Trent just tore this asshole a new one
I know since this is Destiny's thread, anybody doing a smackdown on him is automatically the winner but this guy's debate tactic is manipulative, fallacious and retarded. His leading rhetoric questioning is based solely on creating a psychological relation between one debatable subject to a horrifying subject to substitute the emotional resonance of one with the other. He can't argue that abortion is wrong on its own demerits, so he has to bridge it to something obviously and unquestionably harrowing, which is child sexual abuse.
I can do the same thing, watch:
Me) Do you think it's acceptable to eat red meat?
You) Yes.
Me) Why do you think it's acceptable to eat red meat?
You) Because it's packed full of nutrients, including unique B vitamins and the livestock is killed humanely.
Me) Would you say that killing is generally wrong though?
You) Yes.
Me) Would it be better if you could eat red meat without killing, like lab grown meat?
You) Yes.
Me) What if the only lab meat grown was human meat, but because it didn't involve killing anything, it would be more ethical to eat it than meat from livestock?
I have just created a PETA-esque retroactive mental connection between eating a steak and murdering a person to consume their flesh like an inbred savage, because that's exactly the moral notion put forward with that line of questioning. The reality is no, eating red meat is not the equivalent to eating a person, much like how aborting a fetus is not tantamount to abusing a child, but I can make you think they are by simply bridging them together through a series of contorted hypothetical steps. With this method, I could make virtually anything I want sound evil without actually proving anything at all.
What's more is the object of this tactic is to assassinate the character of the debate opponent by getting them to implicitly admit they're a monster rather than purport any facts or reasoning to support one's own position or to deconstruct the opponent's position.
