Is abortion really wrong?

Sure you can, because it's not logic. It appears that you are attempting to make a syllogism, but it's incomplete. No logical conclusion can be drawn from your two statements, so you're simply offering two empirical assertions, both of which happen to be factually incorrect.

If all ice cream is poison, and people who eat it dont die, then its safe to say theyre immune, right?

How is that any less logical than assuming that all abortion is murder, so all people who have abortions are murderers?

Rather, how are either of those arguments of any importance to a debate on abortion, when neither adds anything to the discussion beyond "if we assume all these things are true, then THAT is why abortion is murder."

Scott777ab wrote:

MY VIOLENCE pfft what about the EVIL WOMAN who commit MURDER.
Not just MURDER but 1st DEGREE MURDER.
They think about it, then do it.
That is premediated MURDER.......

Consider that the vast bulk of people opting for abortion are demokkkrats.

Would you really like to see 30,000,000 more demokkkrats in the country? Isn't 55,000,000 enough?

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

It is MORALLY SANE and MORALLY JUST to put to death all MURDERS.

Why is the absurdity of that statement not obvious to you?

Please add to your list of achievements...

Declared by Eorl...."not very bright"

Why is Scott777ab's statement absurd? If all persons who commit murder should be put to death, and all persons who perform abortions commit murder, then it follows logically that all persons who perform abortions should be put to death. Now, to be sure, one can argue that all murderers shouldn't be put to death, or that abortion isn't murder, but one can't argue with the logic of Scott's statement.

If you had said that Scott's argument was irrelevant, I wouldn't have disagreed. But you didn't, you said it was absurd.

No, it would only be safe to say that if it were also posited that all persons who eat poison and who aren't immune die. You're not very good at this logic thing, are you.

It's less logical because I put forward a complete syllogism. You didn't.

If you had said that Scott's argument was irrelevant, I wouldn't have disagreed. But you didn't, you said it was absurd.

Is it possible that men should not be dictating to women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. I would not presume to tell a grown man what it feels like to be kicked in the testicles by a horse, and until I grow testicles or men can bear children, we need to stay out or each others way.

Years ago in my office during a bull session, one very young man was stating his views on reproductive rights and (I am not kidding) he said even in the case of rape, a women should not be even allowed to clean herself in the chance that a criminal's sperm might actually connect with her eggs. (OK, criminal was my word) Frankly, I was amused but one of the other women really took offense, and in a very angry tirade, shouted that the reason men try to prevent a woman from having an abortion is because they can't stand the thought of a mere woman thwarting the possibility of any man planting his seed. Now this is very extreme, but it was an interesting thought. And an extremely provocative conversation.
Please remember that was not the idea I dreamed up, I'm not bright enough, but I remembered it because it seemed so original.

So to echo what Frank has said, when men can get pregnant, then they can weigh in on reproductive rights, and to go two steps farther, if men ever develop the ability to bear children, abortions will be performed at spas with a facial tossed in, and those men who do chose to actually go thru childbirth will be allowed to compete in the Olympics under the new category..."Facing pain without meds".

Lastly if you are opposed to choice, then don't get an abortion.

glitterbag wrote:

Is it possible that men should not be dictating to women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. I would not presume to tell a grown man what it feels like to be kicked in the testicles by a horse, and until I grow testicles or men can bear children, we need to stay out or each others way.

Years ago in my office during a bull session, one very young man was stating his views on reproductive rights and (I am not kidding) he said even in the case of rape, a women should not be even allowed to clean herself in the chance that a criminal's sperm might actually connect with her eggs. (OK, criminal was my word) Frankly, I was amused but one of the other women really took offense, and in a very angry tirade, shouted that the reason men try to prevent a woman from having an abortion is because they can't stand the thought of a mere woman thwarting the possibility of any man planting his seed. Now this is very extreme, but it was an interesting thought. And an extremely provocative conversation.
Please remember that was not the idea I dreamed up, I'm not bright enough, but I remembered it because it seemed so original.

So to echo what Frank has said, when men can get pregnant, then they can weigh in on reproductive rights, and to go two steps farther, if men ever develop the ability to bear children, abortions will be performed at spas with a facial tossed in, and those men who do chose to actually go thru childbirth will be allowed to compete in the Olympics under the new category..."Facing pain without meds".

Lastly if you are opposed to choice, then don't get an abortion.

If you are opposed to knifing people, or shooting people, then don't do, it, but don't presume to impose your anti-murder policy on people who want to commit murders!

Are you kidding? You're trying to tell me im no good at logic, because i didnt fill in every detail of my unfounded poison ice cream example with further unfounded details?

You seem to be missing the point. Just because you managed to create a syllogism doesn't make your argument any stronger when the premises you base it on are absurdities.

Mmm... are you confusing me with someone else, now? I never said anything about Scott's post, or called it absurd. I've been referring to you this whole time.

Brandon9000 wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

Is it possible that men should not be dictating to women what they are allowed to do with their bodies. I would not presume to tell a grown man what it feels like to be kicked in the testicles by a horse, and until I grow testicles or men can bear children, we need to stay out or each others way.

Years ago in my office during a bull session, one very young man was stating his views on reproductive rights and (I am not kidding) he said even in the case of rape, a women should not be even allowed to clean herself in the chance that a criminal's sperm might actually connect with her eggs. (OK, criminal was my word) Frankly, I was amused but one of the other women really took offense, and in a very angry tirade, shouted that the reason men try to prevent a woman from having an abortion is because they can't stand the thought of a mere woman thwarting the possibility of any man planting his seed. Now this is very extreme, but it was an interesting thought. And an extremely provocative conversation.
Please remember that was not the idea I dreamed up, I'm not bright enough, but I remembered it because it seemed so original.

So to echo what Frank has said, when men can get pregnant, then they can weigh in on reproductive rights, and to go two steps farther, if men ever develop the ability to bear children, abortions will be performed at spas with a facial tossed in, and those men who do chose to actually go thru childbirth will be allowed to compete in the Olympics under the new category..."Facing pain without meds".

Lastly if you are opposed to choice, then don't get an abortion.

If you are opposed to knifing people, or shooting people, then don't do, it, but don't presume to impose your anti-murder policy on people who want to commit murders!

Men, women and children have been known to commit murder, we have laws to punish such things (well in theory). But people other than the pregnant women want to decide what she can or cannot do, or how many children she should bear. Some people would like to ban birth control. Again, if you don't believe in the right to choice, then don't engage in unprotected sex and don't have abortions. Access to reproductive rights for women are still allowed by law, we have not yet returned to the point of men forcing women to either engage in sex or bear the fruit of the rapist. There are no laws that allow murder even if a child is even a minute old. Women trapped in unwanted pregnancies thru rape or incest should not be expected to be the breeder to provide children for adoption.
Frankly if you want to breed to provide children for strangers, be my guest. Be aware that most women (as much as they value life) do not want to be drafted as petri dishes for social gratification.

Talk to me when you grow a uterus.

If you two are against having an abortion, then I suggest you never have one.