprehension and no psychic ability at all there cleo.

The founders didn't write Roe or Casey and I seriously doubt they wrote any state statutes against murder. They also didn't write the 14th amendment, but its Ok if that confuses you.

What I'm saying is you can read the law for yourself, you can read the case law for yourself, you can read the statutes for yourself, and you can read the applicable constituional provisions for yourself. And, if you have comprehensive and reasoning ability can form your own opinion instead of having someone else tell you what it should be. Your argument of course is that lawers and judges are smart and know about these things so they must be "right". which of course is a clasic appeal to authority.

 

[Dr Grump]

it did nothing of the sort.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?

what he's really saying is he knows as much as the justices. His argument is that "the founders wrote in plain english" and screw the lawyers for trying to say they know more than "the people".

once again you prove you ahve only limited comprehension and no psychic ability at all there cleo.

The founders didn't write Roe or Casey and I seriously doubt they wrote any state statutes against murder. They also didn't write the 14th amendment, but its Ok if that confuses you.

What I'm saying is you can read the law for yourself, you can read the case law for yourself, you can read the statutes for yourself, and you can read the applicable constituional provisions for yourself. And, if you have comprehensive and reasoning ability can form your own opinion instead of having someone else tell you what it should be. Your argument of course is that lawers and judges are smart and know about these things so they must be "right". which of course is a clasic appeal to authority.

well, just to clarify, I'm talking about the judges on the USSC. Is that still appealing to authority, or do they have none..

 

[BenNatuf]

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

do you really need it displayed for you again? Most people would get it on the first try

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true. ( legal minds... have decided otherwise)
2.Source A is authoritative. (legal minds more intelligent than you<<< the source of their authority )
3.Therefore, p is true. (have decided otherwise)
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant

seriously, its pretty straight forward and fairly obvious. You are not under the mistaken opinion that an authority has to be some singular person are you?

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

I believe the implication here is that the "legal minds" must be right because they are "more intelligent than you" and therfore are infalible by comparison.

your appeal to authority is clear, its also falacious. And weak, really, really weak.

 

[BenNatuf]

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.

Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?

the little pissant keeps repeating certain buzz words because he heard someone use them.

why do you think someone like him, who clearly knows nothing, thinks he should be taken seriously?

still got nuthin huh?

 

[xsited1]

Abortion as Murder.

It'll be interesting to see how abortion changes in the future as medical science progresses to the point that a fetus could survive in, say, an incubator after just 6 weeks and grow to term.

I often wonder how many of those aborted would have become something great in our world. Of course, I'm one who believes that everyone can contribute something to our world, even those with a crippling condition like Down Syndrome.