Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jlogajan
But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

HELLLOOOOO, did you have any knowledge of this case before you started spewing your ad hominem attacks? The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer. The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

The rest of your post is a fallacious attack on the motivations of those who support the plaintiffs and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Merely getting personal and avoiding the substantive issues is adds nothing to this discussion. It's too bad you and your side do not seem to have anything relevant to say.

42 posted on 03/29/2002 10:08:16 AM PST by d-fens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: d-fens
The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer.

Actually, the judge ruled in favor of an abortionist passing along the assertion of the main cancer authorities in the nation that there is no known link between aboriton and breast cancer.

The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

All the available evidence, as long as you exclude the research conclusions of the leading cancer authorities and all the researchers who agree with them.

45 posted on 03/29/2002 11:40:35 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson