Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
It's a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet. We don't need additional evidence. You need evidence from a credible source. There is no worthwhile discussion to have if you are drinking Kool-Aid from a propaganda outlet.
I thought you were going to link to the government's actual records as a source? What happened there? Oh, does it not support whatever fictitious claims your propaganda outlet is making?
Talk about strawman. You keep writing "babies." Disingenuous. Do these fetuses even have brain activity? Link to the official records, let's discuss things that actually happened instead of your propaganda outlet's fever dreams.
Where is it illegal to save someone's life? Texas, for one.
You are supporting a rapist and supporting the rape-y behavior of forcing women into medical slavery. You also enjoy helping child rapists abuse children by forcing them to continue victimization, like in Ohio. This is very disgusting and disturbing.
This logical falicacy is called ad hominem. You don't have any evidence that the claims are untrue or have even disputed the claims.
Now I have to provide additional evidence because you think there might be a possibility that the claims in the article may be false. How about you provide evidence that they are false.
You're just as bad with your logical fallacies as you are with science. Per the article, whose claims you have not refuted, the babies were out of the womb, do you think babies can be fetuses after they have been born?
Did you RTFA her life was not in danger. She had the risk of developing gestational diabetes, that's it. Her own doctor never claimed there was a risk to her life.
More crazy rantings from a person who is in favor of infiantcide.
You don't understand what an ad hominem is. It absolutely is relevant to the argument whether or not the source is trustworthy. You cannot use a propaganda outlet as a source and then pretend people need to address that as if it is real. If it were an ad hominem you would be able to link to real evidence.
As expected from a Kool-Aid chugger who supports medical slavery and bleeding out for women and children, supports pedophiles with raping and continued victimizing of children, and supports a rapist as a presidential candidate. You will grasp as whatever tenuous logic might support your whining.
Post-birth abortions are fictional. Donald is a liar. Donald was caught in an obvious and large lie, one of hundreds he has told. Kamala simply did not lie as blatantly. It was not "three on one," and it is pathetic to pretend that it was.
Why don't you go generate some AI images of A-list celebrities pretending they like Donald to self-soothe instead of trying to insist that everyone else believe the propaganda which fuels your fear addiction.
That's what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are dismissing the article based on the creators not the content.
More ad hominem falicies, I provided a source that shows abortionists letting babies die on a table after birth.
The unhinged ranting of a lunatic who can't provide a source for his claim.
It would be hilarious to see you as a lawyer working with a witness that has previously lied on the stand. "Your witness is not credible, they have accepted money to lie in the past." "That's an ad hominem, you cannot do that."
You are above the level of comprehension like "ad hominem is when my feelings hurt," but you still do not understand what it means. You should try to learn more about it before continuing to use it as a claim.
You did not provide a source for letting "babies" "die" on a table after "birth." You provided delusional propaganda where a liar was willing to write that based on weird definitions that nobody but you regressives agree with.
You additionally are confirmed to support child molesters harming children, rapists harming their victims, and want a rapist in the White House. Disgusting and repugnant.
At least you learned what an ad hominem fallacy is, you're a little less ignorant now. If you want to treat it like a court case you would need to provide evidence that the author has made up articles in the past, you have not.
The only source you've provided was one which ended up discrediting your claim that abortions are denied when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. You haven't provided others and instead rely on logical falicies to prove your point.
Crazy rantings of a person who enjoys babies being left to die on a cold hard table.
I did provide evidence. You know full well the Heritage Foundation is not credible.
You guys have nothing but lies on top of delusions. No babies are dying on a table. You are just a rape fan inventing fake shit to support control over women.
That's not evidence it's an accusation. Where's the proof that the article is false? Where's the proof the author made up the quotes from the Minnesota Department of health? You know full well the article is accurate.
If there are lies you should be able to find proof of those lies but you're too busy fantasizing about killing babies to provide proof.