When is abortion wrong?

[ledhed]

When the father gets to carry the baby in his body he can have all the say he wants. Think about what your advocating. The only way to let a women carry a baby to term , that she refuses to have , is by FORCE . What chance will that relationship have after you force a women you suposedly love to carry and give birth to a child , that for what ever reason she is not ready or willing to have ? what say will the man have ? Its my baby too ? You have to carry it ? Think for a minute. Who wins by forcing an unwanted pregnancy ?

 

[PS]

danoff, I know you're being supportive of the mothers, but try telling that to my coworker. You guys aren't gonna believe this. Yesterday, I started telling him about this thread at GTP and I wondered what his stance on abortion was. His face turned white, right in front of me. Turns out, his girlfriend just had an abortion... without telling him. He had found this out over the weekend and now has ended the relationship. He told me that he was thinking about marrying her and I have never seen this guy get so emotional and upset. In one weekend, he lost the woman he loves and the son or daughter he could've had.

This father had no say in the matter, and I disagree with your take. 👎

That's a true shame. I'm kind of saddened by the fact that not only did the wife not tell him, but that their relaitonship ended as well. Poor communication, IMO. And isn't it a little late to be deciding you're not going to have your baby when it's due in 2 weeks? Something was definitely wrong with that scenario. Poor gaffer.

 

[a6m5]

When the father gets to carry the baby in his body he can have all the say he wants. Think about what your advocating. The only way to let a women carry a baby to term , that she refuses to have , is by FORCE . What chance will that relationship have after you force a women you suposedly love to carry and give birth to a child , that for what ever reason she is not ready or willing to have ? what say will the man have ? Its my baby too ? You have to carry it ? Think for a minute. Who wins by forcing an unwanted pregnancy ?

So they can't talk things over? The father has no input in the matter? The quote was "Father has no say in the matter", right? You must be used to women always telling you "no" or something.

I really think it should an joint decision. Ultimately, it is mother's decision, but to say that father has no say in it, I think that's wrong.

 

[a6m5]

That's a true shame. I'm kind of saddened by the fact that not only did the wife not tell him, but that their relaitonship ended as well. Poor communication, IMO. And isn't it a little late to be deciding you're not going to have your baby when it's due in 2 weeks? Something was definitely wrong with that scenario. Poor gaffer.

No, I must've screwed up somewhere in my post. He didn't even know that she was pregnant. Also, she has a son and he has mild mental problems. I suspect that she had an abortion because her son, alone is handful. What sucks is that she gets an abortion and tells him about it after the fact, over the phone! Can you imagine something like that happening to you? On top of everything, I bring up this 🤬 subject, just few days after he found all this out. 👎 Just seeing the terror on his face, when I mentioned "abortion" to him. I will remember that for rest of my life.

 

[Giancarlo]

So, you'd REALLY want a woman to risk her life simply because you think a 200 cell blastocyst has a soul?

Pregnancy has a whole host of problems associated with it and can be fatal (even in this day and age). I'm not about to tell a woman she MUST carry any mistake she makes to term at the risk of her own health. Are people not allowed to make mistakes, Swift? If not, how can they learn from them? And how well does someone learn from their mistakes if they are dead?

I'm confused, why is there all this talk that pregnancy kills? I'm aware that it occurs, but you're saying it like it happens every other time a mother gives birth.

And anyway, i'm also pretty sure sticking sharp objects, vacuums, or saline inside a woman's uterus isn't the best thing for her either.

I personally believe that from the moment of conception, abortion is wrong. Whether a collection of cells is a human or not is irrelevant. What counts is that that bundle of cells is on its way to becoming a human. Stopping that process is horrible. Would it be ok for someone to kill if they simply set up a situation where a person would die (a-la "SAW")? No, it wouldn't. That's why abortion is wrong.

 

[Famine]

I'm confused, why is there all this talk that pregnancy kills? I'm aware that it occurs, but you're saying it like it happens every other time a mother gives birth.

And anyway, i'm also pretty sure sticking sharp objects, vacuums, or saline inside a woman's uterus isn't the best thing for her either.

I personally believe that from the moment of conception, abortion is wrong. Whether a collection of cells is a human or not is irrelevant. What counts is that that bundle of cells is on its way to becoming a human. Stopping that process is horrible. Would it be ok for someone to kill if they simply set up a situation where a person would die (a-la "SAW")? No, it wouldn't. That's why abortion is wrong.

