Says the guy to whom I pointed out his logical fallacies twice (at least) in the past hour. Hence, you have no right to insult anyone's logic, let alone mine. Moreover, you language and communcation skills aren't great either. How about we stay away from the ad hominem now?

That said, are you going to explain what you think is going on?

My language skills are good enough to get me scholarships to a prestigous university to major in biochem and molecular bio and minor in philoosophy.

When I don't give a shit in pursuing a conversation with someone because they show they can't follow a simple conversation I will resort to ad hominems because frankly I don't give a shit and you haven't pointed out any fallacies because there hasn't been any straw man here.

Well if you're going to take that route (to be clear, the immodest, high-atop-my-mountain route), then I've been studying mathematics and computer science for the past four years (with shitloads of scholarships, I might add), so there is nothing wrong with my logic. Have you ever had to carry out a proof in an advanced analysis course? Or abstract algebra? Have you ever even been exposed to a semi-rigorous number theory course? If you had, then you'd understand the level of logic one needs to posess to move forward in mathematics. Once again, you have absolutely no solid ground (hell, you can't even claim to have a liquid sea!) atop which you can insult my logic from.

And you're right, I haven't been able to follow the conversation with you. Because, like I said, you are bad at expressing your thoughts in a concise (or even gramatically correct) way. So that's hardly my fault; in fact, it's not my fault at all.

I think you never have the right to give anyone medication/chemicals without their consent.

Some are going to make a big deal out of this because it was an abortion pill. Seems messed up, but they do not seem like the kind of people that should be having a kid together.

How am I not concise? Curl equated an effect caused directly by a persona action to an effect completely in the hands of someone else. You agreed to it.

Yawn, this bores me and isn't worth my time (which is why I cant be bothered to present in a grammatical way)

How are you not concise? How about you go back a page or two and read your posts. That should take care of your confusion in that category.

Your arguments are laughable. So, the problem with Curl's analogy was that you choose to have sex, whereas you don't choose to get mugged? (By the way, the method by which you tried to communicate this argument was also not concise by any means.) Do you choose for the contraception to fail then? In both cases, you choose to perform an action that could result in its respective consequence. There's a difference between choosing to have sex and choosing to become a parent. Why do you think that you presented a pristine rebuttal? Your hangover analogy also had absolutely no merits. Moreover, you haven't even remotely addressed my clarifications that showed the similarities between Curl's analogy and the topic at hand. Where do you even get the audacity to insult other peoples' logical capacities, when your "arguments" are that weak?

Let me correct you, this isn't worth my time. You're neither willing nor able to continue an informative conversation without stalling it or resorting to immature insults. And by the way, it shouldn't be that hard to present your ideas in a grammatically correct way. Unless English isn't a language you use often, in which case I apologize.

Why not charge her with murder? Because I feel taking away abortion would lead to other problems. Like women looking for more drastic methods to kill their unborn child.

So if people want to have abortions, whatever. I don't want to stop them. But don't tell me a fetus isn't a person so you can sleep better at night.

The fact that you still think the hangover point is still an argument says volumes. Have you ever taken a logic course? If so you should realize it's a test and since everyone who sees it says its absurd then it worked.

Oh, and I use English everyday. First language. Are you giving me thousands to write well? No. Am I working for you? no. I don't give no shits.

So? If the fetus is a child, then it's murder, regardless of the method used to abort. So, if the fetus is a child, then women should be charged with murder for abortion too.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying a fetus is not a person to get better shut-eye at night; trust me, I have no trouble falling asleep in the worst of times. I truly believe that a fetus is not a person. How do you justify calling a fetus a person? A fetus is a potential person. So is a sperm cell, so is an egg. Is it then also murder for men to masturbate, or for women to go through a menstrual cycle without conceiving?

And my "argument" is weak... /rolls eyes