What your daughter may soon be sporting

[Kyran]

Gorgo, real education and real poverty-reduction DO reduce crime more than anything else. No source necessary to prove that.

You weren't supposed to walk into the bear trap though. I'm gonna let you off easy. See, I bait people with questions they should never answer to lead them down their own paths of logic.

The reason why the Rule of Law is necessary is this. Criminal and Civil Justice are executed via our innocent-until-proven-guilty court system. Remember, this is a hallmark of American culture from the revolutionary times.

The illogic exposed when someone argues against the Rule of Law is this. Without the Rule of Law, there would be no law enforcement and no justice; effectively an anarchy no longer at peace. History shows that anarchial periods are universally violent and destructive. So not only is the Rule of Law effective at reducing crime, it is a necessary foundation for better solutions like education and poverty-reduction.

Again, let me reiterate that your idea of poverty-reduction and mine are are two different animals. But the general goal is the right idea.

[Gorgo]

I'm not arguing against law and order. I'm just saying the benefit of the current method of achieving that has not been completely proven. IMHO.

Originally posted by Kyran, Gorgo, real education and real poverty-reduction DO reduce crime more than anything else.  No source necessary to prove that. You weren't supposed to walk into the bear trap though.  I'm gonna let you off easy.  See, I bait people with questions they should never answer to lead them down their own paths of logic. The reason why the Rule of Law is necessary is this.  Criminal and Civil Justice are executed via our innocent-until-proven-guilty court system.  Remember, this is a hallmark of American culture from the revolutionary times.

[Kyran]

Gorgo, if you aren't insulting anyone then what's this?

Originally posted by Gorgo, Your logic is flawed because you don't have any

Yeah, okay then. You can shut the fuck up while we all laugh at you.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAa.

We will be back to our civil discussion right after this cigarette run. Stay tuned.

[Gorgo]

Insulting his lack of logic, not his person. There is a difference.

You agree that his logic is at least inconsistent. I've just known him longer.

If I were to attempt to insult him, you would know it.

Originally posted by Kyran, Gorgo, if you aren't insulting anyone then what's this?

[Lava]

QUOTE Pooeypants, Lava

>>define 'overpopulated' and someone can show you how meaningless or incorrect your statement is.

> Really?

yep


> Tell me, how many species have gone extinct as a result of our exponential and almost unregulated growth?

irrelvant


> How many more forests do we have to fall to make way for our farmyards?

irrelevant.


The point is this: we have enough food and shelter for the whole world, therefore the earth is not overpopulated. At least not in any meaningful interpretation of the word.

However I believe it was you that raised a point that may well be valid, and that is the possibility of serious overpopulation in the near future.


Regards, Lava!

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not our argument, so it's up to you to prove that human growth caused these things.[/b]

It's our very presence that is the matter, especially since we're in such great numbers.

You can also prove that it's justified to "save the animals" and "save the tree" at the cost of people; since you are relying on that position.

At the cost of people? Well our aim to maintain Humanity, to carry on for the next generation. We obviously have enough population to do that, next we have to satisfy our morality, do the other wildlife on this Planet not deserve a place to live?

Originally posted by Kyran+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> No no, YOU nuke them. You're the one who has a problem with population levels, not me. Haahahahahhaaha![/b]

Note, it was you who proposed the idea.

Originally posted by Kyran Pooey, I can go through and refute every last one of the arguments your source uses. But tell ya what, since you're already hopelessly outmatched on this issue, I will allow it to be on the table anyway. It doesn't do you any good, as you will soon see.

Oh really? That's big talk from someone such as yourself.

Originally posted by Kyran Okay, so China has "overpopulated" the earth. Two wrongs make a right? That's a fallacy. You cannot say it "is not wrong" to abort children because of our unrelated population problem. Your argument is refuted.

Well, you were trying to make the case that Abortion kills X amount of potential people and I'm saying that it helps with the population problem, that's how they're related. What have you refuted?

Originally posted by Kyran Try again. Try to undermine my position next by claiming that abortion isn't a "wrong" in the first place and demanding me to prove it. Yeah...you should do that. Better yet, for those other abortion advocates out there; try to say that punishing people by law doesn't make murder or theft right. Please, argue with me. I'll GIVE you arguments to use. But you'll never win.

What's this strawmen you're using? I don't understand? And why can't we win? Because you'll block out everything?

<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran@

Raising the bar fallacy, and irrelevant. Don't change the topic.
[/quote]
You made a claim, I'm asking a realistic question, you're refusing to answer it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran

By the way, I wasn't able to find the human population limit on this website. Perhaps you can share with us the number of people that are supposed to be around in order to co-exist peacefully with our environment. Remember though, that no solution which demands the killing of born or unborn people is acceptable. There's always contraceptives, education, and awareness.[/quote]
Indeed there is, but who will provide the funding? Where are we going to get the funding, will the people accept it? Will you have to force the people to accept it? Do you know these things? China stopped the explosive population growth they had by placing a 1 Child per family limit, and I'm sure you know what happened to a lot of the first born girls...

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Lava,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lava,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> yep irrelvant irrelevant.[/b]

Damn fine arguments there *applauses*

<!--QuoteBegin-Lava

The point is this: we have enough food and shelter for the whole world, therefore the earth is not overpopulated. At least not in any meaningful interpretation of the word.

However I believe it was you that raised a point that may well be valid, and that is the possibility of serious overpopulation in the near future.


Regards, Lava![/quote]
We do have enough food and shelter for the entire population, but it is the distribution in the REAL world that the problem lies. And I don't see the resources being spread evenly around the world currently or in the near future, do you?

[Sean]

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Gorgo, if you aren't insulting anyone then what's this? <!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo, Your logic is flawed because you don't have any

Yeah, okay then. You can shut the fuck up while we all laugh at you.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAa.

We will be back to our civil discussion right after this cigarette run. Stay tuned.[/b][/quote]

Kyran..please stop this.

[Lava]

QUOTE Kyran, Lava

>> I have real reservations after my last attempt but am going to try moving the debate forward one more time. I cross my fingers.

> Lava, actually from reading your post I can see you tried to be half-way sensible in the midst of all this. I applaud you for that,

thank you - I tried at least.


> so take my criticism and back off. Things are going to get very ugly.

No. Threats against an anonymous poster with full computer security on another continent on an anonymous internet forum:
a) arent remotely credible
b) will get you banned, and lose you your ISP if you choose to continue
c) show only inability to support ones argument, and immaturity.

and d) if you think you can scare someone off youve really picked the wrong one to try it on. Nope, thats not a threat, its just that youre not the first to try it and its never worked yet. I'm just not the wet approval seeking kind.

And e) abortion debates always get ugly. It already is.

If you want to convince anyone of anything, youre going to need to remain online. And to do that you need to behave with basic sense. It would be your loss if you dont.

Any fool can be passionate about their beliefs, it means nothing. The trick with debate is to learn to back them up with something convincing instead of just flapping arms. The fact that we all have views is not news.

Hope youre learning.


>> Making abortions illegal does not stop them.

> Making murders and rapes illegal doesn't stop them entirely either. That being said, I'm sure you can agree that having a Rule of Law is better than not having one.

We're not considering the option of removing the rule of law, that point isnt relevant.

Murder and rape are very different crimes to abortion. In those cases it is the retribution from the law that scares off the small percentage who would like to commit them, and it is effective at least in the majority of cases, so a clear good thing.

In the case of abortion, the issues women consider are far bigger than any law in the land, and few women are going to make such a huge life changing choice based on what some law tells them. Laws against abortion simply dont work, and never will. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of abortion, legislating against it only results in more death due to widespread medical malpractice.

The whole concept of "its wrong therefore make it illegal and it'll mostly stop" is just naive. Prohibition taught this lesson loud and clear.


I guess I tried to raise the bar, and I dont feel anyone has taken me up on it. This reminds me too much of the future prediction thread to be optimistic. I wish you well but I'm not real convinced this is what I want.


