XnForums

There is a considerable difference between abortion and torture not the least of which is, that if the foetus is aborted prior to the brain being 'hooked in' to the foetal nervous system, it has no way of feeling pain whereas an adult human can. Moreover while there may be a number of good reasons in support of any abortion there can be no good reason to support torture.

I understand that you are a criminal lawyer (yipee), and you can (will) correct me if I'm
wrong. The prosecution has to turn over all the evidence that it has against a defendant
to the defense. But, the defense has no such obligation. Your job is to get your client
off the hook, or at least, get a lower sentence. If you found evidence that would convict
your client if the prosecution knew about it, would you give that evidence to the prosecution?
Of course not! That not your job. Your job is to get him off.

Now, if you know of someone who can rebut this article, please produce one.
Otherwise, I conclude that you, as a defense attorney, don't care who is right or wrong, as long as you win your case.

Have a good day..

clean'.

Ohhhh….good question! Let’s see if I can come up with someone. Who?…..….who? ….hmm ….*snaps fingers* I got just the fellow!



It’s you! You—Clean Sword! You have claimed to be the person who knows how to counter this article.

Unless…naw…you wouldn’t have been…gee, this seems kinda harsh…LYING in the first comment, now could you have been?

Rare we see such a 180-degree turn in just two comments. First you claim to know the arguments countering the article, and then you seem to think no one has the arguments countering the article.

Out of mild curiosity—do you think anyone here takes you seriously? Do you care?

Oh, and yes I am a lawyer. I am extremely amused when Christians discover that fact and conclude they are unable to convince me to their position merely because I am an attorney.

They claim to have God on their side. GOD!! The Big Kahoona! The one they claim created atoms and time and space and gravity and physics and language and conscience and thought and mass and material and forces and galaxies and spider webs and cells and…the most amazing things. Yet cannot convince a lawyer.

Why is your God afraid of lawyers? Why do Christians act as if this is a contest between humans and only humans?

No, I didn't make the claim that no one had an argument, countering the claim.
I suggested that you counter the argument.
I didn't say that I couldn't counter the article. The question is...Why should I? I posted
the article that I agree with.


Let's play a little game, shall we?

I post an article. You read it, and disagree with it.
Why don't we just see if this will work...You say, "I've read the article, and I disagree with it, and these are the reasons why."
Now, that not too hard to understand, is it?

Now, you say that you have one, but all I've been reading is legal mumbo jumbo.
I say again, if you have an argument, countering the article, produce it.

Now, to be honest, I did say "anyone". I should have added, "other than me".

Now in the real world where people communicate in real language. I could ask someone,
"Do you know someone with a car that I can use for today?"
My friend knows that I have a car, and common sense tells him that I mean someone
other than my self. Did you get that part?..."Common Sense!" Maybe not..

clean'










clean'

Take a breath...I mentioned in my post that your were a lawyer simply to make a point that
you were familiar with.
You could be a Supreme Court Judge, and it wouldn't matter to me.

Is God afraid of lawyers?...I'll have to ask Him..I know Him personally.

clean'

Clean Sword,

I have done the bit of you posting a statement and my responding to it. It became apparent you were unable to rationally conceptualize the arguments against your position. You couldn’t understand what the other person was saying, let alone adequately address. All you could do is repeat the talking points you found convincing in the hopes they would be convincing to others.

Quite, quite boring. Here I tried a slightly different approach to see if you could even articulate the other side’s position. I fear you cannot.

And I should leave it at that.

However, you raise a valid point that these are forums, where discussions are to be had, and the general idea is the posting of a statement for others to respond. While I always hope for a deeper, more esoteric discussion, I should at least do the mundane. Here is a response to the article:

The article fails to make a convincing point, because it is comparing apples to oranges. Torture is not the same as Abortion. Because they are not the same, it becomes lost in attempting to compare the two, and confuses its own analogy.

Like saying, “President Barak likes apples, but dislikes oranges, and therefore is inconsistence since they are both fruit.” In order for the article to work as an argument, it must find the common denominator between abortion and torture. (Like one common denominator between “apples” and “oranges” is the fact they are fruit.)

The common denominator Turek attempts to utilize is that “scalding, dismembering or beheading” is both torture and occurs in abortion. But then Turek undercuts his own argument by claiming protection must start at conception. Does the morning-after pill “scald”? Does it dismember? Does it behead? Turek must (to be consistent) be against the morning-after pill, yet it does none of these things!

This is why the comparison starts to break down.

Secondly, torture laws provide legal rights to certain individuals. Rights not afforded to all fetuses. While Turek may want to argue such rights should be afforded to fetuses, he merely presumes it for the purposes of this article, thus begging the questions. He presumes rights in an article meant to argue for rights.

Amusingly, Turek panders to his conservative audience, thus hopelessly bobbling the analogy. For an inexplicable reason, conservatives don’t find waterboarding to be torture. Curiously, they are perfectly acceptable with it. Turek (knowing his intended audience very, VERY well) plays right into this by starting off with how waterboarding is not that big of a deal.

Humorously, he undercuts his own argument by stating:



Uh…why was it done? Because other countries would use it to torture you! The SERE training he refers implies waterboarding was torture! Be that as it may, he seems to be saying this torture is not that big a deal.

O.K. If torture is not a big deal and abortion is like torture….then abortion (to stay consistent in the analogy) is not a big deal, either. Turek attempts to correct this by claiming other things (NOT waterboarding—oh, my no) would rise to the level of torture, which is comparable to abortion, but then one wonders why bring up waterboarding at all?

Look, the article would have been so much stronger if Turek had not tried to make any comparison, except on the broadest level, between torture and abortion. Something like:

“President Obama recently spoke against the use of torture. This is a good thing, and moves our nation in the correct direction. However, there is another tragedy occurring we need to address, and that is abortion.

“I disagree with President Obama’s stance on abortion, and here are the reasons why…”

See how that is stronger? Less rhetoric? This attempt to portray “inconsistency” only convinces those already convinced.

First, I thank you for countering the argument after several posts. You did make a good
argument. (Even though you could care less about my opinion)

Now, it is true that early term abortion is not torture. The baby feels no pain.. Just painless
murder....

However, late term abortion is torture, especially, partial birth abortion, which Obama is
not against.

Do unborn babies have rights? If not, then at what point do they obtain those rights?
A fully developed baby in the womb of his mother has no rights. Yet, a few seconds later.
when he/she is delivered, the baby has all the rights as you and I.

So, I guess our rights are determined by our location. (inside the womb or outside the womb).

In that case, I hope that I am in the right place when someone decides what my rights are.

clean'