Originally posted by The Troquelet
"Just can't pass up the opportunity to attack the debater instead of the position, can you?"
You haven't MADE a position!
None that you will recognize with more than an ad hominem attack at any rate.
Originally posted by The Troquelet
"So far what you have is bigotry,
*SIGH*
Originally posted by The Troquelet
the "word" of "God",
...used ONLY to support my interpretation of Christianity's position,
not used to support my arguments against abortion, a fact that you continue to deny in the face of all reason and plainly observable reality.
Originally posted by The Troquelet
and (as if that weren't enough) the arrogant assurance that you are right - that you are on the right side of the "moral" argument. With, of course, no proof.
None that anyone who denies the existence of morality will accept, at any rate.
Originally posted by The Troquelet
We (well, I) have several good arguments. Anyone with a head on his shoulders
The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy...
Originally posted by The Troquelet
knows illegalizing something never stops it - drugs, alcohol, etc.
Making it legal, OTOH, stops it dead in its tracks, right? When you legalise something, more people do it. When you legalise something that is bad, more people therefore are doing something BAD. Explain why this is a good thing...
Originally posted by The Troquelet
Therefore, if you really have an argument against abortion, wouldn't it be much more useful to pump government money into sex education (gasp!) to make people prevent conception EARLIER with condoms and the pill,
No. The answer is to teach that the only 100% effective means of birth control is ABSTINENCE, and to teach our children to exercise SELF-CONTROL. No tax money required. Perfect, simple, foolproof. No sex means no unwanted babies. Of course, that means you'd(abortion supporters as a whole, not you personally) actually have to do your duty as parents, and we all know that isn't going to happen, right?
Originally posted by The Troquelet
rather than forcing women to risk kill themselves?
Once again, for the record:
Actions have consequences.
Consequences make people re-consider those actions.
If you take away the consequences, the action no longer receives re-consideration.
The action is done far more frequently.
This is how morality decays.
Originally posted by The Troquelet
And then, if by an accident some woman accidentally becomes pregnant, she'll have an ALTERNATIVE way out with abortion if everything else fails?
Answer this question: Why is murdering the baby preferable to giving it up for adoption?
Originally posted by The Troquelet
Unless, of course, it's more moral to force women to risk killing themselves. 
You crack me up. I await with glee your repartee.
I love the way you go straight to the most emotional argument you can find, and then accuse me of the same as if when I do it it's bad.
Suppose that without recourse to legal infanticde, these women sought out the fathers of their children, married them or sued for child support, or at least pre-natal care, and then gave the child up for adoption or raised it themselves? But no, this pre-supposes that someone would willingly take responsibility for their own actions, and for some reason, such an activity seems to be anethema to your way of thinking. Since you cannot imagine such a scenario, you have to assume the worst possible outcomes instead.
I am glad that you find my championing of morality and responsibility a source of amusement. I hope that others will find it otherwise.
