Elizabeth Smart, raped? (and Abortion issues)

[Queeb Salaron]

Obviously the part about the toenail clippings and other dead cells is a stretch. Of course I recognize that. It was a bit of hyperbole. You all raised perfectly valid points, and like I said, I'm not advocating for partial-birth abortion, or abortion of any kind for that matter. And I am obviously not advocating infanticide, that's just plain stupid. You're twisting my words. I was simply bringing up a hypothetical situation and playing Devil's Advocate.

There was one interesting point made, though...

Because once the baby developes a conscience, he has the right to be considered human and an independent identity. There's plenty of time before that treshold when an abortion can be made. In the rare cases the baby reaches the third trimester, it's simply too late, and the eoman must deal with it.

I find it flawed logic to say that it is simply "too late" for a woman to make up her mind about something like this. Lawmakers can make all the laws they want to about when a child is legally considered a child, and when the fetus can or cannot be aborted... But I wouldn't be opposed to women dumping newborn children on the lawns of the White House and saying, "YOU made us give birth to them, now YOU raise them."

And yes, I'm just left of Lenin.

[Colonel Olrik]

Obviously the part about the toenail clippings and other dead cells is a stretch. Of course I recognize that. It was a bit of hyperbole. You all raised perfectly valid points, and like I said, I'm not advocating for partial-birth abortion, or abortion of any kind for that matter. And I am obviously not advocating infanticide, that's just plain stupid. You're twisting my words. I was simply bringing up a hypothetical situation and playing Devil's Advocate.

Your hypothetical situation was retarded, not to mention criminal.

There was one interesting point made, though...

Because once the baby developes a conscience, he has the right to be considered human and an independent identity. There's plenty of time before that treshold when an abortion can be made. In the rare cases the baby reaches the third trimester, it's simply too late, and the eoman must deal with it.

I find it flawed logic to say that it is simply "too late" for a woman to make up her mind about something like this. Lawmakers can make all the laws they want to about when a child is legally considered a child, and when the fetus can or cannot be aborted... But I wouldn't be opposed to women dumping newborn children on the lawns of the White House and saying, "YOU made us give birth to them, now YOU raise them."

Your inhability to understand some simple concepts doesn't make my logic flawed. After the fetus becoming human life (defined by starting to have brain activity) an abortion is equal to murder. A mother has no right to kill her offspring, at least in the civilized part of the world. It's not about lawmakers, it's simple logic and science applied to a problem. If, atfer the pregnancy, the mother doesn't want the baby, then obviously the state must take care of him.

And yes, I'm just left of Lenin.

This has nothing to do with being of left, right or center. At least, it shouldn't have to. Religious fuckwits in one side, murderous assholes in the other, I loath abortion debates.

[Durandal]

Obviously the part about the toenail clippings and other dead cells is a stretch. Of course I recognize that. It was a bit of hyperbole. You all raised perfectly valid points, and like I said, I'm not advocating for partial-birth abortion, or abortion of any kind for that matter. And I am obviously not advocating infanticide, that's just plain stupid. You're twisting my words. I was simply bringing up a hypothetical situation and playing Devil's Advocate.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

But I am pro-choice. Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action.

That's not "playing Devil's Advocate." That's advocating a position.

We "all brought up perfectly valid points," yet you don't address them in the slightest, nor do you modify your position to accomodate those "perfectly valid points." Generally, when someone attacks your position with a valid point, it is wise to reconsider your position. But no. You just keep chugging along, with your strongest rebuttal being, "Nu uh!"

There was one interesting point made, though...

Because once the baby developes a conscience, he has the right to be considered human and an independent identity. There's plenty of time before that treshold when an abortion can be made. In the rare cases the baby reaches the third trimester, it's simply too late, and the eoman must deal with it.

I find it flawed logic to say that it is simply "too late" for a woman to make up her mind about something like this. Lawmakers can make all the laws they want to about when a child is legally considered a child, and when the fetus can or cannot be aborted... But I wouldn't be opposed to women dumping newborn children on the lawns of the White House and saying, "YOU made us give birth to them, now YOU raise them."

You're getting dumber by the moment. Do you have any idea how asinine and reprehensible what you just said is?