I'm not saying it like that at all. I'm saying that it happens. Ectopic or pre-eclampsia are the two biggest killers of pregnant mothers.

But the fact is pregnancy CAN and DOES kill. Saying that any woman who is pregnant MUST carry a foetus to term, at the potential risk of her own life and against her wishes is pretty much like forcing her to play Russian Roulette (only with 2 bullets in 1000 chambers). Would you take those odds?

Even if the pregnancy doesn't kill her, it WILL give her health problems. The foetus often extracts nutrients for itself at the mother's considerable expense. Haemorrhoids are commonplace - and not a lot of fun. Persisting bladder problems for the rest of her existence are even more common. Not to mention the joy that is feeling like you're trying to pass crap the size of a bowling ball for up to 72 hours - have a crack at screaming in pain for 3 days, see how much fun that is. Or we could always alleviate your pain by injecting drugs directly into your spine (the wonderful epidural). And best yet, we could score a massive T-shaped gash into your abdomen if your pelvis is too small (caesarean section). Last but not least we have the word which makes every woman vomit - episiotomy. Lovely (for those unaware, that's where they make a vertical slice in the vagina, to make it just that bit bigger).

All of this you're foisting upon a woman because you think "that bundle of cells is on its way to becoming a human". Yet egg-killing (menstruation) or sperm-killing (as part of the natural production process, or through contraceptive means) is perfectly fine, despite the fact these things are no more alive than the blastular is.


And as for the man involved... He... sits on the couch with a beer and watches the game.


Another one for Swift. If abortion is fine for those who got pregnant by accidental (rape) means rather than deliberate ones (sex), is AIDS medication fine for those who got it by accidental means (blood transfusion) rather than deliberate ones (sex)?

If not, why not?

 

[ledhed]

So they can't talk things over? The father has no input in the matter? The quote was "Father has no say in the matter", right? You must be used to women always telling you "no" or something.

I really think it should an joint decision. Ultimately, it is mother's decision, but to say that father has no say in it, I think that's wrong.

For one thing if your a couple and your having sex, you should have already discussed the possibility of a baby. From that discussion you would think it would be clear what the feelings are. And my point is the father has no say as to whether the women will carry a baby to term ...if the women decides against it.
Again whats he to do , lock her in a basement and hold her captive until she gives birth ?

 

[TheCracker]

. then when i think that some women would gladly give up on a tiny life like that for frivolous reasons, it makes me sick. what sort of person are they?

frivolous reasons like shes was raped?, she's too young to make a good mother?, she can't afford to look after the baby?, she doesn't want to bring a disabled baby into the world?

I personally believe that from the moment of conception, abortion is wrong. Whether a collection of cells is a human or not is irrelevant. What counts is that that bundle of cells is on its way to becoming a human. Stopping that process is horrible.

i presume you never masterbate then? - or perhaps you do but keep all your 'collections' in a bottle in the fridge for later inseminations?

 

[Famine]

Actually, I've got to wonder...

Girls under the age of consent often have consensual sex (commonly with boys under the age of consent). Any child conceived is as a result of a criminal act - Statutory Rape.

Would these girls be allowed abortions because they were raped, or not allowed abortions because they willingly had sex?

 

[Swift]

Another one for Swift. If abortion is fine for those who got pregnant by accidental (rape) means rather than deliberate ones (sex), is AIDS medication fine for those who got it by accidental means (blood transfusion) rather than deliberate ones (sex)?

If not, why not?

Well, since I've been saying don't have irresponsible sex for the past few pages, that would pretty much take care of that problem.

Actually, I've got to wonder...

Girls under the age of consent often have consensual sex (commonly with boys under the age of consent). Any child conceived is as a result of a criminal act - Statutory Rape.

Would these girls be allowed abortions because they were raped, or not allowed abortions because they willingly had sex?

Well, It would go to the parents of the underage children, unfortunately. But again, the girl and guy both know that it's very possible for them to conceive a child from having sex.

See, here's the thing. If one is not having sex one CAN NOT contract STD's, get pregnant(or make someone pregnant) and it's virtually impossible to get AIDS(assuming they don't share needs in drug use).

