I am sure you have a dictionary to do that for you.Define convienence.
Like I said already, it is an appeal to emotion because you are using this probability to claim the scary situation that would result is not worth stopping abortion. Your logic is fallacious because you do not actually present something that argues for why abortion should be allowed. All you are arguing for is why it should not be disallowed, specifically in a way that does not address any argument on the other side. Here is how your arguments works: "A fetus has a right to life? Well, we can't put an end to abortions because all sorts of unwanted kids would be born as a result and it would be bad for our child-care system!" What you have done is completely ignore the central issue in favor of fear tactics.No, I am giving you actual statistics. If we do not allow abortions, there will be more children do manage. Many more. Many of these chidren will be unwanted... as if abortion were legal, they would not exist. This is very simple logic, DoL. No appeal to emotion, just simple logic.
It seems pretty clear that, like many terms you do not understand the meaning of, you have no clue what "appeal to emotion" means. Saying that this is a slaughter of innocent children is not an appeal to emotion because it is what I believe and that belief is my reason for wanting it stopped. That belief is centered on seeing those human lives as being just as important as any other human life.No need to get snippy because your lack of logic on this issue makes you look silly. It does. Calling it what you believe it is does not make it accurate. You are using emotional terms to garner pity. This is an appeal to emotion. Very weak debating, DoL... very weak.
It's actually pretty simple. The fact you do not think the unborn have the same protections as the rest of us means you do not see them as being as human.Explain the difference.
I told you what your demand really means, not what you claimed it means. You cannot fix the child-care system for just kids who would not have been aborted. There would be no basis for deciding what kids get these improved services and attempting it would distort the workings of the child-care system. Rather, your demand would require fixing the entire child-care system. Also, as I have said several times, I am not answering your question because I do not consider it to be a legitimate question to ask as a condition for legitimizing my position. The legitimacy of my position is independent of any such condition.You're refusing to answer because you can't. It is the failure of the pro-lifer position. Further, you have been altering my position from the start... as is your standard MO when you debate. I will tell you again, I am not asking for a solution to the entire child-care system. I am asking you to provide a plan that would address the management of the additional children that would not be alive if abortion were legal. This is what I have been asking from the beginning. Your alteration of what I am asking is just more of your standard dishonest debating. Now, I understand that you can't answer the question, but at least admit that instead of being dishonest and changing what I am asking.
Ok:You didn't even offer vague anecdotes. All you said was "nuh, uh." Show us some evidence that I am wrong.
Source: FactCheck.orgBut according to a 2008 survey of 4,700 physicians by the Center for Studying Health System Change, nationwide only 28 percent of physicians won’t accept any new patients who are insured by Medicaid. HSC, which is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is affiliated with Mathematica Policy Research Inc., also found that 19.2 percent accept some new Medicaid patients, while 53 percent accept most or all of them.
It is not parsing statistics at all. A third of Planned Parenthood's facilities offer abortions and since 11% of Planned Parenthood's overall clientele receive abortions this suggests those Planned Parenthood facilities provide, on average, a third of their clients with abortions meaning these facilities are more about providing abortions than they are about providing other services.And your "one-thirds" is you parsing statistics and gives a deceitful impression that abortion is a more significant part of what PP does that it actually does.
"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
- Khalil Gibran
Of course, you’re claiming you “never stated that a prenatal life is not human”. If you and I pretend that we mean the same by the term “human”, you certainly won’t admit that by supporting the killing of innocent “human” as in a “human being”, you are a self-confessed cold blooded murderer of tiny helpless children. When push come to shove, you will morph into something else and claim that by the term “human” you simply mean “human” as in human skin cell or hair follicle. The “genetically” thang is simply thrown in as icing on the cake for good measure.
You second point is also a moot point. Here is D & C described:
Remember, D & C is just one abortion method. There are other gruesome abortion techniques, such as D & E (AKA Partial Birth Abortion) which I had not even mentioned in my previous post for brevity’s sake.Abortion: Some Medical Facts
• First Trimester
Dilatation (Dilation) and Curettage (D&C)
In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a loop shaped steel knife. The body of the baby is cut into pieces and removed and the placenta is scraped off the uterine wall.  Blood loss from D & C, or "mechanical" curettage is greater than for suction aspiration, as is the likelihood of uterine perforation and infection. 