"I find it flawed" does not count as a valid rebuttal, dumbshit. This is the second time you've pulled this. First, you say, "The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument ..." and then procede with one of the biggest non-sequiters and irrelevancies I've ever seen in a debate.

You have to point out why it's flawed. What significant difference is there between a newborn infant directly after it completely leaves the womb and a fetus that is waiting to be delivered? That's right: none. Therefore, aborting the latter is infanticide, whether you like it or not. The woman's right to choose is preserved and respected so long as it does not infringe on the fetus' right to life. Since that fetus doesn't have the right to life until the third trimester, she can abort her pregnancy any time up until then. But this isn't good enough for people who get themselves off to the idea of murdering an infant while it's head is still in the womb, like you apparently do.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Saw the news conference on CNN last night.

They said they would not comment on any physical abuse, leading me and my dad to think that she might have been raped.

If she was, and is pregnant, she'd become one of the youngest mothers in Utah because of that, thanks to the wonderful Shrub and Asscroft , who've made partial birth abortions illegal, and are soon gonna make all abortions illegal.

I wanted to add that I find it pathetic that you used Elizabeth Smart as a pawn to support your stance on abortion. It's disgusting, and you should be ashamed.

[Stormbringer]

One thing I've noticed about the perpetual US abortion debate is that most of the people who believe in banning abortions are also pro-death penalty, frequently to the point of supporting the execution of minors. It's an amazing display of hypocracy, granting a greater right to live for live that has the potential to be human than for life that is human.

Actually, it's not hypocritical. It's saying the life of a murderer isn't worth as much as some one they can consider an innocent child.

[Queeb Salaron]

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

If you had read my original post the way I intended it, you'd see that I wasn't backpedaling. But then maybe I miswrote it.

That's not "playing Devil's Advocate." That's advocating a position.

Yes, there I was advocating my own position. But the intent of the post was for me to play Devil's Advocate, those two sentences notwithstanding. I was merely explaining where it was coming from, and why a person might believe it. But again, maybe I could have better explained that. Now, of course, it has become more personal.

We "all brought up perfectly valid points," yet you don't address them in the slightest, nor do you modify your position to accomodate those "perfectly valid points." Generally, when someone attacks your position with a valid point, it is wise to reconsider your position. But no. You just keep chugging along, with your strongest rebuttal being, "Nu uh!"

A) I wasn't trying to counter any of your points. I agree that partial-birth abortion is heinous and generally unnecessary. But I do not think it should be banned outrightly, because regardless of my opinion, women should still be able to consider partial-birth abortion as a way to terminate pregnancy. At least that's an opinion that is widely accepted on the further reaches of the left.

B) Just because someone raises a counter-point to an argument doesn't mean I have to change my way of thinking. Granted, through the logical progression of these conversations, I have come to realize that maybe my position isn't as stable as I thought it might have been. So in this particular instance, your opinions did make me reconsider my opinion, regardless of the fact that I don't think anyone outrightly "attacked" my position... It's just conversation. But people aren't always going to reconsider. Maybe your counter-point was already taken into consideration prior to the formation of my opinion. In such a case, I wouldn't change my position just because you brought up a conflicting opinion, however valid. Opinions SHOULD be different in the face of other opinions. That's called diversity. If the world held its opinions based on logical point / counter-point debate, we'd all have the same opinions on everything, and there would be no conflict (and therefore, according to Hampshire, no justice).

You're getting dumber by the moment. Do you have any idea how asinine and reprehensible what you just said is?

By whose standards? Yours. I happen to think that my position is justified, and I've listed the reasons why.

"I find it flawed" does not count as a valid rebuttal, dumbshit. This is the second time you've pulled this. First, you say, "The theory of "two wrongs don't make a right" is flawed in this argument ..." and then procede with one of the biggest non-sequiters and irrelevancies I've ever seen in a debate.

A) The funny part is, you don't say which part of my post is "one of the biggest non-sequiters and irrelvancies (you)'ve ever seen in a debate."

B) I understand that "I find it flawed" is not a valid rebuttal. But I wasn't trying to rebut anything. I was simply asking for clarification, and bringing up my own opinion as a context to that lack of understanding. If you want to be a hot-head and take it personally, well then that's just fine. I'm sorry to have offended you.

