Abortion - What do you think about it?

[The Troquelet]

Also (yes, I said I would not return, but I expected you to be at least SLIGHTLY more intelligent, or at least a better reader): my last post took your feet out from under you: you have virtually no argument that abortion is WRONG besides the Bible and your own opinion and now you just have your opinion. Which, as was also proved, is meaningless in this debate. And I quote.. "I'm writing you off as irrelevant to this discussion"...

 

[The Troquelet]

Also, go look at the polls.

 

[Demetrias]

Phillippe
3 is bad. Very bad. Woman who cheat and get pregnant Needa to have the baby. Its her fault and she needs to except the consequences.

Akka.
Yes sex is a Natural Part of a Relationship. But should only be part of a Marriage relationship. If the people having sex are not ready to have a kid they should not have sex. Sex for recreation is a bad idea.

And Yes i am a Virgin and Pray every night to GOD that i stay that way until i get married.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka You fail to see that the point is not the age, it's the EXISTENCE. An UNDERDEVELOPED mind is not the same as an UNEXISTANT mind. It's obvious evidence for anyone with even a sparkle of logic and langage understanding.

No, it's just semantics, over and over again, to justify the unjustifiable. It's not as much the fact that you think it's okay to kill a baby that really bothers me, although that in and of itself is monstrous. It's the fact that you think the younger the baby is, the more moral the decision to kill it is. I don't think there is a single word that is negative enough to properly paint the vile, black, evilness of this concept in the English language. Farsi is a wonderful language for cursing, I'll bet they have something appropriate, but maybe even Farsi is inadequate to the task.

Originally posted by Akka
Or to be more on the true side : you just DON'T WANT to see it, because then you would simply have nothing left to defend your position.

Talk about pots and kettles...

Originally posted by Akka It's not because something CAN exist in the future, or even WILL exist, that is does exist NOW.

Never mind the fact that we all know that stubbon stain on the uterine lining is a baby on the way. Never mind the fact that we all know that it will be a child soon. None of that matters, because mommy wants to finish college, and daddy wants to stay in the band, or mommy hates the thought of what a child will do to her figure. It's all about US, right? F\_/ck the future, right? Has it ever occurred to you that there may be something out there that is more important than your own instant self-gratification?

Originally posted by Akka
Now, two things :
1) You just can't grasp the difference between nonexistant and underdevelopped. Well, then just accept you don't have the intelligence required to follow my reasoning, and I'll give up trying to explain.

No, I don't have the axe to grind to make me want to accept hubris in place of reality. There is a difference.

Originally posted by Akka
2) You can graps it but refuse to accept it because it would rip you of your last argument : well, then you're just insincere, but the fact you need to refuse to accept it shows you know you're wrong. So no need to discuss it over.

That's right, declare victory and retreat. Just like America after Vietnam... It's a semantic load of horseapples, and we both know it. Your whole argument is, 'Kill it quick before it becomes sentient! That way we can say it's not a person!' Well, I hate to break it to you, but there are a great many people living today who probably don't qualify as sentient. Further, you're the one who claims that sentience is required before someone is considered human. My requirements aren't that stringent. Human DNA OR the capacity for abstract thought will suffice for me.

Originally posted by Akka
Oh, and about my signature : I don't see anything ironic in it. It means that ethics and morality are always of the highest importance. It does not mean that knowledge, logic and reason has to bent over any religious fanatic that wish to impose his self-serving harmful morality over the world.

HARMFUL? Oh, MY, the hubris... Who dies in an adoption? Just stop; for one, you're embarrassing yourself, and two, I dislike fighting the unarmed in battles of wits.

Originally posted by Akka
You find it ironic because you see someone who claim that morality is over science using scientific and reasoning methods to oppose you in a moral debate.

Um, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of irony.

Originally posted by Akka
It just prove you can't even consider you're wrong, even stacked with proofs. Shows more your closed-mind than any irony in my signature.

You can't prove the truth of a lie. All you can prove is that you are capable of justifying anything in the name of self-service and convienence. You're very very angry with me because I won't pretend that the emperor's new clothes are a lovely fit. The emperor is stark naked, and I for one, am laughing at him.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Also, go look at the polls.

