Abortion

*deep breath*

Okay i've been out doing fun stuff so naturally its an absolute joy to come back to read all this before bed-time.

First off, JennyBean Trigger etc etc resorting to calling the_myth_leader 'gay', 'a mysogynist', and claiming his gf is actually a man is a) potentially insulting/hurtful and b) does little to enhance your argument.
Do you not find it odd that the people with the most cogent arguments, who support their views with logic are those who don't see abortion as completely a matter of the woman's choice?

*deep breath*

Okay i've been out doing fun stuff so naturally its an absolute joy to come back to read all this before bed-time.

First off, JennyBean Trigger etc etc resorting to calling the_myth_leader 'gay', 'a mysogynist', and claiming his gf is actually a man is a) potentially insulting/hurtful and b) does little to enhance your argument.
Do you not find it odd that the people with the most cogent arguments, who support their views with logic are those who don't see abortion as completely a matter of the woman's choice? Whilst these people may not be extremely pro-life, they still believe that the unborn child has some rights and termination decisions are not to be taken lightly. On the other hand, the propagators of the idea that it is always a woman's choice are generally ineloquent and inarticulate, and have trouble constructing a rational argument. Does this correlation not suggest that perhaps people who believe it should always be the woman's choice have difficulty in employing logic in debate? I propose that it does. Many of you allow your emotions to govern your argument, and don't present reasoned arguments. This obviously leads to frustration.

I accept that there is ground for giving the woman a degree of choice in the decision, but only when it is argued on the basis that a developing embryo or foetus has no status of a normal human being.
I disagree, obviously, with that assertion. The real question is of course at what point we start to give cells their fundamental human rights. That, of course, is one that we will never agree on, but is absolutely crucial to this argument, and is barely addressed by many of the above mentioned emotionally-governed posters.

With regards to rape. Yes a child concieved of rape is still a child, and as such I would emphatically suggest the mother at least give birth to it, even if she feels she must give it away to an adoption agency. On the other hand, abortion is more understandable in this case, as a child born of rape, should he ever discover this truth, will likely suffer from incurable psychological issues.

Also, please don't paint anyone who disagrees with abortion in all circumstances as an ageing religious extremist with little grounding in modern reality. There are many individuals who feel this way who are totally irreligious.

Saying you don't like Lib North is immature, and does nothing to make his argument less valid. If anything it suggests it is more valid, as you cannot think of anything to say to counter his viewpoint so instead resort to personal insults. I'm pretty sure there is a Margaret Thatcher quote to this effect somewhere... Yes, the woman, Margaret Thatcher. Wtf is misogynist pig like me doing quoting her!!!1111

Didn't you say you were leaving? Hurry up and close the door behind you. There's a draft.

You again?

dude i was kidding and he knows it high horse.off.now.

Again, attacking the individual...
ffs enough of the emotive languagr please its sickening

I propose an unborn baby is still a baby. Therefore referring to it as such is not improper. It is sickening? Refer to how it is sickening? It makes you throw up? Thats a pity, but it doesn't make my point any less valid. :/

This kind of random insults have been going on for more than the most recent posts. Kidding or insulting. The jury is out.

The problem is that randomly saying you don't like somebody suggests you aren't being impartial and objective.

In your view. I don't think that is a universal feeling.

Its not about the emotive terminology, is about the lack of objectivism, and use of personal stories etc. If we are arguing about whether immigrants are dangerous and someone says 'well my mum is an immigrant and shes no criminal!' it is bringing emotion into the debate, because noone ever implied as such. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable in debate.

I propose an unborn baby is still a baby. Therefore referring to it as such is not improper. It is sickening? Refer to how it is sickening? It makes you throw up? Thats a pity, but it doesn't make my point any less valid. :/

Your emotive language is ilogical and lessens your argument.

*illogical

Its nice to see that you are slowling picking up terms used in debate, but try to use them correctly in future. Emotive language is a problem when it is found in an argument devoid of logical cogency, but when it is part of a so called 'appeal to emotion' argument. In such an argument, the speaker will typically attempt to stir an emotional reaction in the audience rather than attacking what he or she feels to be the fallacys in their opponents argument. Unfortunately for you, my argument is backed up with reason. Hence, even if you feel that my terminology is not professional (which I disagree with) it does not affect the strength of the argument.

Oh, and 'weakens your argument' would be a more appropriate way of making the point you attempted there

The jury is NOT out, you haven't been here and have clearly skimmed the thread. I never at any point called him a misogynist, he chose to infer that from what I said and then it became a joke. There were no insults towards anybody in any of my original posts, which I suggest you would do well to actually read.

*illogical

Ha, ha, ha. Starting to lose it a bit, are we? Got to the point where you're correcting other people's spelling, grammar and syntax? I really, really wouldn't pull at that thread if I were you because I don't think you'll appreciate what I have to say about yours. The ability to use language does not diminish a person's capacity to argue a point. Otherwise your points would be, well, rather lacking shall we say?

So not only do you use needless emotyive language, but you also felt the need to pick up on my dyslexic spelling? And what did that add to the debate?

A hundred points for me I guess. Perhaps you should learn to read more thoroughly?

Heheh, in my defence i've been out drinking
But seriously, the ability to use language does affect the capacity to argue a point! A few grammatical/spelling errors clearly don't, but being able to reform your argument to face your opponents is key.

Er, no, because that doesn't answer my question! Saying rape is "more understandable" when a woman has been through a rape does not reconcile most pro-lifers' (notice I am not addressing you personally) hysterical view that the child's right to life comes above the woman's right to choose. In fact, I just find it deeply patronising, like saying "well it's a terrible thing to do but what can you expect of the poor dear". Most pro-lifers, who will argue to the back teeth that the child's right to life is the most important thing, will never address this complete lack of logic with any kind of committal. They will just say, like you have, "it's more understandable" but by saying that, they have conceded that in some circumstances, the mother's right to choose SHOULD override the baby's right to life. But why in this circumstance and not others? Who has the right to draw the line? Do I make myself clearer now? This side of the argument absolutely, categorically has not been addressed. Incidentally I MUST go to bed now.