Having it both ways

"What my opponent may want and what a debate actually is, are two different things. All opinions are equally valid therefore null in terms of quality for voting." All opinions may very well be valid, but debates operate under the pretexts and pretenses assigned to them. Adding strawmen that have nothing to do with the immediate topic is disingenuous and dishonest debate. "I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion. I had the idea that we were debating pro-choice's opinion on the issue. But if my opponent wishes to change the course of the debate, I am willing to fight that end as well." What exactly was I changing? Anyone that decides to read my first post can clearly see that my mentioning of China, pro-choice, etc, etc was merely a platform in which segue in to the overarching theme, which is that its illogical to support abortion, but be upset that a specific gender is being targeted. If a fetus is not considered a human being by the dictates of a society gone mad, how on earth can they can they reconcile that which is irreconcilable? My opponent says, "when I mentioned other ways baby girls were being killed: "But that isn't what we are discussing. The rest of your post simply devolves further in to off topic strawmen and non-sequiturs. The argument is transparently specific to abortion." This, to me, is a straw man assumption (something else my opponent accuses me of). He doesn't understand that I am trying to validate why a pro-choicer would choose to go against what is happening in China. I don't appreciate my opponent accusing me of fallacies he himself is committing." More distraction from the actual debate. Attacking your opponent with borderline ad hominem instead of dealing with the actual debate is one of the very definition of a straw man. You mention OTHER baby girls being killed. Here's the problem: If you don't consider a FETUS to be a human, or a "baby," then its gender is totally irrelevant and is, at most, extraneous information to an abortionist. What you were doing is telling sad stories about little girls who have already been born. Since you don't have a contention that born people are in fact people, you mentioning it only leads us inexorably off topic. I then try to refocus you towards abortion -- something as clear as day as the topic -- and you then try to claim that I'm doing what you are doing. With all due respect, I am simply trying to debate the premise that I set up. Anything less is hijacking a thread and distorting it to suit an agenda because you can't really deal with the actual moral of the debate. In a way I am sympathetic to your plight, as there is no rational way to defend an indefensible position. My opponent finally answers the actual question (which is much appreciated) by saying, "Yes, I believe that it is wrong to abort more females than males. I believe it is wrong for the following reasons and situations (which I have mentioned some in my earlier post as well)." Here are her reasons why it is wrong: "1. Imbalance of the population's sex types will cause damage to the nation. It has already been seen to cause heightened prostitution, violence, and crime." Fair enough, your assessment here is duly noted. "2. You risk the return of dowry system where arranged marriages become a profitable enterprise." Well, here is the problem. The same people telling us that the West intrudes and tramples upon other cultures ironically have no problem intruding or trampling them when it suits their own agenda. But I digress. "3. You risk a generation of fewer children." I thought to a pro-choice advocate, that was a bonus. Again, the same people that generally warn of impending overpopulation are also the same people who support abortion. And in China, a country with billions upon billions of people, and a nation still with millions starving, I thought this is considered a good thing to pro-abortionist. And remember: China has a one-child policy, right? But many women in that culture actually themselves prefer to have male children just as much as their husbands do. Are you saying that you would be willing to take away their choice? I only ask because that seems completely counter to what pro-choice is supposed to mean -- its the woman's choice no matter what. 4. You risk a generation so male dominant that you essentially have a patriarchal society. "5. You undermine the farming class." Why? Men can't farm? "6. You risk sky ponies." I have no idea what this means... Can elaborate for me, please? "7. You usher in an era of purple grass." I also am not familiar with this term. Can please expound for me? All in all I thought your reasons for why its "wrong" were trite, banal, and typical. And you no further explained the moral question. Instead you used a sleight of hand to smuggle in utilitarian and pragmatic reasons masquerading as genuine concern and a genuine moral. Now, here is why I believe that you are running on a treadmill and, while trying to create the impression that you are going somewhere, you are in fact at a standstill: If a fetus is not a human, then there is neither a baby boy, nor a baby girl gestating in a womb. Instead there is only an amorphous blob that is beginning to form its sex organs, almost as incidentally, not to mention as insignificantly (to an pro-abortionist) as a chicken. Therefore terminating the female in greater abundance than the male should be seen, at most, extraneous information. Thank you for the debate Vi Veri. I'm looking forward to your response, and any future debates we might have.