The Bible IMPLIES That Abortion Should Be Illegal

And that doesn't really make any sense.  A strawman is a mischaracterization or misrepresentation of someone else's argument.  It doesn't have anything to do with "moving the discussion to x."  That would only be relevant if someone did that as part of the process of mischaracterizing or misrepresenting someone else's argument (where of course they're claiming that it's an accurate relaying or summary etc. of the argument).

I know you didn't introduce it, I just read it in your post, so that's why I'm quoting you,

but

Man, do I hate that usage of "innocent."  It's just so vague and semantically empty.

Pretending that a silliness is the argument held is a strawman.  Before getting to you guys' defense league hose-spew gambits.

---

Disowning for having a different belief would be silly although being a hateful, lowdown dirty, resenful atheist livng in my house could get you the boot at 18. It's best not to bite the hand that feeds you.

But he didn't present "abortion as the champion" or the parenting comment as if he was presenting someone else's argument.  (And neither are really an argument or presented as an argument anyway, but we could let that part slide I guess.)

Why would I be talking shit about Muslims?  You must not know me very well.

There is never a time when an unborn child is not innocent, but that wasn't the point. I was saying it is dangerous to imply that it is ok to kill people who someone has deemed not innocent.

First off, there's no way you're near as qualified as I am for this, because you were supposedly teaching mathematics.  There's no indication at all that you have any background in philosophical logic, or philosophy in general, or anything of the sort.  And that's underscored by you making a number of comments above that evidence that you don't really understand what a straw man is.  (I'm going to have to start wondering if you weren't that discrete mathematics prof I had, haha.)  (Also, I'd make an educated guess that you've probably not read much literature, if at any at all, on this stuff, since otherwise "strawman" would probably look odd enough to you that you'd not write it that way.  It's almost always written as two words in academic literature.)

At any rate, ignoring the grammatical sloppiness of it, cooljgs wrote the following in a post that was not quoting anyone, that was not addressed to anyone in particular, and in which he was making some extremely broad statements:

"To think that abortion is some kind of champion for the human race (Derp- Population control...) and women in particular It makes them powerful!) is a ludicrous concept that people have latched onto because selfish desire or calming irrational fears are more important than parental bonds for many."

That's not presented as being anyone in particular's argument (again, ignoring that "Abortion is some kind of 'champion for the human race' isn't even anything like an argument in the first place).

In fact, "that people have latched onto" is a much better indication that he doesn't have anyone specific in mind, and it reads much more in the vein of an abstract/idealized "they."  It's also pretty clear that it's a simplified, somewhat caricatured interpretation of opposing points of view, which all make it not at all a straw man.

And that sort of response is exactly why you quickly out yourself as not being educated about this stuff.  If you want to try to fool anyone, you need to put more effort into learning something about what you try to present yourself as an expert in.

Why don't we just ask cooljgs whose argument he was presenting (re "abortion 'as the champion'")?

People can lie, but do you believe that you can know someone's beliefs, intentions, etc. better than they do?  I'd not be at all surprised that you might believe that, but that would simply tell me unflattering info about you.