Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead_man
In laymans terms, it means that they did not want the docs to have to wait on another to determine if the fetus was viable. It means he didn't want the doctors punished for killing a live baby. You're reading the bill without seeing what it means to the end user.
|
No, in layman's terms, existing laws shouldn't be contradicted, which is exactly what would have happened if the legislation passed.
It was already illegal to kill a baby after it's been born, so that issue is completely moot. Obama not supporting this legislation had no effect on existing law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead_man
Yes, you're doing it with that statement right there. Ignore the fact, deflect it, or whatever and spout some common as cornbread "I took a debate/critical thinking class one time" argument type to sound intelligent and further deflect.
|
Ad hom (or ad hominem) is a logical fallacy where one addresses the person or source of an argument instead of the contents of said argument. I'll tell you what, instead of saying "Media matters is the Wikipedia of liberalism", why not demonstrate that they have a history of misstatements? I can demonstrate that Jill Stanek is likely unreliable by providing her lies, misstatements, and fundamentalism:
Feministe » “Pro-Life” leader Jill Stanek shows her racist colors again
Italian abortion mafia
My pillow-talking presidential pick
Obama's relevant interview: Lies on lies
Early warning: Here comes the `Baby Killer!' brigade | Change of Subject
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead_man
Edit a little: Why is it ad hominem for me to let you know who runs the show there, and not ad hominem to say Dr. Tim Ball (the first respected scientist to deny global warming) works for an oil company? Is it because Media Matters doesn't have an agenda, but Dr. Ball does?
|
Dr. Ball has nothing to do with this. Why didn't you call me on Jill Stanek?