Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

I understand. You have to grasp for straws. Your view on this is sitting on shakey foundations, and therefore needs LOTS of bullshit to be thrown out, especially in the face of the consequences the world would suffer if your belief in this topic were to be legislated.

I'm not grasping at straws. In no way can you call what I said an argument from authority when (1) it wasn't an argument for my position, but rather myself commenting on how I was convinced, and (2) I never held up Hitchens as an authority. An argument from authority has the following basic structure (from Wikipedia):

1) Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
2) a says p about S.
3) Therefore, p is correct.

Yet I did not make any attempt to establish Hitchens as an authority (1), and I certainly did not say that our views are "correct" (3). Our views are our own opinions; it is the arguments behind those opinions which can be flawed. Now, Hitchens made an argument for his (and my) opinion in the video, so if you wish to discuss that, we can. However, simply pointing to an argument made in a video and referencing the person who made it is in no way an argument from authority.

..and of course you never said "this is my argument from authority". but, as always, your words have meaning and consequences. As far as your argument from authority, are you telling me that you in no way held Christopher Hitchens up as and authority on the subject by saying: "I understand your position though; I used to be like you, supporting abortion to the same degree. I was persuaded to think otherwise by a man you've probably heard of, Christopher Hitchens" .."I've probably heard of" Good god man, this entire group of sentences is just SCREAMING 'argument fro authority' to everyone who reads it.

Yes, I am honestly telling you that in no way did I hold up Christopher Hitchens as an authority on the subject. The only person whom those sentences would "scream" at would be a person who doesn't understand what an argument from authority is. Christopher Hitchens is clearly not an authority on the subject, but in the video he referenced an argument which I find to be convincing. I did not say anything to the tune of "because Christopher Hitchens said it, it must be true".

Yes, no matter how much you back peddle, no matter how much you toss hundreds of words out, the fact of the matter is that you held up Hitchens as an authority (that obviously changed your mind) and that I should take his word for it by saying "I used to be like you".

I wouldn't need to toss out hundreds of words if you would simply stop taking everything I say and melding it into a completely new meaning. Did the thought not occur to you that I said "I used to be like you" because it was TRUE?

Hitchens is NOt an expert on abortion, which makes your authority argument even weaker.

Hitchens is not an expert on abortion, but the argument he used was based on genetics, and the consensus of geneticists is that unborn children are humans (yes...THAT was an argument from authority, and a perfectly valid one).

..meanwhile the actual experts in the field tend to disagree with you and Hitchens stance on abortion, which makes your argument from authority even less convincing.

...meanwhile, the actual experts in the field of genetics (i.e. the field that Hitchens referenced in his argument) agree very much that unborn children are humans. The fact that the same geneticists do not agree on abortion isn't the point here; that isn't what the argument is about, it is about the fact that since unborn children are genetically human, they have human rights.

Now, I expect you to ramble on and on and on, but nothing you say will change the fact that you are willing to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want to carry to term.

Well I highly doubt we could "force" women to carry to term; before medical abortion, women used to do all sorts of horrible things to kill their unborn children. Oh, and before you suggest it, I am NOT in favour of locking up and monitoring any person who has an abortion denied.

that makes you greivously authoritarian in your socio political views compared to me. Willing to censor a womans choice because of some not so well thought out "rights of the fetus" concept

Damn dude...thats low.

The thing about you is that you can't hold up a mirror and look at yourself. You don't get it do you? There is no "anti-authoritarian" solution to abortion; in both cases, someone's rights are overruled. If we legalise abortion, then innocent children are killed; if we criminalise it, then innocent women who are raped will suffer.

The only logical solution which is rights-based is to have very specific conditions on when abortion should be allowed, and when it should not. That way, a woman who is raped does not have to suffer (as much), and an innocent baby born to a mother who got pregnant accidentally gets to live.