You have to point out why it's flawed. What significant difference is there between a newborn infant directly after it completely leaves the womb and a fetus that is waiting to be delivered? That's right: none. Therefore, aborting the latter is infanticide, whether you like it or not.

True. You're not going to get an argument out of me there. I generally do not support abortion at all, never mind partial-birth abortion. I say don't fuck around if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences.

The woman's right to choose is preserved and respected so long as it does not infringe on the fetus' right to life. Since that fetus doesn't have the right to life until the third trimester, she can abort her pregnancy any time up until then. But this isn't good enough for people who get themselves off to the idea of murdering an infant while it's head is still in the womb, like you apparently do.

Again, your ignorance is absolutely astonishing. I've pointed out NUMEROUS times that I do NOT support ANY kind of abortion at ALL. Your argument is invalid. I do NOT "get off" to the idea of partial-birth abortion. I think that it is wrong and murderous, for all the reasons that you yourself have stated prior to this one VERY ignorant post. I support the mother's right to have this kind of abortion, though. Do I think the act is ever justified outside of the case of rape and captivity? No. But I don't have to agree with it to support a mother's right to carry it out. I think that any mother that would willingly kill her own child is despicable, but I will support her right to do so for reasons that I have already listed.[/i]

[Durandal]

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

If you had read my original post the way I intended it, you'd see that I wasn't backpedaling. But then maybe I miswrote it.

If I didn't read it the way you "intended it"? What am I, a fucking mind-reader?

That's not "playing Devil's Advocate." That's advocating a position.

Yes, there I was advocating my own position. But the intent of the post was for me to play Devil's Advocate, those two sentences notwithstanding. I was merely explaining where it was coming from, and why a person might believe it. But again, maybe I could have better explained that. Now, of course, it has become more personal.

More backpedaling.

We "all brought up perfectly valid points," yet you don't address them in the slightest, nor do you modify your position to accomodate those "perfectly valid points." Generally, when someone attacks your position with a valid point, it is wise to reconsider your position. But no. You just keep chugging along, with your strongest rebuttal being, "Nu uh!"

A) I wasn't trying to counter any of your points. I agree that partial-birth abortion is heinous and generally unnecessary.

Red herring. We're arguing over the its legality. The fact that crushing a newborn's skull is disgusting and reprehensible is a given.

But I do not think it should be banned outrightly, because regardless of my opinion, women should still be able to consider partial-birth abortion as a way to terminate pregnancy. At least that's an opinion that is widely accepted on the further reaches of the left.

Once again make up your fucking mind. You explicitly stated that you don't think it should be banned on more than one occasion, and then you tell us that's an opinion of the far left. Well no fucking shit, Sherlock. Stop flip-flopping between representing yourself and other people.

B) Just because someone raises a counter-point to an argument doesn't mean I have to change my way of thinking.

When you admit that there are a number of valid criticisms for your illy-considered position, then that means there are a number of holes in your reasoning. That generally indicates a poor argument. Thus far, you haven't been able to poke any holes at all in my arguments because they're logically air-tight. Yours are not. Gee, which ones are better?

Granted, through the logical progression of these conversations, I have come to realize that maybe my position isn't as stable as I thought it might have been. So in this particular instance, your opinions did make me reconsider my opinion, regardless of the fact that I don't think anyone outrightly "attacked" my position...

Are you blind? Do you have reading comprehension problems? You said that partial-birth abortions shouldn't be banned. We said they should and told you why. That's attacking your position.

It's just conversation. But people aren't always going to reconsider. Maybe your counter-point was already taken into consideration prior to the formation of my opinion. In such a case, I wouldn't change my position just because you brought up a conflicting opinion, however valid. Opinions SHOULD be different in the face of other opinions. That's called diversity. If the world held its opinions based on logical point / counter-point debate, we'd all have the same opinions on everything, and there would be no conflict (and therefore, according to Hampshire, no justice).

Translation: "I can't defend my position, so I'm going to pretend that my right to hold any opinion I wish automatically grants logical validity to my opinions, even in the face of damning criticism."

B) I understand that "I find it flawed" is not a valid rebuttal. But I wasn't trying to rebut anything. I was simply asking for clarification, and bringing up my own opinion as a context to that lack of understanding. If you want to be a hot-head and take it personally, well then that's just fine. I'm sorry to have offended you.

You're not offending me; you're just being a complete dumbshit. When you tell someone that their reasoning is flawed, you're rebutting them, genius. This, "I'm not arguing, even though I'm telling people that they're wrong and I'm right" bullshit isn't going to fly. Pick a side and defend it.

You have to point out why it's flawed. What significant difference is there between a newborn infant directly after it completely leaves the womb and a fetus that is waiting to be delivered? That's right: none. Therefore, aborting the latter is infanticide, whether you like it or not.

True. You're not going to get an argument out of me there. I generally do not support abortion at all, never mind partial-birth abortion. I say don't fuck around if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences.

So, you're officially declaring your support for legalized infanticide, then ... even though you say you don't support it? You're an extremely disturbed person if you think that infanticide should be legal.

By whose standards? Yours. I happen to think that my position is justified, and I've listed the reasons why.

By objective standards. Your position is unbelievably contradictory, and you adamantly maintain it even in the face of three separate people telling you so and telling you why. You assert that a woman is never justified in any abortion and that abortion is infanticide, yet you say that the law should allow for it.

A) The funny part is, you don't say which part of my post is "one of the biggest non-sequiters and irrelvancies (you)'ve ever seen in a debate."

It was the "Because a toe nail and a fetus are both connected to the mother, the mother can give the same treatment to the fetus as she gives to the toe nail" part.

Again, your ignorance is absolutely astonishing. I've pointed out NUMEROUS times that I do NOT support ANY kind of abortion at ALL.

Let's revisit the thread, shall we?

But I am pro-choice. Women should have the option to get a partial-birth abortion, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences of that action.

I find it flawed logic to say that it is simply "too late" for a woman to make up her mind about something like this.

But I wouldn't be opposed to women dumping newborn children on the lawns of the White House and saying, "YOU made us give birth to them, now YOU raise them."

Yes, there I was advocating my own position.

How can you not support abortion but be pro-choice?

Your argument is invalid. I do NOT "get off" to the idea of partial-birth abortion.

Good thing that's not my argument. That was just me making fun of you.

I think that it is wrong and murderous, for all the reasons that you yourself have stated prior to this one VERY ignorant post.

YOU SAID YOU WERE PRO-CHOICE. How can you possibly be pro-choice if abortion is murderous to you?!

I support the mother's right to have this kind of abortion, though.

Stop this fucking flip-flopping and decide on a fucking position you non-committal little fuck. Time to stop putting your toes in the pool and jump in you fucking coward.

Do I think the act is ever justified outside of the case of rape and captivity? No. But I don't have to agree with it to support a mother's right to carry it out. I think that any mother that would willingly kill her own child is despicable, but I will support her right to do so for reasons that I have already listed.[/i]

WHAT?!

The act isnt justified, but you'll support someone's right to carry it out?! Is there something seriously wrong with you? Should we change your sig from "Not Space Luigi" to "Not Space Luigi, but every bit as fucking retarded"?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bah, I don't even read Ted's and Enlightenment's posts anymore.

What the fuck do I have to do with this thread, redneck?

Could you be anymore of a dumbfuck prick?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, I find one really amusing thing about social conservatives' arguments over abortion:

They say the brain develops at two weeks, for instance. Well, the average social conservative probably eats meat off an animal that has a brain.

What's the difference?

It isn't the brain that counts, it's the complexity - And we have no indications that the brain is complex enough until the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy to have anything remotely like human emotions/thoughts. So, call it 4.5 months for a safety margin and make that the point up to which abortion is legal.

Any other argument, ultimately, rests on a concept of an immortal soul, and any science involved is pseudoscience and not the real thing.

[InnerBrat]

It isn't the brain that counts, it's the complexity - And we have no indications that the brain is complex enough until the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy to have anything remotely like human emotions/thoughts. So, call it 4.5 months for a safety margin and make that the point up to which abortion is legal.

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

[Kuroneko]

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

That's interesting... would you elaborate on that? There definetely should be some qualifiers on "potential", otherwise any given combination of sperm and egg during sex have some "potential" of developing into a human being.