Since when was 'majority rules' part of morality? Additionally, as this remains a moral question, and you have demonstrated at great lengths in your last post your absolute contempt for the concept of morality, I fail to understand the reason for your continued presence in this debate.

That's right. The net effect of your last post was to negate your worth as a debater in any moral topic, ever again. That's all it did. You think that you tossed aside all the moral arguments, but all you really did was forswear morality and declare that you denied that it had any value. This marks you as amoral, and therefore disqualified from arguing a moral debate, other than to act as resident naysayer against the moral types.

Try to understand that your opinions, while doubtless of inestimable value to yourself, do not hold as much value on the common market. In fact, they hold no more or less value than my own opinions.

OTOH, while my opinions are what drive me to post here, it is with facts and reason that I debate.

Understand that I am a moral absolutist, and I understand that there are Good and Evil things in the world. It seems patently obvious that you do not share this worldview, or you would understand that murdering babies for the sake of convienence is wrong. It is only people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of right and wrong who can openly defend such atrocities as abortion with a straight face. To me, right and wrong are more than esoterical concepts for philosophers to argue the meaning of. They are concrete principles that are immutable, which silently judge the doings of the hands of every man. As long as you and I disagree on this most basic of the universal truths, there is little point in you being in a moral debate with me, because I won't even recognise your moral authority to discuss these ideas until you can accept that good and evil exist independantly of man.

Peace out I guess.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Also, go look at the polls.

Um, you do realize that the first two options are my side, and the last is effectively neutral, right? So even though majority rules doesn't affect morality, by this yardstick, I'm still winning.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Demetrias

Yes sex is a Natural Part of a Relationship. But should only be part of a Marriage relationship. If the people having sex are not ready to have a kid they should not have sex. Sex for recreation is a bad idea.

And Yes i am a Virgin and Pray every night to GOD that i stay that way until i get married.

Don't know if I have to laugh, cry, or run away in fear.

Sex is natural part of relationship. Marriage is an artificial structure which only utility is to officially recognise the fact that two people share love.
Marriage without love is meaningless. Love without marriage is possible. I can accept you support sex only when people do love each other. Supporting sex only in marriage is laughable. Marriage does not create the relationship, it's only a social convenience.

 

[Akka]

Fearlessleader, how to start...

You're just frightening. You reminds me the Crusader of the ancient time, that were so sure they were right and so full of themselve they did not even saw they were butchering innocents, and at the same time considered themselve the paragons of morality and virtue.

Well, you've still not reached the step of killing innocents, but you've surely reached the one that make you feel you're the Defender of Good and make you completely blind to anything that is not YOUR reality.

Human DNA is not sufficient to make something a human being. My arm has human DNA, it's not a human being. What makes a human being is the mind. Without mind, no human being.

You're just to stubborn in your fanatical view of religion that such a simple thing is beyond your understanding capabilities. You say existence and underdeveloppement are just "semantics to justify the injustifiable", while in fact they are perfectly valuable proofs, the only problem being that they oppose you. And as you are the Holy Defender of Good, anything that oppose you is, by definition, Evil.
Well, by placing yourself on the Good side, it's logical that anything against you is Evil. The only problem is that you would need to ask yourself if you're truly on the Good side. I'm pretty sure you'll of course consider it's the case. A true fanatic just can't imagine the fact he is not Right.

Well, you just showed me two things in your post :
First, you're just unable to reason. You're bent on your position, as false and proofless as it is. You are blind to reasonning, blind to evidence, blind to even obvious states. You just know two things : you are Right, and abortion is wrong.
Why ? How ? That's nothing important.

Second : you consider yourself as the Guardian of morality. If someone oppose you, he's Evil. You can't even grasp the concept that the person can have as high, even much higher ethic standards than your own. If he opposes you, he's Evil.

HARMFUL? Oh, MY, the hubris... Who dies in an adoption? Just stop; for one, you're embarrassing yourself, and two, I dislike fighting the unarmed in battles of wits.

As always, battling better with namecalling and sarcams than with proofs and reason. Not surprising, considering that you NEVER tried reason nor proofs.
Nobody die from an adoption. Now, the child suffer from adoption. The mother suffer from adoption. Perhaps you live in a pinky world where everybody is happy, but the fact the child has been adopted is not something he will bear lightly and happily during his life. The fact that the mother had to rely on adoption does not mean she does not love her baby (more probably she could not raise him, or she felt she was not able to give him decent enough life).



