What actions? Having sex? I was on contraceptives. I did what I was taught was right. And no child was killed. A cluster of cells without a brain or eyeballs was expunged.

And the source is biased. I clearly stated that if it's true information, it'll be found elsewhere.

Then anything provided by any foundation that receives funding from George Soros would be void. As would nearly all other information because the funding for a study has to come from somewhere. So using your bias, it is all suspect and would be void.

Since you choose to outright ignore any information that doesn't agree with your point of view it's a moot point and useless to continue responding to you. You have effectively lost any arguement since you refuse to listen to the other side as you have already decided you are right and everyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. Again.

Now, if you could prove that the numbers are incorrect or provide numbers from a valid source that conflict with what you have been provided with, then it might be worthwhile to continue this conversation.

I haven't decided anything. All I said was that your source is biased. If you're that interested in proving your point, you'd have found an unbiased source. What did you think? Everyone was going to take your Right to Life source as a legitemate one? But way to go with the whole thinly veiled attack on me. It's a new one I've never heard before.

What is it with you and being convinced you are under attack from me? You have an unhealthy victimhood fixation whenever you are proven wrong or unable to form a valid counter argument..

You again stated that the souce is biased, but that doesn't mean the information is inaccurate. If you are so convinced it is fabricated, the please appropriatly responde to what I listed above.

If you stand behind your statement and are convinced you're right, AGAIN, then find it from an alternate source.

Why should I when you can't/won't refute them? You flat out refuse to acknowledge they may be valid because you don't like the source but can't give a valid reason otherwise. So I will stand by them until you provide facts to refute them. In a debate such as this, it is both sides' responsibility to back up their side of the agrument using facts. If you can't do that, then we are done here.

And it would be far worse were we to not have programs such as Sex Ed, Planned Parenthood, and legal abortions.
It is these programs which help to take stress off of welfare programs.
If they were not available the numbers would grow. And do not compare numbers today to numbers from even the eighties as the US has now hit the 300Million mark and continues to grow so any past numbers do not do justice to the huge population growth we have seen in the last decade.
This mostly due to the proliferation of the large family ideal.

I would always rather our government give us choice rather than take choice away. Legalized abortion presents a choice as well as an option.

Perhaps if you were so certain you would cite sources which state the same statistics which lie outside of a biased position.

That's what I'm asking.

Just like a wart on an innocent hand a cluster of cells does not have the choice. The adult does however. If they want the child dead they will kill it in whatever manner presents itself.
If we make abortions illegal they will seek illegal ways in which to accomplish this. Which may lead to injuries and fatalities.
If you take the legal choice away you pretty much commit thousands of youths and women to possible death.

I can't disagree with that. I don't aprove of abortion, but I have seen where it is a necessity to save the mother's life or when the child wasn't going to survive. It has gotten to the point that it's used as a means of birth control and not for medical reasons. In good conscious I can't accept that a valid reason for one after all I have seen.

But our society has gotten to the point that it's as commonplace and as easy as getting the oil changed in your car. I would think a line has to be drawn before we get to a point similar to China where they are required after you have had your first child.

Once we reach a plateau of population such as China has I would hope we begin to research population control.
Options such as Licensed Births. It would still allow for choice but would make sure that the parents are reliable, financially responsible, and independant from government resources.

Irregardless of how commonplace it may seem to you alot of those girls do not go get another one after the first. Recidivism of girls toward abortion seems very low though I cannot cite exact numbers nor would I really want to. I would rather talk from my experience of the girls I know who have had one.
I am willing to bet that Wicked never went in for a second one

False, I have provided you with plenty of points to counter. Instead of replying to them, you've chosen to whine about my disdain for your views. Calling me a troll does not automatically invalidate the objections I have raised to some of the things you've said.

So, what it comes down to is this: are you smart enough to respond to my points, or will you continue to snivel about my insults?

Of course not.

I win that bet as such. I know several other girls who went in, had abortions, learned from their stupid mistake without having to live with it, and never went back in for another.

What valid points? you came in with person insults and attacks instead of anything practical to this discussion. That's more the defination of a troll then of a debater.




Dyshade, As I mentioned in POST #83, using Wicked's logic on this, any source that doesn't agree with her point of view should be ignored. Just because you don't like the source doesn't make it invalid. She hasn't even commented on it other then to say she won't accept it because she doesn't like the source.

That's not a valid arguement under any debater's rulebook so why should I have to re-prove a point that she refuses to either acknowledge or is unwilling to try and refute? Again, Just because you don't like the source doesn't make it invalid.

Yet also in debates you want to have backup sources available in case someone finds reason to find one of them biased.
In this way you can circumvent a played "bias card" and appease the arguer.
As such if certain knowledge is factual it follows that it will have dozens of sources which to cite. Out of which several will be immune to the "bias card".
Besides which several sources make it much harder to refute said knowledge.

I never said anything that doesn't agree with me should be ignored. I said any source with that blatant of a bias should be discounted. Don't twist things to suit your own purposes.