‘Acceptable’ Violence Against Peaceful Pro-Lifers Is Unacceptable

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

CarsomyrPlusSix is caught in a psychosis,​

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

.




If a woman doesn't want her "health" endangered, she should avoid getting pregnant.

Not that hard to do.




.

Moreover, mere risk to health is not emergency neccessity.

If a true - and rare - emergent situation occurs where the kid is doomed no matter what you do but the mom can be saved, save mom.

If the opposite is true, though, save the kid.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

CarsomyrPlusSix is caught in a psychosis,​

You're the vile sociopath who promotes the slaughter of innocent human beings, fam.

You're the one with no respect for the lives or rights of others.

Me, I condemn sociopathic violence and want to stop it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So psychotic,.

 

[martybegan]

Should a mother's "health" be endangered by a fetus?

Should a viable fetus be killed because the mother's health, not life is at risk?

 

[konradv]

Should a viable fetus be killed because the mother's health, not life is at risk?

Doesn’t she have the right of self defense?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So psychotic,.

Learn the difference - you're the one on the right, I'm neither.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The viability of the mother always supersedes that of the fetus.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn’t she have the right of self defense?

Against her own offspring she evidently wanted for more than 6 months?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

CarsomyrPlusix is the one one the right. I am left.

 

[martybegan]

The viability of the mother always supersedes that of the fetus.

Health isn't viability.

Figures people on the left are for zero responsibility for anyone, ever.

Unless of course a person has the wrong politics, then they hang for anything.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Against her own offspring she evidently wanted for more than 6 months?

False question. If the fetal offspring is threatening her, yes, she has the right.

 

[martybegan]

False question. If the fetal offspring is threatening her, yes, she has the right.

Again, health is the standard in NY, not life.

So if she thinks she will get hives due to birthing the viable, more than 40 week fetus, she can abort it if a doctor agrees?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Again, health is the standard in NY, not life.

So if she thinks she will get hives due to birthing the viable, more than 40 week fetus, she can abort it if a doctor agrees?

Is that the law says: hives? You are being very foolish.

 

[martybegan]

Is that the law says: hives? You are being very foolish.

it says, "health" and then does nothing to define "health"

She just has to find one doctor who agrees, and she can do it without any legal consequences to her or the doctor.

Under those rules Gosnell couldn't have been prosecuted.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ai Chat has instructed:

"MartyBegan,
Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin term that means “reduction to absurdity” 12. It is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction 1. This argument form traces back to Ancient Greek philosophy and has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate 1. The equivalent formal rule is known as negation introduction 1. A related mathematical proof technique is called proof by contradiction 1.

Here are a couple of examples to help illustrate the concept:

1. The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, since the Earth is assumed to be finite in extent, we would find people falling off the edge. This example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses 1.
2. There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one. This example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a “smallest” number and yet there is a number smaller than it) 1.

The technique of reductio ad absurdum was used throughout Greek philosophy. It was employed by Greek mathematicians like Euclid of Alexandria and Archimedes of Syracuse 1. The earlier dialogues of Plato, relating the discourses of Socrates, raised the use of reductio arguments to a formal dialectical method called the Socratic method 1. Aristotle also referred t

 

[martybegan]

Ai Chat has instructed:

"MartyBegan,
Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin term that means “reduction to absurdity” 12. It is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction 1. This argument form traces back to Ancient Greek philosophy and has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate 1. The equivalent formal rule is known as negation introduction 1. A related mathematical proof technique is called proof by contradiction 1.

Here are a couple of examples to help illustrate the concept:

1. The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, since the Earth is assumed to be finite in extent, we would find people falling off the edge. This example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses 1.
2. There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one. This example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a “smallest” number and yet there is a number smaller than it) 1.

The technique of reductio ad absurdum was used throughout Greek philosophy. It was employed by Greek mathematicians like Euclid of Alexandria and Archimedes of Syracuse 1. The earlier dialogues of Plato, relating the discourses of Socrates, raised the use of reductio arguments to a formal dialectical method called the Socratic method 1. Aristotle also referred t

That you reference AI Chat shows you can't think for yourself.

It's not reducto ad absurdum because it's what could happen under the wording of the law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That you reference AI Chat shows you can't think for yourself.

It's not reducto ad absurdum because it's what could happen under the wording of the law.

It adequately describes your inability to make a case without whimsy out of the air.

You, an absurdity, are done.

 

[martybegan]

It adequately describes your inability to make a case without whimsy out of the air.

You, an absurdity, are done.

All you are doing is showing you don't want to answer my questions truthfully.

I noticed you also glossed over the Gosnell reference.

The laws are written to allow any reason for an abortion up to the second of birth, viable or non-viable, as long as a single doctor signs off on the "health", not the life of the mother being at risk. it then doesn't define health in any way shape or form.

That is the fact of this argument, one you don't want to acknowledge.

 

[Zincwarrior]

What is the argument here. I thought it was the law on its face, that violence is unacceptable because its... you know illegal.