Well, all in all, and even though I bothered to answer to your last stupidity, you showed me you are a complete fanatic blind to all that is not his Holy Own Word.
I tried for days to reason with you, but you proved it's a complete waste of time. I just hope that I made a good point for other people, hopefully gifted with a more functionnal brain, and helped my point over them.

As for you, you're a lost cause. Stay in your blindness and think for as long as you want that you just owned the debate and that I just gave up to your wit.
In fact I give up, but only to your incredible ignorance.

 

[Demetrias]

The majority of sexual acts that result in abortions are acts of lust not love. The people truely don't care about each other. Other wise they could get married and not have to kill the kid. Sex for sex's sake is bad and if your in a loving relationship that will last then get married then have sex. The wait will not kill you.

P.S. IF you think these ideas are scary i recommend you start running and screaming now they just get more radical.

 

[The Troquelet]

Demetrias, where are you getting your figures from.

Fearless, where are you getting your "morality" from.

Fearless, shut up. Now. Or debate. That's another option. I suppose you think of it as a last resort...

Akka, suggest you not lower self to his level.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Demetrias
The majority of sexual acts that result in abortions are acts of lust not love. The people truely don't care about each other. Other wise they could get married and not have to kill the kid.

That's purely your own opinion about it, and it proves nothing about the reality. Besides, I don't see why it's relevant. It's not because the "majority" is like that that the "minority" has to suffer about it.

Sex for sex's sake is bad

Why ?
Not taking any position about it. Just asking you why sex for sex is bad.

and if your in a loving relationship that will last then get married then have sex. The wait will not kill you.

1) Having sex won't kill you either.

2) What if I don't want to get married ?

3) Perhaps it will shock you to learn this, but many couples break because of sexual troubles. Better to know this before than after, I say.

4) Why should I wait ?

P.S. IF you think these ideas are scary i recommend you start running and screaming now they just get more radical.

Why do you support these radical opinions ?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
1) Fearless, where are you getting your "morality" from.

2) Fearless, shut up. Now. Or debate. That's another option. I suppose you think of it as a last resort...

1) Morality doesn't need to be 'gotten' from anywhere. It is objective, that is, universal. An act that is good is always good, an act that is evil is always evil. Society does not dictate morality, society dictates mores. There is a huge difference between the two. 'Legal' and 'socially acceptable' are not viable substitutes for moral.

2) LOL. Debate what? With whom? Morality? With you? Might as well debate higher math with a frog, or the Trinity with an atheist. It would be just as productive. Debating a topic with someone that either does not understand or refuses to accept the most basic premises of is a pointless waste of time.

When are you going to pick between age and mental handicap as the discriminating factor, and try to defend it? I've explained what your position means in plain language, and you petulantly stamp your foot, toss your hair, and refuse to accept the fact that I've got you in a very tight spot. You now have to choose one of two extremely untenable positions(which your main position boils down to in simplest terms) and either defend or abandon it. Which is it going to be?
If you don't pick one and try to defend it in your next post, then I will assume that you have abandoned the sentience argument, and wait for you to choose another line of attack(or defense, if you prefer). Here, I'll give you another reason to discard this idea...

In the long-winded critique of the sentience argument, I would point out that you are demanding of an incomplete human (For what else is a human embreyo, if not a human that isn't finished yet?), all the attributes of a complete human. This is clearly a logic fallacy, as it demands of some of the parts, all the attributes of the whole. Put this way, the sentience argument fails utterly.

Are you giving it up now? I've now trashed it three ways, logic fallacy, and age or mental handicap discrimination. Shall I find another chink in this piece of armor, or are you going to discard it?

(I might also point out at this time, just to save you the effort of trying, that saying it is okay to kill the embreyo since it has the status of incomplete human, also opens the door to killing the brain damaged of any degree, amputees, people with one kidney, etc... You may wish to simply drop this line. It is now unprofitable in three directions at once.)

 

[The Troquelet]

I am not the person arguing sentience. In fact, I don't give a darn about sentience: argue that with Akka (that was quite a mistake btw Akka: sentience is irrelevant, though of course not to the holier-than-Jesuses). My only request is that, along with pro-life, you also lobby Washington to pass an amendment to turn us all into vegeterians, end the death penalty, and disband the military.

Tight spot, my a$$.

Moving on, a gap or mistake in logic IS a fallacy. Might want to look that up, Fearless.

... you have no grounds for saying abortion is immoral, besides of course the New Testament, which we have already proved irrelevant (you might want to read my post). Any other excuse (which you are just itching to type in I surmise) is just that, an excuse. So don't.

Also, please do not accuse me of being the devil incarnate. Whether that is or isn't true ( ), character arguments ARE a real fallacy. If you'd like to debate the TOPIC AT HAND, be my gracious guest. Again I repeat, I'm not exactly sure whether such a stunning proposition has yet occured to you. Every time I prove you wrong you call me an idiot or (most recently and with amazing originality) a frog. Which leads to the syllogism, that if a frog can beat you in debate... well... no need to complete THAT one.

Pointless insults aside... I personally cannot see a reason to have an abortion. After all, since science (AND religion, pointless and out-of-contex quotes being abandoned for the trash they are) have not exactly been very clear about where life begins, it is probably not only safer but surmisably less sinful to use a condom or a pill. But that DOESN'T mean that I am AGAINST abortion! OUTLAWING abortion is like illegalizing guns: the consequences are greater than the problem.


I would like to see a few more things out of you and then I think we can put this thread out of its misery:

1. YES or NO answer to the question: "Would you rather a woman gave herself an abortion, or had one done to her by a professional?"

2. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you consider yourself a woman?"

3. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you think abortions would stop if illegalized?"

4. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you consider condoms or the pill immoral?"

5. YES or NO answer to the question: "Would you support abortion if there was a forseeable chance in the near future that you might need one?" (A piece of math/probability to help you: having sex every week even with a condom will give you a child at most every 3 years, and with the pill AND condom at most every 5 years. This is supported by data collected in the field - and promptly ignored by certain moral fanatics...)

hmmmm... can you say

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ad Hominem attack: A debating term used to describe statements aimed at a participant in a debate, rather than the substance of his words.

Originally posted by Akka
Fearlessleader, how to start...

An insult designed to attack my credibility without addressing my points is always a classic.

Originally posted by Akka
You're just frightening. You reminds me the Crusader of the ancient time, that were so sure they were right and so full of themselve they did not even saw they were butchering innocents, and at the same time considered themselve the paragons of morality and virtue.

FANTASTIC!! You're a real natural...

Originally posted by Akka
Well, you've still not reached the step of killing innocents, but you've surely reached the one that make you feel you're the Defender of Good and make you completely blind to anything that is not YOUR reality.

Oooh, nice follow up. Always good to keep the pressure on in an ad hominem attack. It keeps people reacting to that, instead of to the fact that you still haven't addressed any of their points yet.

Originally posted by Akka
Human DNA is not sufficient to make something a human being. My arm has human DNA, it's not a human being. What makes a human being is the mind. Without mind, no human being.

Ahh, and now we repeat the same defeated argument, as if nothing had been said to even smudge it. Once again, I point out that the brain damaged and the comatose also meet these criteria for non-human status. Like them, an embreyo has no mind. Yet doctors and relatives have kept these people alive for years waiting for recovery, in the hopes that these, by your standards, non-human piles of meat will regain human status. Unlike them, the wait for an embreyo to display this lacking quality is not a hopeless one based solely on faith, nor a desperate chance. If it does not spontaneously abort or miscarry, a fetus will have a mind in short order. If anything, the sentience argument gives MORE right to life to a developing human than to a damaged one.

Originally posted by Akka
You're just to stubborn in your fanatical view of religion that such a simple thing is beyond your understanding capabilities.

And to disguise the fact that your argument has been defeated already, the ad hominem barrage continues.

Originally posted by Akka
You say existence and underdeveloppement are just "semantics to justify the injustifiable", while in fact they are perfectly valuable proofs, the only problem being that they oppose you.

Given the above, and the previous, how are they perfectly valuable proofs? They've been DEFEATED, THREE TIMES, with counters you have YET to address.

Originally posted by Akka
And as you are the Holy Defender of Good, anything that oppose you is, by definition, Evil.

Anyone else see a pattern here?
A) Distracting ad hominem attack
B) Insert argument that has been defeated several times.
C) Another ad hominem attack.
D) Dismiss all previous critiques of failed argument, and try to weave another ad hominem attack in with dismissal.

Originally posted by Akka
Well, by placing yourself on the Good side, it's logical that anything against you is Evil. The only problem is that you would need to ask yourself if you're truly on the Good side. I'm pretty sure you'll of course consider it's the case. A true fanatic just can't imagine the fact he is not Right.

E) Just in case anyone is still paying attention to the fact that you have nothing new to contribute, but are reheating and serving the same tired and defeated argument, toss another ad hominem attack on the pile.

Originally posted by Akka
Well, you just showed me two things in your post :
First, you're just unable to reason. You're bent on your position, as false and proofless as it is. You are blind to reasonning, blind to evidence, blind to even obvious states. You just know two things : you are Right, and abortion is wrong.
Why ? How ? That's nothing important.

Second : you consider yourself as the Guardian of morality. If someone oppose you, he's Evil. You can't even grasp the concept that the person can have as high, even much higher ethic standards than your own. If he opposes you, he's Evil.

F&G) Two more ad hominem attacks in a 1-2 combination to put the oppostion back on its heels, and serve up...

Originally posted by Akka
As always, battling better with namecalling and sarcams than with proofs and reason. Not surprising, considering that you NEVER tried reason nor proofs.

H) The self-righteous declaration that your opponent is resorting to name-calling and rhetoric, in an attempt to discredit him that way, since you can't discredit his arguments on their own merits.

Originally posted by Akka
Nobody die from an adoption. Now, the child suffer from adoption.

Yeah, as opposed to simply being dead, it is raised by parents who actually sought it out, paid a huge sum of money, jumped through all sorts of hoops, and hoped and prayed to be accepted by the adoption agency as its new parents. Yeah, adoption is a freaking horrible crime against humanity. (Uh, BTW, I'm pointing out how ludicrous this argument is with a judicious use of sarcasm.)

Originally posted by Akka
The mother suffer from adoption. Perhaps you live in a pinky world where everybody is happy, but the fact the child has been adopted is not something he will bear lightly and happily during his life. The fact that the mother had to rely on adoption does not mean she does not love her baby (more probably she could not raise him, or she felt she was not able to give him decent enough life).

I am a close friend to a woman who is adopted. Her birth mother was a horrid welfare cow squeezing out brats to inflate her check, and the state refused to pay for her, so she was given to her real parents in a private adoption. Her birth mother placed all kinds of restrictions on what the real parents could do, like naming her, so she grew up knowing she was adopted. She eventually sought out her birth mother, and found that she despised her biological family due to their upbringing, and was gladder than glad that she was adopted. Not once has she told me that she would prefer to have been aborted.

Originally posted by Akka
Well, all in all, and even though I bothered to answer to your last stupidity, you showed me you are a complete fanatic blind to all that is not his Holy Own Word.
I tried for days to reason with you, but you proved it's a complete waste of time. I just hope that I made a good point for other people, hopefully gifted with a more functionnal brain, and helped my point over them.

As for you, you're a lost cause. Stay in your blindness and think for as long as you want that you just owned the debate and that I just gave up to your wit.
In fact I give up, but only to your incredible ignorance.

Well, you slipped up in there and actually tried to make an argument, but since I've actually met adopted people before, I know more about adoption than you do.

But then you finished off in dazzling form, with:
a four round barrage,
a plea to the audience in the form of calling them as stupid as me if the didn't agree with you,
two more A-H attacks,
and then declare victory and retreat like the Americans in Vietnam.

 

[The Troquelet]

"Ad Hominem attack: A debating term used to describe statements aimed at a participant in a debate, rather than the substance of his words."

Like I always say, the first step to correcting a mistake is to admit you did it good job!

 

[The Troquelet]

Oh wait, you were talking about AKKA? Irony...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
I am not the person arguing sentience. In fact, I don't give a darn about sentience: argue that with Akka (that was quite a mistake btw Akka: sentience is irrelevant, though of course not to the holier-than-Jesuses).

My mistake. I thought you were supporting his argument, given that the two of you have nearly indistinguishable 'debating' styles.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
My only request is that, along with pro-life, you also lobby Washington to pass an amendment to turn us all into vegeterians, end the death penalty, and disband the military.

