Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location

 I don't see a huge inconsistency. If you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a 4 year old child then the logical stand is to be against abortion with no exceptions. I always thought that the position of outlawing all abortion except rape/incest was rather untenable because on one hand you are arguing that the fetus is equivalent to a child and on the other saying kill the child just because mom got raped.  

As far as the big deal they were making about Romney not believing in the plank on the platform, it doesn't really matter. The party platform has never been faithfully followed by elected officials and has about as much weight as a mission statement. Mostly it is a way to make a bunch of delegates feel like they are doing something important and it provides some measure of the beliefs held by the delegates. It is not uncommon at all for a candidate to disagree with several planks in the parties official platform. About the only thing a platform is good for is drawing the attention of a few headlines- which this one seems to have done quite a bit, not sure if that is helpful for the republicans.

But a fetus is not a 4 year old child, that is the point.

The child is not going to be bothered by not getting to exist. I don't like abortion, but I believe it is an very important part of women's healthcare. Feelings about abortion is completely irrelevant. Only education and more women's healthcare is going to lower the number of abortions. Banning it only makes more happen, and with much greater risk to the mothers.

Yeah, this is the same as how it is reasonable for a religious person who really believes others will burn forever if they don't believe spreads the word. I dont agree with it, but it isn't logically incorrect.

No, it will be a human if we don't interfere, just like all the eggs that would grow into a human if we didn't interfere and stop the sperm from reaching them with condoms. Explain to me how those actions are ethically different given the pro-life premise that preventing a potential human from coming into existence is murder.

If we're asked about its species then yes, it's obviously human. That's not solely how we decide what rights creatures have though. A brain dead person is just as much human as we are but we don't consider pulling the plug of the machine keeping him alive to be the same thing ethically as murdering a random person on the street. Unless you disagree with the previous sentence then it's your job to provide an argument why a fetus's destruction is as wrong as a "regular" murder.

So what, it's still our actions keeping a potential person from being born. Are you saying that there's a meaningful ethical difference between taking something vital away from someone and preventing them from getting it? If I take a bowl of porridge away from a starving person then how am I being more of an asshole than if I had prevented the porridge from reaching him? Either way he starves, just like in cases of abortion and contraception both, a potential person is prevented from being born.

I agree.

Not to change the subject but look at the war on drugs.

I am not a drug user by any means, but it seems stupid to me to keep the gangs and drug lords a huge cash flow coming in (much like Prohibition made the Mafia rich) and to have people in jail for minor possession charges, overcrowded prisons, and billions of tax dollars to end a product that people are ultimately going to end up using anyway.

I feel the same way about abortions. I don't like them personally, but I feel a woman should have a right to choose and the last thing I want to see is the era of coat-hangers and black market doctors return.

Great counter argument.

I thought I found an unbeatable 'Weasel of the Year' nominee in another thread but you just might grab the title yet.

How fucking pathetic can you be? I write like a hundred word response and all you do with it is take the first two words, which are entirely irrelevant btw, and pretend that was the whole argument. Yeah, you really are better at being a trolling cunt than me, gz.

I didn't argue any of that isn't true, though I can understand you'd get confused since you refused to address the argument I did make.

I didn't invoke the majority or popularity as proof for anything so fuck your strawman.

I already said I don't give a shit if we label it human and I made a whole argument explaining why that's not the most relevant piece of information. Too bad you're a weasely little pussy so you had to run from the argument.

This is nothing but spineless mush, I can make the exact same argument about raping babies and call the anti-baby fuckers crackheads who think their "facts are set in stone". Grow some balls and make an actual argument as to why something is either wrong or right instead of this pathetic "well everyone's got an opinion" cop-out.

If you think you're right then you should force it. I'm not the least bit hesitant to enforce my opinion on assholes like rapists. I don't give a shit whether they think rape is just fine, I'm gonna lock them the fuck up if I can. What's your argument against enforcing your opinion on abortion that wouldn't also apply to rape?

"If you think you're right then you should force it. "

I'm not a fascist, go fuck yourself.

"What's your argument against enforcing your opinion on abortion that wouldn't also apply to rape?"

How are they even remotely similar? One ends a life, the other subjugates one through violence or threat thereof.

1: It takes that much to prove you a liar, yes.

2: You obviously don't know how ethics work. Come back when you do, and I'll accept your apology.

3: I don't give a shit that you claim to not give a shit yet argue as if you give a shit.

4: Yep, because you haven't and can't. It's sad how easy this is.

5: And yet you do. Making you a liar as well as a dumb ass. Grats!

6: Actually, it is, fucktard. But then you know shit about logic, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

7: A lot of them, not all.

8: lol @ strawman.