The Republican Party

As usual, proponents of abortion (according to Republicans) rely on euphemisms to disguise what they really want. Using terms like "baby" to humanize a fetus, "killing your baby" instead of terminating the pregnancy. Do you see what I'm trying to say here, sir? Terms are relative. I can state the opposite of everything you say. However, I can say even more. I can say that there is no solid evidence of fetuses having consciousness: https://www.scientificamerican.com... I can also say that denying abortions is inherently sexist: http://journals.sagepub.com... The fetus is a human. Not a baby. It may be Homo sapiens, but it isn't going to notice if it dies. It's not murder. It's population control and very convenient for poor people who your refuse to help out. If you paid more taxes, they might be able to feed their kids. Until you do that, they won't be able to feed their kids. It's very simple, really. I'm glad Donald Trump is going to lose next year. Very, very glad. It's about time. We're gonna get somebody good. Joe Biden, maybe. Maybe Oprah. Really, anybody is better than the evil orange small genitalia carrot man. Oh, where was I? Ah, yes. Abortion. There are options besides killing your baby, but killing your baby should be an option too. Why reduce the amount of options? Seriously, you're serving up a serious false dilemma here. It has nothing to do with whether the baby has popped out yet or not. It has to do with how much money the parents are making, and whether they're OK with doing it. Why should you interfere with people you don't even know? Couples can do whatever they want. It's not murder. It's just surgery. I'm against it, after the fifth month. Not after that. But you're talking about rescuing an embryo. Why? Do you care that much about it? If a couple gets on the ball, and extracts it when it's just a little cluster of cells, there's no problem. You do know that there's a limit to what can be considered "alive," right? You have given no evidence. You make no sense. If a couple cannot support a child, they have to do something about it. You don't pay taxes, they're gonna have to go in there with a coathanger if they have to. Sorry. That's just how it goes. Human overpopulation, I'll have you know, is not a myth. It's no more a myth than global warming is a myth. Just for reference, here's the official birth and death tracker: http://worldbirthsanddeaths.com... As you can see, there are some deaths. But go to this website any day, any day at all, and you'll see that the births are slowly overpowering the deaths. They're gaining on them. More people are born than they die. And our population is going to peak at about 11 billion. But that is a lot, compared to what we have right now. I ask you, before we start going down again, just how many people are going to get squooshed out? Probably quite a few. Oh, sure, we here in America will be fine. We're a first world country with a Capitalist economy. What about, say, India, or China, those countries where poor people live? They really need abortion, or condoms, or something there. But why worry about them? You're a millionaire, after all. Once more, the primary Repubbo motive comes out: Selfishness and greed. I consider Republicans a hate group, just like any other hate group. At its core, the Republican Party is racist, sexist, classist- yup, same things as Jim Crow and the KKK. I don't separate the two in my mind. Why should I? They both stand for the same things. Name one spot where UNDERpopulation is a problem. If you live in one of those areas, abortion wouldn't make sense, I agree with that. But most of the world isn't facing an UNDERpopulation problem. So your argument, especially in America, is irrelevant. That article you gave doesn't say that overpopulation isn't a PROBLEM. It says that OVERPOPULATION WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM IF WE DO THE RIGHT THINGS. If things go wrong, we'll all be dead. I'd say that banning abortions would be one way that our expected population stats go off track. Electing Trump was another pretty big mistake. He'll ban abortions and then we'll be facing lots of kids running around who can't eat. You, sir, make no sense. I don't think that parents should kill their baby once it comes out of the womb. I never said that. You're using the Straw Man fallacy, there. I think it's brutal to kill a baby once it's out of the womb. Even a month before it comes out of the womb. But there are clearly set legal rules for what constitutes as murder and what doesn't, and taking a fetus out doesn't count as murder. It's like rape. If a guy asks a lady to have sex, and she says no, and he's OK with that, it's not rape. Simple. All crimes have specific guidelines. Very well set guidelines. Do you support children being taken from their parents, put under the custody of the Government, and then looked after in orphanages? You said in the last round that you didn't want the government interfering with people's lives, and now you propose a nationwide ban on abortion? This is hypocritical. Republicanism is a hypocritical philosophy. It's not hypocritical, really. You don't want the government to benefit POOR people with legal abortions. You want the Government to benefit RICH people by lifting taxes on the grotesquely wealthy. What a strange way to think, sir. Here's another example of your poorly executed logic. You say that "you don't get to decide who gets to live and who has to die based on what you believe." Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Your argument for fetuses is based on nothing but belief. You've given no evidence as to why a human fetus can't be taken out. You don't get to decide who can die and who can live. The parents should get to do that, shouldn't they? It's their child. Eh, Mr. Buttinski? Now, I'll explain why you used those logical fallacies. You DID use false dichotomy, because you say that there are a "plethora of options" aside from abortion, but you completely ignore abortion as an option, even though it's safe, efficient, and helpful to couples who can't feed children. You certainly limit the amount of options by excluding the best one. You DO employ the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Your claim that fetuses are alive has no proof behind it. It's all just backed by emotion, you're trying to sway the voters over to your side by insisting that fetuses know that they're being killed. You absolutely employed the appeal to emotion fallacy, back there. I wouldn't suggest trying to battle me in fallacies, sir. I'm an expert at them. You don't know what the "appeal to emotion" fallacy is, sir. You don't even have to mention the word "emotion". It's just when you use sympathy instead of reason. You did use petitio principii. You did not prove that fetuses know when they're being aborted. You said that fetuses are alive and thus have the right to live. You did not give any evidence that they are alive. You also didn't say how the right to live is an "unalienable right," especially in a world that has more humans than it can handle. Your argument essentially boils down to this: Fetuses have the RIGHT to live, therefore they SHOULD live. That's a repititious claim, therefore, it is petitio principii. I did not use the Straw Man fallacy. You said that being poor is a poor decision. Some people can't help having a child. What about women who are raped? Did they choose to be raped? Do they have to have a child if they're dirt poor and can't afford to have children? It strikes me as odd that you would care so much about a human fetus but have a complete lack of empathy for beggars on the street. Do you really care about that fetus, sir? Or do you use fetuses to your advantage, a way to drive the huddled masses into even more poverty? Once more, Republican philosophy reaches a bottomless pit of nonsense. Are you the best debater your political party has to offer? I was expecting a bit more of a challenge. Oh, well. All Republican philosophy fails at some point. FDR's New Deal did end the depression. Look at the numbers, I implore you. He was a good president. Maybe he failed at it in some regards. I don't know which ones. But he did end the Depression. His New Deal gave money to people who couldn't eat. What, might I ask, caused the Great Depression to begin with? Why, a complete lack of Governmental regulations on Wall Street trade. You know, economic anarchy like you mentioned before: https://www.thebalance.com... http://www.cland.k12.ky.us... Climate Change is very important. The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is melting, penguins are dying, polar bears are dying, species are going extinct. Here, here's one fun little story about Greenland: http://theconversation.com... I've devoted too much of this argument to abortion. Tell you what, Round 4, let's go over marijuana, Black Lives Matter, and Homosexuality, and I'll devote more space to Climate Change and Guns. I'll wait for that. In the meantime, here's a video I think you can relate to: