I’m disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.
“Babies,” “left to die,” with “no care.” Kool-Aid.
Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That’s pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.
What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.
I’m disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.
You’re disputing it but provide no evidence that there are falsehoods.
“Babies,” “left to die,” with “no care.” Kool-Aid.
Just because it’s troubling for you doesn’t make it less true.
Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That’s pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.
Keeping working those straw man arguments. I have said nothing on my opnion of abortion or what I want. Leaving a baby to die is a horrible act, do you find it acceptable?
What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.
Nice try at another straw man. Where in the US are abortions illegal if the life of the mother is threatened?
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.
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.
This logical falicacy is called ad hominem. You don’t have any evidence that the claims are untrue or have even disputed the claims.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Where is it illegal to save someone’s life? Texas, for one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are dismissing the article based on the creators not the content.
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.
More ad hominem falicies, I provided a source that shows abortionists letting babies die on a table after birth.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Crazy rantings of a person who enjoys babies being left to die on a cold hard table.
Are you disputing the Minnesota Department of Health report?
Strange you seemed to miss the reports that showed some babies were left to die with no care.
I’m disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.
“Babies,” “left to die,” with “no care.” Kool-Aid.
Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That’s pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.
What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.
You’re disputing it but provide no evidence that there are falsehoods.
Just because it’s troubling for you doesn’t make it less true.
Keeping working those straw man arguments. I have said nothing on my opnion of abortion or what I want. Leaving a baby to die is a horrible act, do you find it acceptable?
Nice try at another straw man. Where in the US are abortions illegal if the life of the mother is threatened?
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.