This method should not be confused with routine D&C’s done for reasons other than undesired pregnancy (to treat abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, etc.). 
The factual description of abortion technique is what it is. To argue persistently that it is an appeal to emotion (which is a fallacy or logical error in argument, which in this case is not) is simply an evasive tactics of yours in order to elude my pursuit of you into a tight corner. In fact, you’re the one being dramatics and highly emotional without any basis. Talk about turning the table.
Now is the Time to Pass an ANWR Bill | RedState
No one from any party want to damage the environment. That has been blown way out of proportion and as a result the US has become energy dependent. The environment will change but that doesn't mean t will be destroyed. We've made some huge changes here in Canada and the environmentalists were ina dither for a while but everything is going well now and people, and animals, are getting on fine. The 'environment' is a lot tougher and stronger then we think. It is not 'fragile' at all and will still be humming along once we're all gone.There is a big difference between strangling chief suppliers and making sure they do things in a safe manner to protect the people and the environment. It only seems political because the country has become divided - it isn't about what is right for the country any more, it's about what does my party stand behind!
Yes, i know the history about trickle down economics but it is all bunk. Just go out there and make a living wherever you can and things will happen. Reagan said not to trust the government and he was right, particularly since he was also part of the government.Oh no, it is not new. It was introduced by Reagan when he was president, the idea that if you don't tax the rich and corporations, some of their earnings will trickle down to the poor people. The opposite has happened, the poor people's money is trickling up. George HW Bush called it voodoo economics, and after G W Bush left us in such a mess, I guess his father knew what he was talking about.
Spend less time worrying about the wealthy and get on with your own life. This class envy is destroying the country and we know anyway that even if the government was to take all the money from 'the rich', it wouldn't be enough to pay for all the programs anyway. As soon as the rich run out of money, and it is removed from the economy, politicians will then be looking for others to pay for ther continued spending. The only way to survive is for the government to stop spending so much money. There is no other solution and chasing after the rich won't help at all, even in the short term.That is why we are fighting to maintain those rights. It isn't fair that we pay taxes and the only ones that get major returns are the wealthy, who are being given loopholes and shelters so they can keep more of their money. I would like to keep more of my money, too, but it seems my taxes keep going up while the rich are able to work around their rates and some end up paying even less than the middle-class.
You know that's not true. You're complaining about the country coming apart and yet you make those wild accusations. Of course it will come apart if you speak so unkindly of those with an opposing view.
That some are trying to take the country back a few hundred years is nothing new. I guess they preferred when women were doing them behind closed doors with clothes hangers.
You're making a lot of wild guesses but would't see that anywhere on a Republican platform. I think you should question your sources.I guess their compassion for the fetus does not take into consideration that now we'll be losing both the women and the fetus. I don't believe they will ever do away with abortion, there will always be a need for it (risk of mother's life, rape and incest), and there will always be those who will be willing to bend the rules. The real help was in providing education, but that seems to be one of the things Republicans want to get rid of.
That's why there should be more State rights, not less.That is the problem with the state, not the people. You are always going to have a small group that will try to milk the system, no matter what it is. It is up to the states to come up with rigid rules to obstruct abuse. The new welfare laws (Clinton's reform), only allow a person to stay 5 years - (I'm sure there are exceptions), but anyone that is able to work should be expected to get a job. If that doesn't happen it is because the State is not doing their job.
General Electric has contributed a great deal to the Democrats.Obama has named Immelt as head of the New Jobs Panel. I guess he believes the old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" - Immelt is a Republican and has contributed heavily to Republican candidates. Either that, or he is trying to appeal to Republicans by naming one of their own. Since it has been declared that GE didn't pay taxes most Republicans are now trying to disassociate with him, trying to make him a Democrat or somehow tie the "no taxes paid by GE" as a Democratic endeavor, when we all know they are all out for reducing corporate taxes.
General Electric | OpenSecrets
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
Well of course there is going to be animosity if you continue with your attitudes towards the other political party, as well as making clearly untrue comments You are putting your partisan politics ahead of your country, and that's being demonstrated right now by what's happening to the United States.I don't know what is going to happen here. I've never seen so much animosity between the parties as has been seen since Obama got elected. It has split families and caused friends to split. I speak from experience!
Last edited by Grant; 04-15-11 at 11:51 PM.
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”