[neoolong]

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

That's interesting... would you elaborate on that? There definetely should be some qualifiers on "potential", otherwise any given combination of sperm and egg during sex have some "potential" of developing into a human being.

If you go really strictly then using a condom is an abortion. Because the potential is there for any of those sperm to impregnate an egg.

And that means that masturbation is abortion because you are wasting sperm that can potentially create children.

[Kuroneko]

Right, neoolong. This is why any argument from "potential" would have to be very specific about what is meant by that. Otherwise, it leads to these absurdities.

[Durandal]

It isn't the brain that counts, it's the complexity - And we have no indications that the brain is complex enough until the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy to have anything remotely like human emotions/thoughts. So, call it 4.5 months for a safety margin and make that the point up to which abortion is legal.

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

So potentials equate to actuals, now? Because the embryo will eventually become a child, it should be treated as a child even when it isn't one? Perhaps we should also give the embryo a senior citizen's discount because it will eventually become 65.

[Andrew J.]

The act isnt justified, but you'll support someone's right to carry it out?! Is there something seriously wrong with you? Should we change your sig from "Not Space Luigi" to "Not Space Luigi, but every bit as fucking retarded"?

Durandal, calm down. Just because one disapproves of something doesn't mean one has to try and make it illegal. I don't like poor writing, but I wouldn't support legislation that would make it illegal for Danielle Steele to write.

[Durandal]

The act isnt justified, but you'll support someone's right to carry it out?! Is there something seriously wrong with you? Should we change your sig from "Not Space Luigi" to "Not Space Luigi, but every bit as fucking retarded"?

Durandal, calm down. Just because one disapproves of something doesn't mean one has to try and make it illegal. I don't like poor writing, but I wouldn't support legislation that would make it illegal for Danielle Steele to write.

First of all, that post was days ago. I've calmed down since then, obviously. Second of all, he needs to be clearer in his writing.

[Alyeska]

1. Partial birth abortion, by any rational definition of "life", is murder. It isn't scraping a handful of fetal cells with no nervous sytem out of a uterus. It's dialating the cervix, partially delivering the fetus, then removing the brains and crushing the skull. By definition, it can only be performed in the second trimester or later, and is used on fetuses that would be viable were the delivery completed.

I agree with the spirit of the ruling, but I do think that abortions should be extended through the second trimester or maybe half-way through the pregnancy. While this only affects a very small percentage of abortions, I still don't think that there is enough evidence to justify making second-trimester abortions illegal. There's no question that third-trimester abortions should be banned, though.

The senate can not make second trimester abortions illegal. Roe v. Wade stated that the second trimester can have restrictions, but it can not be made illegal.

[InnerBrat]

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

That's interesting... would you elaborate on that? There definetely should be some qualifiers on "potential", otherwise any given combination of sperm and egg during sex have some "potential" of developing into a human being.

First off, I'm not pro-life like my Mum is - I used to be, an attitude that very nearly ruined my life - but I'm not.

yes, it can be extended backwards, and at a certain point it gets a bit silly (I know she's pro pill and condoms - I did have the Talk, sort of), but all the arguments seem to treat humanity like it's a black and white state that is magically switched on at some point during pregnancy.

I don't see it like that at all. The magic that creates a person is a long, slow acting magic, and there's no biologically defined line. It's exactly like palaeoanthropologists arguing about when humanity evolved (phylogeny as opposed to ontogeny). There's no magic switch, and both sidfes need to appreciate that.

I think my mother's poitn of view is that it's so bloody unlikely that a sperm and an egg will meet, from a zygote, and be healthily implanted in the endometrium, that by that point it should be given all the chance it can.

[Durandal]

First off, I'm not pro-life like my Mum is - I used to be, an attitude that very nearly ruined my life - but I'm not.

yes, it can be extended backwards, and at a certain point it gets a bit silly (I know she's pro pill and condoms - I did have the Talk, sort of), but all the arguments seem to treat humanity like it's a black and white state that is magically switched on at some point during pregnancy.

While a universal and discrete line is impossible to draw from a philosophical standpoint, the law must draw them. See ages of consent, age for military service and the drinking age.

Since the fetus' brain achieves activity similar to that of a dreaming human sometime in the third trimester, it seems like the third trimester would be a good place to draw the line on abortions.