Regards, Lava

[waterfalllife]

Just because the woman has the right to have an abortion doesnt mean she will.

Just because I have the right to sue McDonalds over their bad Menu options doesnt mean I will.

Just because Im hungry doesnt mean I will eat.

Just agree to disagree here. Wether you like it or not, there are abortions either way. And frankly, Id rather let the woman decide what is in her best interest. It is not my choice to make. If I was to impregnate a girl not by my own wanting, sure I probably wouldnt want to have the kid, but Im not going to force the girl to get one. Its HER decision because its HER body and she needs to have the RIGHT garunteed. Just because I hate the KKK doesnt mean they cant exist. So just everyone calm down cause neither side will EVER win.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Why are you killing living, heart-beating humans simply because their mother was raped or had sex with their brother? Murder is murder. Will you kill a ten-year-old or a fifty-year-old because his mother was raped? What is the difference?

Do I really have to explain the logic of Euthenasia? I have already talked about it in another thread. Go look for my poll on Euthanizing babies that are going to be mentally challenged. Apply to those who would be outcasts. Yes, I am serious.

Spartan? Sure. Wrong? Maybe. Mercyful? Indeed.

[Lava]

QUOTE Pooeypants,Lava,

>>yep
>>
>>irrelvant
>>
>>irrelevant.

>Damn fine arguments there *applauses*

perfectly sound as originally written. Snipping most of the content out then deriding whats left is hardly decent debate. Look, I come here for debate, Im not intereted in the nonsense. If you can explain how your points were relevant, please do. I maintain that
a) theyre not
b) its obvious theyre not, once you figure out what 'overpopulation' means.


>> The point is this: we have enough food and shelter for the whole world, therefore the earth is not overpopulated. At least not in any meaningful interpretation of the word.
>>
>> However I believe it was you that raised a point that may well be valid, and that is the possibility of serious overpopulation in the near future.

> We do have enough food and shelter for the entire population,

and thats the definition I'm using. Do you have another one for us? I know I asked before.


> but it is the distribution in the REAL world that the problem lies. And I don't see the resources being spread evenly around the world currently or in the near future, do you?

I agree completely with this point. And I dont see it ever changing unless there is some kind of new social invention. By that I mean for example like civilisation, which was a new concept that changed the social order dramatically, and made possible what was once impossible. Short of that I dont think there will ever be satisfactory resource distribution.

But of course that has nothing to do with level of population. The same problem occurs whether the world population is 12000, 12 billion, or 120 billion. It can not therefore be considered to be due to overpopulation.


Regards, Lava

[Gorgo]

Best advice so far, really, Waterfallife, and that was the point I was trying to make. It would serve the anti-choice crowd better to conserve their energy and use it to make life better for all people, make contraception easier to get and better, and then there would be fewer abortions by default, which is what we all want.

How to get those things is another set of arguments that we'll never agree on either, but that's another set of threads.

[Gorgo]

Not disagreeing or agreeing here on euthanasia. What you are quoting was an attempt to get Vicchio to see his own logic, not a promotion of his ideas.

Originally posted by bugsbunny04,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bugsbunny04,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo, Why are you killing living, heart-beating humans simply because their mother was raped or had sex with their brother?  Murder is murder.  Will you kill a ten-year-old or a fifty-year-old because his mother was raped?  What is the difference?

Do I really have to explain the logic of Euthenasia? I have already talked about it in another thread. Go look for my poll on Euthanizing babies that are going to be mentally challenged. Apply to those who would be outcasts. Yes, I am serious.

Spartan? Sure. Wrong? Maybe. Mercyful? Indeed.[/b][/quote]

[Samildanach]

To Answer you Kyran, now that I can see you have gone completely off the deep end.

Quote "What you want is irrelevant, so put a sock in it. Your life isn't at stake. That child's is. Why don't you give him the choice of leaving your family? That would mean you support freedom of choice. But instead of seeing this bear-trap query I laid for you, you have stuck your penis in it."

Point one, what I want is the most relevant thing in the world to me and what I want to do with my developing bunch of cells is up to me, hell I'll feed it to the dog if I want also I don't remember saying I supported freedom of choice.

Quote2 "The men and women you bring into this world do not belong to you. People are not property. Raising children is a virtue, not a responsibility. That means one should thank their parents."

I don't remember the argument being about bringing a man or women into the world, its about aborting a fetus which has more or less the intelligence of a banana on a good day. Raising children is a virtue indeed..however off track again.

Quote 3 "I can give you several reasons to trust those who might adopt "your" child. For one thing, they're not looking to kill "your" child. For another, there's a chance that child may grow up to produce something great for humanity like the cure for AIDS or a solution to world hunger. Finally, there's a chance "your" child may actually appreciate the fact that you didn't murder them. But hey, put your kid up for adoption then tell him 30 years later that you CONSIDERED aborting him. That'll be the last time you ever see him."

I'm not wanting to get drawn into hypothetical scenarios but seeing as you are already there consider the opposite. I adopt out the child they sell him for cash to some guy who likes making child pornography films for a few bucks. He grows up really fucked up and decides to become the next serial killer around the corner from your house and he takes a dislike to you but he likes you daughter though....but you don't know that cause hes the quiet type.

Quote 4 "Thank you for answering honestly, though, Sam. Your reasoning for abortion lies within the scope of distrust; an emotion consisting of 'fear' and 'want.' It fits right in with the top three reasons for abortions in America: greed, conformity, and laziness. These also consist of want and fear"

Actually my reason for supporting abortion lies in the fact that I believe its a viable option for stopping pregnancies if both partners are not ready to raise the child themselves. To give away my child is just unthinkable because he ,she would be far to precious but to abort a fetus that has not yet become a child is completely viable. It comes down to how much you care about how your children are brought up. I care very much how my kids will be brought up and I would rather not have one than not be able to give it my attention in a stable safe environment, something I can not guarantee a foster parent can or will give it. As for your fear distrust greed conformity and laziness..well...people are people...what did you expect?....

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Not disagreeing or agreeing here on euthanasia. What you are quoting was an attempt to get Vicchio to see his own logic, not a promotion of his ideas.

You can't get Mr. V to see any logic in his statements. There isn't any.

"Abortion is murder.

Abortion is wrong."

But then he says abortion is ok if the fetus is a product of rape or incest.

In other words, there are extenuating circumstances that justifies abortion. Now we just need to get everyone to agree exactly what those circumstances are.

[Samildanach]

Inconsistent argument, I am in agreement with you there Zee. Mr V you can't have it both ways. Either murder is murder or its not. Its a black and white thing. There are no shades of gray.

[Nuitana]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Maybe to remove some of the stigma attached so that it is not so difficult for people to go through in the future?

I think that's the intention of distributing the shirt, but I think the shirt is in very poor taste. I'm completely and necessarily pro-choice in a society that is ungenerous toward those who have been born, where from the moment of birth, the older you get, the less valuable you become. I see abortion as a private matter and a personal/medical decision, not something to publicize. However, it should be publicized that some women have abortions because they are poor, would love to have their babies and stay home, be responsible and raise them, but there are no welfare programs that allow that. For some women, having an abortion is far more responsible than bearing a child who will be in day care while mom's working a job she does not want. In a society that does not respect motherhood/homemaking as a valid career choice, it seems hypocritical to call women who have abortions murderers, when their born children are not considered worthy enough to have a full-time mom.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, I don't find them (abortions) easy to get. They're expensive, and most people have to travel quite a ways to get them. Thanks to the anti-choice crowd.[/b]

I object to your denial of facts. The anti-choice crowd is the pro-abortion side. I support the idea of letting unborn children have a choice in this matter. Abortionists do not want the unborn to have a choice. Those are the facts and no one shall refute them.

Try again. Try arguing that I'm advocating a policy which denies a woman the ability to choose.

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Supporting criminals like George Bush, supporting superstition, supporting illegal wars. That's not an insult, that's fact. Threatening me with being put on report is really childish. Either do it or shut up. I'm not really interested in your threats. Stick to the discussion.[/b]

Supporting criminals like Bush, supporting superstition, supporting illegal wars. That's not an argument, that's a sentence fragment.

Furthermore, your opinion of Mr V's views or my views has nothing to do with the subject here. I'm not interested in your unfounded, off-topic accusations that Bush is a criminal, that Bush's war was illegal, or that anyone is being superstitious. So give it up already.

Can you refute this? 48,000,000 casualties per year of abortion equates to a war; one which dwarfs the death-tolls of WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

p.s. Sorry I laughed at you across half the screen.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by prettyredhead, And further more, how can you outlaw abortions when we cannot find homes for kids already here? It isnt your choice. You live in your little world, and she lives in hers. It impacts you none what so ever. Please, tell me how it impacts your life, ?????Dont post again until you can answer this....

How can we outlaw it? I have a couple problems with your question. First, it relies upon a false premise that "we cannot find homes for kids now." You haven't provided any sources or facts backing up this assertion. Also, secondary problem arguments do not qualify as justification for abortion. Two wrongs do not make a right.

My argument can be summarized as this: it is not your choice to end the life of the unborn. Your choices are what to eat today, what kind of career to pursue, and who to date. Notice that you cannot date me, because I said so. You live in your little world, and I live in mine. Choice is only relevant to oneself. Choices never include others, regardless of individual development stage; i.e. even if a child is growing inside of you.

Again, let me suggest adoption as the viable alternative. At least in those cases, mothers who can't afford children would be able to sustain their lives and then attempt to reclaim custody. This would be responsible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POOEY, I'm so glad you decided to continue playing. Now remember, I let you have the overpopulation card on the table. That can change at any time I choose. I already know it's a bogus argument. The important thing here is to convince you about abortion, not overpopulation. Nonetheless, let us get this out of the way quickly.

I do not blame you for disliking my super-confident posture on overpopulation. But hey, address the answer I gave. I never bluff.

If abortion helps out with the population problem, then logically war helps out too. I don't try to justify war by saying Bush helped to keep our planet's human population down. But you are trying to justify abortion by balancing it against an unrelated problem. Two wrongs do not make a right.

By the way, since we are overpopulated, I suggest figuring out how to terraform Mars before our planet ceases to support us. That would be an acceptable solution. Fair? Okay then. Feel free to let us know the secret as to how many human beings this planet CAN support anytime now.

Now then, you accused me of using a straw man. A straw man is when I tell you what your argument is and proceed to deface it. It is intellectually dishonest. What I actually did was give you free arguments and dare you to use them. This has apparently caught you by surprise, but such tactics are free and permissible as far as I know.

Yes I refused to answer your inquiry about government & distribution. I let you have the overpopulaton card on the table without question. You want an answer?

<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants,@
Question is, will your/my gov't do something about the distribution of this food? Yes or No?[/quote]

Yes. They'll tax it. See, your question leaves me with way too much guessing room as to what you are getting at. So, I took it explicitly. I stand by my claim that it is Raising the Bar.

What I refuted was your assertion B derived from fact A:
A) Overpopulation (human life) is a problem.
B) Abortion helps our problem.

Life isn't the problem. Killing is the problem; because it isn't solving anything. Why don't you try that nice fresh oven-baked argument that I gave you in my other post?

Now, as far as your funding question goes, that's really getting off-topic. Okay? You are raising the bar by demanding impossible perfection for overpopulation. Why do I have to give you solutions (which I have, I said terraform Mars) to other world crisises in a discussion on abortion?

The ball's back in your court.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lava, when I advised you to back off and let me take care of the abortion debate, I was not making a threat. A threat would be the following:
Agree with me or I will feed you to retarded man-eating gophers.

While you may believe it is ugly now, I believe it will get much worse.

