"Life Unworthy of Life"-the eugenicist's creed-became, by increments, the Holocaust. Only we have killed more than the Germans did in WW2. They did it under the aegis of law, so do we. Does A=A?

Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens

Honestly I'm pretty sure you do have that right if they're on your private property and holding your body hostage. So we're agreed, good.

Your welcome. Thank-you.

I’m an atheist. This is purely an academic exercise for me. I’m also close to your age so pregnancy isn’t a real concern for me. I can “screw’ as you put it without consequence. Dagny had three lovers. What do you think Ayn Rand was implying?

Maybe we should think of a fetus like an illegal alien. Like say a women used protection, but it failed and she got pregnant. She didn't invite or want the child, using your words because I myself wouldn't call it a child, and she's simply deporting it off of her property. It isn't her fault it can't survive on its own just like it isn't your responsibility to ensure survivability for a deported illegal. What do you think about that?

Animals can be shamed.

It was mine I had a question but found the answer in the article.

Death by natural causes? If what I was describing was death by natural causes then half the people who go for a run today will drop dead because it’s natural for the body to take offense to sweating. Why doesn’t that happen? Because MY body is designed to take care of me. and in pregnancy, this is especially true the first few months. I don’t agree with abortions after the first trimester because the body has committed to ‘shared housing’, and in the later months chooses to protect the baby first. It is in labor when the pituitary gland releases oxytocin, the bonding hormone in large amounts not at the moment of conception. Thomas More asked the question: "Can we know God by natural reason in this life?” Like More, I believe so by examining His handiwork. Everything that occurs during the first trimester demonstrates a natural period of decision making. You are either mature enough to handle this or not. Finger-pointing and name-calling doesn’t work with me. Shame is a weapon of a coward.

1.right to choose vs robbery as right to life: analogy fails because in the case of abortion, the life can ONLY exist with the help of the female carrying the fetus. It is not an independent human. By your own words you are not required to give up your property or your blood to another person without your consent.
2. there is a difference between whether you think it is a moral decision, however, that does not give the govt the right to use force to require you to act
3. is the govt going to keep females from having sex? from throwing herself down a flight of stairs? eating properly? keep her from taking drugs? where does the force stop? and why?

The majority of adult women I know have sex and have not had an abortion so if you find a woman who is logical and well-reasoned in her opinions, which means she is responsible, you are probably safe.

humans do not have instincts. historically, we may have been tribal. historically we thought the earth was flat, we had only four elements, the number 0 didn't exist. The overall structure of the US was not tribal. The Constitution is based on reason and natural rights. No need for tribalism. A hatfield/mccoy situation can exist but overall our system discouraged differences between groups. That has been changing. Whenever govt gives special rights to a group based on race, ethnicity, socio/economic class, sexual preference, gender-that is going backwards-very tribal. It is inefficient, unproductive and illogical. I do like getting a mother's day card, so I still want that Hallmark guilt thing going. ;)

Again. Please read the original post (which answers this "question" / evasion).

It's not a giraffe! Or a frog! There is nothing "potential" about it. It is either a live human or it is not. A or non-A.

I should have added-in the US

So you start off by saying "who knows!? No-one can know!"

Then I tell you "it's actually very simple. This is how you know..."

Then you change the subject to farm animals.

Again, please *read the article*.

If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being, then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.. It has everything to do with the morality of murder.

Please. Stop changing the subject. If you want to demand that a woman has the right to kill a child, then say so and stop hiding behind evasive language about "choice" and "reproduction".

Please read the article.
There is no "potential". It is either "actually" a human being, or it is not. A or non-A.

If it is a human being, then to "abort" it is to kill it. And if that is the case, then you need to fit everything else you have said into that context:

"However, I also find myself without moral justification to force a woman to"... not kill a human?? I could give you some moral justification for that. And so could Ayn Rand!

"What right do I have to demand that she"...not kill a human?

"If the woman is a victim of rape or incest, who am I to tell her"... not to kill a human?

You see, thinking rationally and in context makes things much clearer.

PLEASE: Read the actual article before posting.

There are a lot of comments (in fact, the majority) which completely ignore the actual article posted here. The article outlines and refutes the most popular and evasive arguments "for abortion"... and yet everyone in this thread keeps committing the same fallacies:
-Changing the Subject
-Definition by Non-Essentials
-Subjective Views of Rights

There's one other fallacy being used a lot which I did not include in the article, and that is:
-Morality by Extremes (or by Emergencies).

This isn't a random post about "Abortion in General". There is a very specific argument presented which would be good to engage.

Thanks.

No no no no. You do not get to justify murder because of the pragmatic implications -- whatever they may be.

Stop changing the subject. This is not about world population, or the ability to raise a child. This is about the morality of murdering a child. Plain and simple.