Alright, Ookla--if somehow me expressing my opinion and not expressly saying, "I think" before every statement offended you, I apologize. Obviously what I say is opinion. Secondly, the idea behind a debate is to convince the other side of your point of view (well, actually the idea is to convince those not participating of your view, but that's really getting into a different area of discussion). If I wasn't attempting to make my point seen, then I wouldn't be talking. I never ridiculed anybody's ideas, no matter if I thought they were stupid or not. I simply countered them with my take. I used words like "disgusting" as imagery to strengthen what I am saying, not as an attack on what somebody else had said. I didn't call somebody else disgusting, I didn't say somebody else's idea disgusting--I said that I considered a specific act disgusting--and I was NOT the first to do so. Nobody except you seems to have misconstrued my intent, as I haven't heard a complaint from any other person. This leads me to believe that my intent was clear, and if you misconstrued it, it is of your own doing.
I, however, may have been vague or unclear, and if I was, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who feel I have intended to insult their views or themselves.
Secondly, I have been expressing my opinion of a law about abortions, not my opinion about abortions themselves. Based on this thread, you could make assumptions about whether or not I would support a friend of mine, a girlfriend of mine or a relative of mine getting an abortion, but you would have no way to know for sure. Because it is irrelevant if I would support it or not--the fact that I dislike something does not give me the right to not allow somebody else to do it.
As for abortion not doing harm, science shows it is extraordinarily unlikely that pain is caused by early abortions. At risk of repeating myself, killing a fetus is simply not killing a baby--it has the same outcome with the same amount of suffering as not having the pregnancy at all. Now, personally, do I consider that fetus a person--I may. But I understand that others may not, and since I have no evidence to show otherwise, I refuse to push onto another by law what they do not believe.
I would definitely be in favor of laws that require abortion education before abortion, in which a to-be mother must be told what will happen in an abortion, and that while it is considered unlikely by medicine, it is possible that the fetus may be able to feel pain. I would also be in favor of a law that prohibits abortion past the seventh month, at which point modern medicine states it is much more likely the fetus can feel pain. I would even support a law that stated those who want to receive abortions must do so on a waiting list or three or four days, to make sure that she has had time to think about the decision. None of these solutions trample her ability to do so, but they do encourage serious thought on the serious issue before engaging in abortions, and they also draw a line of when an abortion can be had at a point that all people can see, using science, that suffering is caused.
A fetus isn't a parasite because it needs its mother to survive. It's a parasite because it drains resources from inside of another creature for survival without giving resources in return. A chicken egg doesn't do that, neither does a born baby.
There are people who jump through hoops to get a child in adoption, that doesn't change the fact that there are tons of children who don't get adopted. There aren't going to be more people jumping through hoops to get children when there are more of them, there will just be more kids who wont get adopted (at least this is the most likely outcome).
I don't believe that not making a law because it is difficult to enforce is okay, either. I do believe, however, that if there is a law which is so difficult for people to agree on even being a good law to make, the fact that it would be difficult to enforce is a piece of information which should be weighed, since clearly morality is difficult to determine.
And, as I have stated earlier, I'm just expressing my views, I'm not hell bent on convincing anybody. If I do, great, if I don't, also great. I'm more interested in the friendly exchange of ideas than I am of the results of said exchange. I never "laughed at" anybody, nor did I scorn a single person. I simply took their ideas, and gave a response. I never made any personal insults at ideas or people, nor did I tell anybody explicitly they are wrong (I only did so by disagreeing, which is perfectly acceptable), and I openly said that I was not expecting to persuade anybody of anything, but that I was just expressing my opinion. If me being long-winded is a sign of "ramming" opinions down throats, simply because I like to speak my mind and try to do so clearly, then I guess I have a habit of ramming my opinion down others' throats. Fortunately, free speech allows me to do so, ESPECIALLY when I'm doing so in a manner which does not include any negative remarks about the ideas of others--you have the right to ignore me, and you have the right to ridicule me or my ideas. I was just suggesting ridicule is probably not the best route, and not something I would have expected from such a distinguished member of such a fine community. Especially somebody who feels so strongly about the issue, as I'm sure you've heard you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
If I gave you the impression that I was laughing at your ideas, I think you were reading my messages with an intent that they did not have, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I never meant to make you or anybody else feel alienated or undercut simply because I disagree--I just meant to disagree.