Tapper

I tried to rep you, but my Internet and/or browser is acting funny. I don't know if it's not executing all the scripts or what's going on. I'll get you that rep tomorrow - promise.

But in any event, I was going to say you are a smart guy and that very little you say is nonsense. I obviously don't agree with your position on abortion, but so what? You're not stupid or anything even close.

I'm a jerk when debating the abortion issue because I'm in a certain mindset. I fully believe my arguments to be valid, but I take it too far when I say things like "pro-murderer," and things of that nature. I'm just in a certain mindset when I approach a pro-choice argument. I don't mean anything by it. As I told Mak, both my parents are pro-choice and they are the nicest people I know. So, when you encounter that jazz in my posts, ignore it. It's just the mindset I'm in, and I will try and knock it off.

The Best.

Thank you. If you're interested in looking more into it the basis behind my brief statement is to a large factor better enunciated by Jeremy Bentham, JS Mill, and Peter Singer - basically it's utilitarian philosophy. I'll describe it here as arguing that if a being suffers there can be no justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. The flip-side is, if it doesn't suffer there is nothing to consider. Of course, we're talking about values intrinsic to the being; there is also the matter of potential extrinsic value given to it such as when a pregnant woman wants to carry the fetus to term.

"Why not focus on the teenager who lost her/his life because it was convenient for the drug dealer on the block. "

First of all, your post assumes something that cannot be assumed, and that is that pro-lifers, in general, do not focus on poverty and inner city crime. You can't assume that, because you have no way of knowing what any given pro-lifer does in his or her spare time. Secondly, it's possible, you realize, to get more than one thing done at a time, so someone could be trying to fight poverty and inner city crime, as well as trying to end abortion.

And the idea that abortion is directly related to poverty is another blatant pro-choice lie, completely destroyed, no less, by the Guttmacher Institute, the research wing of Planned Parenthood.

Those making between $15,000 and $29,000 a year account for 48.2% of all abortions. Those making between $30,000 and beyond account for 51.8% of all abortions. Here

Pro-abortionists really are some sad individuals. To lie and distort facts so as to amplify an argument which boils down to advocating the taking of innocent life, is about as pathetic and shameful as it gets. Where do the pro-abortion lies end?