I am anti-DP (gasp!), anti-nationalism(Gasp!), and could care less about the meat industry(GASP!).

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Tight spot, my a$$.

I see no need to bring sexuality into this.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Moving on, a gap or mistake in logic IS a fallacy. Might want to look that up, Fearless.

... you have no grounds for saying abortion is immoral, besides of course the New Testament, which we have already proved irrelevant (you might want to read my post). Any other excuse (which you are just itching to type in I surmise) is just that, an excuse. So don't.

While I'll admit I've quoted the Bible in the past, it was only to support my interpretation of God's view on abortion, not as an argument against abortion itself. Would that make your statement a logic fallacy?

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Also, please do not accuse me of being the devil incarnate.

I never did. You claimed that morality was non-existant, and given that this is a moral argument, a person with your world-view has no place in such an argument.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Whether that is or isn't true ( ), character arguments ARE a real fallacy. If you'd like to debate the TOPIC AT HAND, be my gracious guest. Again I repeat, I'm not exactly sure whether such a stunning proposition has yet occured to you. Every time I prove you wrong you call me an idiot or (most recently and with amazing originality) a frog. Which leads to the syllogism, that if a frog can beat you in debate... well... no need to complete THAT one.

The frog was not intended to represent you or your intellect. The frog was intended to represent a potential debater on higher math, with the intent of pointing out that it had no place in the debate, as it could not grasp the concept of mathematics. You have denied the existence of morality, therefore you have no place in a moral argument. How this is either not clear, or an attack on you, I have no idea.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Pointless insults aside...

...since there were none to beging with, at least not by intent.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
I personally cannot see a reason to have an abortion. After all, since science (AND religion, pointless and out-of-contex quotes being abandoned for the trash they are) have not exactly been very clear about where life begins,

Well, there's that 'pointless and out-of-context' quote from Job that I supplied earlier to speak for Christian religion... but since it doesn't agree with your assertion, it must be wrong, eh? Tell me, if you won't accept quotes from the Bible as statements of Christianity's position on abortion, what will you accept? If I am going to debate this with you, I'll need to know what I can use as evidence... (Note that Christianity's position on abortion is not a moral argument, so I'll debate that with you, since it is a matter of simple scholarship, and not reflection on principles that we'd both have to subscribe to like a moral debate would be.)

Originally posted by The Troquelet
it is probably not only safer but surmisably less sinful to use a condom or a pill. But that DOESN'T mean that I am AGAINST abortion! OUTLAWING abortion is like illegalizing guns: the consequences are greater than the problem.

Since Roe vs. Wade, this country has seen a dramatic rise in abortions. Oddly enough, if you legalise it, they will do it. I consider abortions to be a dire consequence of legalised abortion. Before RvW, a few hunderd women would die in back-alley abortions every year. Now 1.3 million babies are killed instead. How is this an improvement?

Originally posted by The Troquelet
I would like to see a few more things out of you and then I think we can put this thread out of its misery:

1. YES or NO answer to the question: "Would you rather a woman gave herself an abortion, or had one done to her by a professional?"

I would rather she bore the child to term. If she was dead set on having an abortion (and I'm assuming out of selfish personal choice not to burden herself with a child, since you've left that door open) I'd rather she tried giving herself one. Hopefully the smallest consequence after the death of the baby would be permanent sterilisation of the mother. Preferably, since she has just committed murder out of sheer malice, she would die herself in the attempt. It's called poetic justice.

Or were you expecting me to dodge the question?

Originally posted by The Troquelet
2. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you consider yourself a woman?"

Irrelevant. If I am the father of a child, I have just as much right to decide its fate as its mother does, since I will be paying all the medical costs invovled.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
3. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you think abortions would stop if illegalized?"

This is not a yes or no question, unless one wishes the answer to be deliberately misleading. I believe that abortions would drastically drop in number, and that as a consequence, extra-marital sex might also decline, after a brief population boom shocked people back to their senses.
My goal in getting abortion outlawed is saving the lives of children. I am entirely uninterested in what their selfish and vain mothers have to say in the matter.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
4. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you consider condoms or the pill immoral?"

