I don't have to counter anything. You haven't presented anything to counter, just flinging your verbal excrement against the wall. Strawman is a word you like to bring out when your back is against the wall in a debate. You very clearly agreed with the statement you disagreed with and now you are trying to make it about everything else but that. Too late Charlie....you done fucked up. I'll keep beating this drum to illustrate what a bad faith debater you are as long as you keep trying to make it about something that it never was. I never said religion has anything to do with the actual issue either....I said that religious people were the driving force behind overturning Roe v Wade and you jumped on your high horse and claimed otherwise....until a few posts later when you flat out said that religious people were indeed the majority of those leading the charge to overturn Roe v Wade.
posts 363 thru 367. go read for yourself and then come back and tell me why you didn't say what you said.
Sure. Please let me know. If you follow along, I clearly lay out that religion is a happenstance not the cause. Again, as I pointed out, you guys bring up religion to draw away from the issue. Kill babies yes? Kill babies no?
"Driving force"? Can you cite the laws that reference religion then? Otherwise, it would seem they made sound legal arguments not based on religious propaganda as they should.... That is why I mentioned its not good to use spurious correlations. For another example, one could assume that because you are a supporter of the left and their policies and that the overwhelming majority of gays are on the left, you are more susceptible to monkey pox. Though, likely irrelevant to whether or not it is good to kill babies or not. In science, I believe this is referenced as "misleading statistical evidence".
way to use google! this isn't about whether they made a sound legal argument. No one ever called it into question...I said that religious people have been the driving force behind the overturn of Roe v Wade. You've persistently argued against that except when you were arguing for it and agreeing with me. I never said anything about the law citing or referencing religion nor did I call into question whether there were sound legal arguments made, those are all inventions of your over-talking.
Nah. You are wrong. I never was pro or against your point. I said along it was irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to think they are relevant. They aren't as referenced by the legal documents not mentioning religious elements once.
Whether I did or did not is irrelevant. You could just say, "you are correct" as I was. I mean, you can google if I was right or wrong...
Ok pal well I have something better to do so I am going to leave you to it. I don't think I need to make any further point.
