appealing to emotion will change any facts. I am not arguing that it would not be effective on some levels. What I am arguing is for sanity and reason.
Yeah, he would never go for the emotional appeal like "forcing women to have babies" or talking about rape victims. Good heavens, no. The pro-aborts NEVER resort to sleazy heartstring-tuggers like THAT.
here we go: choices are individual. Legislating personal choice(s )is what you desire of the government? I am not excuses for abortion. People are not data---they make poor choices. I am not one who is angry or worse and who thinks people N-E-E-D to suffer for their every mistake in judgment. The options to prevent pregnancy are few or many, but so what? I am still puzzled by the concern for what other people do and do not do that does not affect the perennially angry.
Oh, and they never, EVER pretend that the parameters of the debate have already been set at what THEY think it's about, and utterly ignore the very existence of the opposing argument, and look confused and innocent when you point out that they don't get to jump straight to "this is what choices should be" without being forced to prove that the debate is about choice first.
Because assuming you've won the first battle before you grow the balls to even fight it is "logic and reason", dontcha know. On the other hand, why anyone would expect the champion of cads and bastards and players everywhere to behave like he has balls is a mystery, too.
Genetics avoids nothing. You do not yet know what genetics is going to say and when it has it's say we will reevaluate things. Then the law of unintended consequences will kick in. I ask:
What is death? What is life? Is death the end of life and why?
think!
I always love it when people who admit they're too damned ignorant in biology - or English - to know the definition of "life" and "death" want to pretend they're arguing on the side of science, logic, and reason. It's like watching a monkey in a hat dance to a hurdy-gurdy. Awww, so cute! He almost looks human!
butchered? I guess we butcher dead animals all the time. Does that bother you? The term 'butcher' has many connotations and I choose to ignore many. To butcher is but to commit an action. What one is butchering is another question altogether.
The difference being that people who butcher animals for food - being mostly decent, honest human beings, unlike the pro-abortion poltroons - are honest enough to admit that's what they're doing, rather than trying to pretend it isn't REALLY killing. Of course, they're ALSO doing it for a decent, reasonable purpose like feeding people, rather than doing it for the "admirable" purpose of hooking up without responsibility.
The arguments about potential human life that you make are interesting. So you are arguing about the rights of a potential life?
thank you for the clarification
personal responsibility starts at home. It starts with honesty, integrity and openness. personal responsibility would be to admit things one hides behind words with.
Yeah, honesty, integrity, and openness . . . things the pro-aborts know nothing about, judging by their arguments and actions. "Hiding behind words"? You mean like "non-viable tissue mass" and "personhood" and "woman's right to choose"? THOSE kinds of smokescreen words?