Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tavarish]

Seems the debate is over then, both sides having made their final remarks.

http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com/2010/0...lking.html
http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/more-fail...-rhetoric/

Personally, having followed the discussion, I'm now anti choice and no longer pro choice. From conception it seems clear that there is life of it's own. Deserving of consideration as such.

There are then very difficult decisions following on from anti choice. None of which were really covered here. Rape; child pregnancy; risk of death etc to either mother or child.

I'm not at all happy about the way the dialogue turned out. Ryft went an awful long way to play a semantics game and repeat his own talking points without addressing the issues I presented. He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother. It's clear the only thing he's opposing is certain circumstances, especially ones in which he can take the choice away from the woman, and grant her the ability to terminate the pregnancy wherever his morals seek to guide him.

A woman can have an abortion if she was forcibly raped, but can't make that decision on her own if she feels it's a viable option. Yay for double standards. You can have an abortion - you just can't weigh your options and come to that conclusion, as it's immoral - and we all know Christians have a monopoly on morality.

Makes perfect sense.

He also didn't address the question of proposing a viable solution to the issue. Does he really think banning 93% of abortions will solve 93% of the problem?