From now on all abortion discussions go on in this thread because the other thread has turned into a stagnated conservative vs liberal ego masturbation thread. Continue posting there if you are interested in that kind of thing, if you want to discuss the facts post here.
>>98
I understand that you write about 15 paragraphs a day on this abortion issue, but you don't have to answer those questions if you wish to admit you enjoy the comfort of believing in whatever you want to believe.
""Though I would expect the woman to know they were pregnant when they stopped having periods.." A lot of women are doing their best to prevent abortions, but pills wreak havoc on their hormonal and emotional balance, so I think it is fair that men carry latex all the time."
I agree. I should remind you that because you have made one correct point it does not mean other points I have made which may be completely unrelated are wrong. If for instance I said 37+16 = 43 and 1+1=2 and you pointed out that 37+16 = 53, it does not mean 1+1=/=2. I believe everyone makes mistakes and that when mistakes crop up the worst thing you can do is not realise you have made a mistake, an idea you should pick up.
My argument is very simple, don't kill anything that is sentient. From what science can tell us sentience first becomes probable when the brain of a fetus becomes active which is at a minimum of 20 weeks. If you have an argument as to why this should be increased or you views of the intricacies of this argument I want to hear it. I'll be nice and give you a kick-start. Because the brain of a 20 week old fetus is much smaller than a baby's brain, it is worth waiting for a week after the pregnancy becomes obvious to the mother, so that she has a chance to abort if she was unaware of being pregnant before-hand.
I do not care whether you think I am a fundamentalist christian or some kind of fundamentalist closet-christian or how much bigotry you can fit into one sentence when discussing fetus' and babies as this does not relate to the discussion or invalidate any of my arguments. Only a logical counter-proof will invalidate my arguments. My ethics system is utilitarian in nature, it revolves around sentient beings and the good and evil they commit and experience. My ethics gives me reason to oppose the sufferring a sentient being is experiencing, or will experience, that I can do something to stop. You have no rational argument against my use of the concept of "evil". Killing a fetus that can survive outside the womb is as evil as killing a baby.
"Plus I want to make people like you angry; there is no way in heaven my words are going to change you for the better, I might as well hurt you. Being pro-abortion means that foetuses get turned into soup and I have to stand for that. You avoid all moral implications of your stance, argumenting completely without subjection to causation, civilization's responsibility and gender differences."
Anger does strange things to the mind. You are angry enough to by-pass logic in your desperation to alleviate your frustration. As long as wonderful people like me keep on reminding you how wrong you are, eventually you will learn that you are better off siding with the truth instead of with the extremists. I am not angry with you, I am aware that there a billions of people like you in the world, to be angry at you would be like getting angry that I will eventually die.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/027a.php
Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.
Laird Wilcox must be a fundamentalist then, he used the word "evil". I guess anyone who disagrees with you must be a fundamentalist. Oh and before you claim it is extreme of me to claim you are an extremist, don't whine about it, prove me wrong by no longer getting angry during rational debate.
I will continue to ask rational simple questions and produce clear cut arguments, it is up to you whether you start being rational or trip over yourself in an attempt to dismiss legitimate questions and deny reality.