How to Win an Argument With Yourself

The Bionic Liberal?  It's so easy to win an argument with your imaginary foe when you don't allow comments...

Just a snippet:

Inquisitor: If abortions had been legal, you might never have been born.

Me: So?

Inquisitor: Well, you would never have existed. Anti-abortion laws saved your life.

Me: Let's follow your line of reasoning and say I don't exist. If I don't exist then I can't care whether I might potentially exist or not because, well, I'm not here.

Inquisitor: That's not the point.

Me: How can I have an opinion on something if I don't exist?

Let me finish this argument for him/her/it (I didn't bother to read its profile and I wouldn't want to insult it by using the wrong progressive-acceptable pronoun)

Inquisitor: Bang!!!!  Ok, you're dead now.  You don't exist.  I assume you don't care, right?  What's that, you can't answer me because you don't exist?  Argument won!

We prosecute murderers not because the person they murdered cares, they're dead after-all, we prosecute murder because killing someone is wrong.  Abortion is wrong, especially in a society where so many options for responsible birth control exist.  Heck, I'll even go so far as to accept early abortions, wrong as I feel they are.  But to argue that abortion is OK because the babies killed don't exist now, well, that argument has a bit of a flaw...

(and there's another flaw in the straw argument.  The Inquisitor feels the baby did exist, he wouldn't state something so obviously flawed as "...you would never have existed".)

Death Penalty Hypocrisy

Juxtapose these two men, Hamid Ghassemi-Shall and Ronald Smith, and ask yourself why our government might discriminate between the two.  The media and our bureaucratic betters tell us the Conservatives are bad to pick and choose whom to expend valuable political and monetary treasure on.  Even the courts tell us we must support all Canadians on death row.  The first is going to be executed as a spy by a regime notorious for unjust convictions and politically motivated executions while the second is an admitted multiple murderer who killed to see what it was like.  Now why on earth we would want to pick and choose between those two?