I accept the first clause, not the second.
Your rejection of the reality that the argument exists is irrational. We have no way to resolve it, so would you lose by default.
No, you are asserting the second clause as fact,
Read 'arguably' again. It means my second assertion is open to question.
-, that unborn human beings have no rights.
Straw man.. That's simply not true. At later stages of pregnancy the unborn child has rights, -- as Scott Peterson just found out.
-- We're done. Take the last word. Feel free to shoot down yet another position I haven't made.
Dear tpaine,
I accept that the argument exists, I just assign no validity to the argument. It is a counter-factual argument. Thus, no merit is given to it, no weight assigned to it.
You could also say, "Do you accept the fact that the earth is made out of an abundance of different sorts of materials, and that the moon arguably is made out of green cheese."
There! If you said such a thing, the argument that the moon is made out of green cheese would exist! That doesn't mean anyone is obligated to pay attention to it.
You may assert whatever you wish, that doesn't mean I have to give it any credence whatsoever.
Folks asked Abraham Lincoln, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?"
He answered, "Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
"Your rejection of the reality that the argument exists is irrational."
Actually, your making an obviously false argument is irrational. I suppose that it is you that loses by default.
As does any argument that tries to make legitimate a legal "right" to procuring the death of one's unborn child.
sitetest