Not in and of themselves. But by reducing the consequences of sex, they act as enablers of immorality. Abortion serves the same function, on a much more ghastly level.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
5. YES or NO answer to the question: "Would you support abortion if there was a forseeable chance in the near future that you might need one?" (A piece of math/probability to help you: having sex every week even with a condom will give you a child at most every 3 years, and with the pill AND condom at most every 5 years. This is supported by data collected in the field - and promptly ignored by certain moral fanatics...)

Hell no, I'm no hypocrite. If I am the father of a child, I will do my duty by it, one way or another, to see that it gets all the chances in life that I have enjoyed.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Hey Troq: go read post 266 and get back to me.

(Smugness. I love throwing it back in people's faces!)

 

[The Troquelet]

Yeah, plenty more where that came from, right Fearless? Not to mention bigotry, ignorance, and arrogance.

(Notice that I don't START the name calling! I just take advantage of your lame insults! inexhaustible supply...)

Back to business!

"My mistake. I thought you were supporting his argument, given that the two of you have nearly indistinguishable 'debating' styles."

Ah, I see, you mean you don't read EITHER of 'em? Read our posts. There is a difference. For example, I have a basic grasp of grammar (sorry Akka, but that hurried typing really bugs me. This IS a debate after all)

"Before RvW, a few hunderd women would die in back-alley abortions every
year. Now 1.3 million babies are killed instead. How is this an improvement?"

Emotional argument, and a pretty stupid one at that. Do you have any idea how much pain those abortion deaths must entailed, not only physically for the victim but also emotionally for the relatives? Whereas a fetus can neither feel pain, at least that we've been able to substantiate, nor does it have any real-world acquaintances. Next!

"I would rather she bore the child to term. If she was dead set on having an abortion (and I'm assuming out of selfish personal choice
not to burden herself with a child, since you've left that door open) I'd rather she tried giving herself one. Hopefully the smallest
consequence after the death of the baby would be permanent sterilisation of the mother. Preferably, since she has just committed
murder out of sheer malice, she would die herself in the attempt. It's called poetic justice.

Or were you expecting me to dodge the question?"

What sort of debater do you think I am? I was expecting the typical conservative argument so that I could vilify it. However, it seems you've done a pretty good job of that yourself, Fearless... you sort of make ridicule redundant ... I think I will let your words speak for themselves... now if only we could ask Bush the question and get the same response from him, I'm sure sanity might follow...

" 3. YES or NO answer to the question: "Do you think abortions would stop if illegalized?"

...I believe that abortions would drastically
drop in number... extra-marital sex might also decline."

I'm sorry, but the only appropriate response to that opinion is unprintable. Please imagine it yourself.

By the way, drugs don't seem to be dropping out of use, do they? And this might be really redundant, but I have to remind you of the Prohibition precedent once more, which you have never given a sign of noticing...

"....I'm no hypocrite...."

We'd never have guessed. Fearless out of interest, how old are you, what state are you from, and what are you on? (OK, the last one is optional )... I am quite interested...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
*SNIP extraneous ad hominem attacks*
"Before RvW, a few hunderd women would die in back-alley abortions every year. Now 1.3 million babies are killed instead. How is this an improvement?"

Emotional argument, and a pretty stupid one at that. Do you have any idea how much pain those abortion deaths must entailed, not only physically for the victim but also emotionally for the relatives? Whereas a fetus can neither feel pain, at least that we've been able to substantiate, nor does it have any real-world acquaintances. Next! *SNIP of yet more extraneous Ad Hominem attacks*

I'm of the opinion that a woman who kills her child for no reason than the sake of her own convienence deserves whatever she gets as a result.

Additionally, the fact that a embreyo (fetuses are developed to the point where they can be seen to react violently to being sliced up in utero, someone recorded an abortion on ultrasound, and it's sickening watching the baby trying to get away) can't feel pain in no way changes the fact that it is being murdered. I can kill a sleeping person without causing them pain either, but that's just as wrong as torturing them to death. They're dead either way.

Oh, and BTW, answer the question. How is that an improvement?

Another stupid question...

What the hell does George W. Bush have to do with the legal status of abortion in the US? Last I had heard, he was the president, not a Supreme Court Justice or a legislator...

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Fearless out of interest, how old are you, what state are you from, and what are you on? (OK, the last one is optional )... I am quite interested...

32, NY, currently a chair. How is any of this even remotely interesting? Are you looking for something to base another ad hominem attack on?