I don't see it like that at all. The magic that creates a person is a long, slow acting magic, and there's no biologically defined line. It's exactly like palaeoanthropologists arguing about when humanity evolved (phylogeny as opposed to ontogeny). There's no magic switch, and both sidfes need to appreciate that.

Legally, a line must be drawn. You cannot claim that a clump of cells with no consciousness is a human being with a straight face. Potentials do not equate to actuals.

I think my mother's poitn of view is that it's so bloody unlikely that a sperm and an egg will meet, from a zygote, and be healthily implanted in the endometrium, that by that point it should be given all the chance it can.

Why? What if the mother doesn't want to child? A zygote does not resemble a thinking human being at all, so the burden of proof is on you to show that it is a conscious human being, therefore making it deserving of human rights. I can show that, after the second trimester, a fetus very closely resembles a newborn infant, which is accorded human rights.

[InnerBrat]

OK, Let's get this straight: no matter how much you want me to, I WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION. So I will not go into why think pro-lifers are pro-life, OK?

And yes, I agree that a line must be drawn, but you can't really give a biological reason for it, anymore than you can give a biological reason why a 16 year old can handle sex while a 15 year old can't.

[Durandal]

OK, Let's get this straight: no matter how much you want me to, I WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE ANTI-CHOICE POSITION. So I will not go into why think pro-lifers are pro-life, OK?

Um ... that's what you were just doing. You were providing justifications for treating an embryo like a human being.

And yes, I agree that a line must be drawn, but you can't really give a biological reason for it, anymore than you can give a biological reason why a 16 year old can handle sex while a 15 year old can't.

The two aren't analogous. The age of consent has to do with intellectual and mental maturity. The abortion debate deals with physical maturity. So yes, you can give a biological reason.

[Kuroneko]

And yes, I agree that a line must be drawn, but you can't really give a biological reason for it, anymore than you can give a biological reason why a 16 year old can handle sex while a 15 year old can't.

It may be impossible to biologically justify a given 'drawn line' in the sense "before this point, the fetus is not a human being, and past it, it is", but from a biological standpoint, lines could be drawn in the form "after this point, this is definetely a human being" (e.g., after the beginning of the third trimester, or whenever) and "before this point, it is not" (e.g., before end of first trimester, or whenever). Note that it is not necessary for the second line to identify a point where the fetus "becomes" a human being, but simply to state that prior to it, the fetus isn't.

[Darth Wong]

This "line in the sand" stuff is bullshit. The fact that the line in the sand is a bit blurry does not mean it doesn't exist. At some point early in the pregnancy, the clump of cells is OBVIOUSLY not a thinking, feeling human being (how could it be, with NO FUCKING BRAIN?) At some point late in the pregnancy, the fetus is obviously a baby (how could it not be, when it's reacting to stimuli, has a highly developed brain, and all of the physical attributes?) Are we trying to claim that there is no point between those extremes where we can declare this line?

We can determine the point at which most fetuses begin to develop serious brain activity; that is the obvious location for the line. No one who opposes this line bothers to explain precisely what's wrong with it; instead, they resort to bullshit such as claiming that future potentials should be treated as actualities (which leads directly to the Catholic position on contraception) or simply denying that it is possible to declare any point at all, hence the "line in the sand" rhetoric.

[Kuroneko]

Um ... that's what you were just doing. You were providing justifications for treating an embryo like a human being.

Perhaps that's jumping to a conclusion too quickly; he referenced a form of pro-life argument, not give one. But that would lead to the question of what the point was...

Personally, I find that arguing for a position that I am against is one of the best ways to understand it (and perhaps what's wrong with it, if anything). Unfortunately, innerbrat is unwilling to argue that position.

[Durandal]

Um ... that's what you were just doing. You were providing justifications for treating an embryo like a human being.

Perhaps that's jumping to a conclusion too quickly; he referenced a form of pro-life argument, not give one. But that would lead to the question of what the point was...

Personally, I find that arguing for a position that I am against is one of the best ways to understand it (and perhaps what's wrong with it, if anything). Unfortunately, innerbrat is unwilling to argue that position.

Innerbrat wrote nothing to give that indication.