With that aside, let's analyze your argument.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lava,
Murder and rape are very different crimes to abortion. In those cases it is the retribution from the law that scares off the small percentage who would like to commit them, and it is effective at least in the majority of cases, so a clear good thing.

Laws against abortion simply dont work, and never will. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of abortion, legislating against it only results in more death due to widespread medical malpractice.[/quote]

I described peer pressure to be the #2 reason given for abortions worldwide. The influence of a law against abortion would probably affect these women. Thanks for admitting you're raising the bar. I would be fully willing to agree with your suggestion, that abortions will still happen...along with theft, fraud, and other crime.

But remember, I'm not arguing for the law as the "fix-all" solution to the abortion issue. I accept the fact that mankind will continue to be plagued with problems. I argue that it is necessary for justice; and that somebody's life will be saved because some pregnant mother somewhere respected the law.

I further argue that it is necessary for education. With abortion-on-demand legal, women are being taught they have a right to decide whether a growing fetus will live or die. This message is counterproductive.

Let me interject that a fetus is not part of a woman's body. Women are not born with fetuses inside. Fetuses serve no purpose respective of female anatomy. On the contrary, female anatomy explicitly serves the purpose of childbearing.

I still support everyone's right to smoke, drink, tattoo, pierce, say, and believe what they choose to. Hopefully one day science will figure out how to make an artificial womb. And with that, I'm going to rest my argument.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> POOEY, I'm so glad you decided to continue playing. Now remember, I let you have the overpopulation card on the table. That can change at any time I choose. I already know it's a bogus argument. The important thing here is to convince you about abortion, not overpopulation. Nonetheless, let us get this out of the way quickly. I do not blame you for disliking my super-confident posture on overpopulation. But hey, address the answer I gave. I never bluff. If abortion helps out with the population problem, then logically war helps out too. I don't try to justify war by saying Bush helped to keep our planet's human population down. But you are trying to justify abortion by balancing it against an unrelated problem. Two wrongs do not make a right.[/b]

Actually, it was your own very questionable figures that allowed me to make the assertion that it was an acceptable compromise. Infact, I don't think you've sourced that figure of Abortions pre year have you?

Originally posted by "Kyran"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Kyran")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> By the way, since we are overpopulated, I suggest figuring out how to terraform Mars before our planet ceases to support us. That would be an acceptable solution. Fair? Okay then. Feel free to let us know the secret as to how many human beings this planet CAN support anytime now.[/b]

There is no secret to it, an acceptable figure is one where we can all live in an equal standard of fair living and at a size where we won't consume our resources too quickly, take up too much land nor destroy too much wildlife.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Kyran")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Now then, you accused me of using a straw man. A straw man is when I tell you what your argument is and proceed to deface it. It is intellectually dishonest. What I actually did was give you free arguments and dare you to use them. This has apparently caught you by surprise, but such tactics are free and permissible as far as I know.[/b][/quote]
If you want to do that fine.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Kyran")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yes I refused to answer your inquiry about government & distribution. I let you have the overpopulaton card on the table without question. You want an answer?[/b][/quote]
You claimed that we had enough resources to sustain all people, I asked if that were so in real life.

Originally posted by Kyran Yes. They'll tax it. See, your question leaves me with way too much guessing room as to what you are getting at. So, I took it explicitly. I stand by my claim that it is Raising the Bar. What I refuted was your assertion B derived from fact A: A) Overpopulation (human life) is a problem. B) Abortion helps our problem.

You made a figure earlier of something like 48 million abortions per year, do you retract that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran@

Life isn't the problem. Killing is the problem; because it isn't solving anything. Why don't you try that nice fresh oven-baked argument that I gave you in my other post?[/quote]
Err, stopping a life from forming isn't killing is it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Kyran

Now, as far as your funding question goes, that's really getting off-topic. Okay? You are raising the bar by demanding impossible perfection for overpopulation. Why do I have to give you solutions (which I have, I said terraform Mars) to other world crisises in a discussion on abortion?

The ball's back in your court.[/quote]
I asked for realistic answers, if you have none to supply then you do not have to reply, it is that simple.