Abstinence clears the vast majority of that up right quick.

 

[Famine]

Well, since I've been saying don't have irresponsible sex for the past few pages, that would pretty much take care of that problem.

But people do.

Would you refuse AIDS medication to those contracting it through sex - and are thus culpable? Would you only allow it to those contracting it through blood tranfusions and other involuntary means?

Well, It would go to the parents of the underage children, unfortunately. But again, the girl and guy both know that it's very possible for them to conceive a child from having sex.

So... the couple whose problem it is are absolved of responsibility and the girl is forced into either having a medical procedure she may not want or not having a medical procedure she does want - at the risk of her long term health and potential risk to her life?

And the boy..?


Are you REALLY talking about giving interventionalist treatment to those who get illness through no fault of their own and not to those who get illness by their own decisions - unless they're young enough, in which case let the parents decide? Really?

 

[Swift]

Famine, you're doing your best to complicate the issue. My point is beyond simple.

Don't have sex unless you want the chance of having a child. Period. Done.

Amazingly enough, that same principle takes care of a huge amount of AIDS cases at the same time. So what's the challenge with that again?

Whether people are or are not having sex for "recreation" is not my point. My point is if it's going to be done, there are consequences for that action. Just like every other action and decision in life. Abortion is almost exclusively used to clear up a "mistake" that we've seen from more then one member effects more then just the mother.

 

[a6m5]

For one thing if your a couple and your having sex, you should have already discussed the possibility of a baby. From that discussion you would think it would be clear what the feelings are. And my point is the father has no say as to whether the women will carry a baby to term ...if the women decides against it.
Again whats he to do , lock her in a basement and hold her captive until she gives birth ?

Yes, I agree that they should have discussed the possibility of a baby, but who does that? It's easy for us to say, yes, they should've talked that over before they were pregnant, but you know that almost never happens.

Like I said, ultimately, the mother has the ability to make that decision. But to say the father can't even try to influence her decision, if his baby lives or not isn't right, IMO.

 

[Danoff]

Don't have sex unless you want the chance of having a child. Period. Done.

It's not done there, not by a long shot. That's not what this discussion is about, that's totally beside the point. You're dodging the tough questions with this line of reasoning.

danoff, I know you're being supportive of the mothers, but try telling that to my coworker. You guys aren't gonna believe this. Yesterday, I started telling him about this thread at GTP and I wondered what his stance on abortion was. His face turned white, right in front of me. Turns out, his girlfriend just had an abortion... without telling him. He had found this out over the weekend and now has ended the relationship. He told me that he was thinking about marrying her and I have never seen this guy get so emotional and upset. In one weekend, he lost the woman he loves and the son or daughter he could've had.

This father had no say in the matter, and I disagree with your take

It's not his body, it's not his choice. He can't FORCE her to carry his baby to term - that would be wrong. Also, he didn't "lose the son or daughter he could've had", he lost nothing - nothing more than he loses by choosing not to have a kid with her at this very instant. Her having an abortion is no different than her taking birth control or even not having sex in the first place - because it isn't a child.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you're doing your best to complicate the issue. My point is beyond simple.

Don't have sex unless you want the chance of having a child. Period. Done.

Amazingly enough, that same principle takes care of a huge amount of AIDS cases at the same time. So what's the challenge with that again?

Whether people are or are not having sex for "recreation" is not my point. My point is if it's going to be done, there are consequences for that action. Just like every other action and decision in life. Abortion is almost exclusively used to clear up a "mistake" that we've seen from more then one member effects more then just the mother.

Yet the thread title is...?

It's a complex issue, not a simple one. I'm attempting to apply your logic to the question "When is abortion wrong?" and, by extension, other treatments for other deliterious and potentially fatal diseases which can be contracted through choice and by accident.

You say that abortion should NEVER be acceptable between consenting couples. You say that abortion should ONLY be acceptable where a crime has taken place, resulting in pregnancy.

Sadly, the real world is not so black and white. And you seem unwilling to answer whether this applies to medicine as a whole - possibly because your views on this would be extremely inconsistent.


My examples are as follows. Please answer "No treatment" or "treatment" after each, as if you would be the medical ethics team monitoring the physician administering the treatment (assuming everyone involved has adequate insurance).

1. Woman gets pregnant through consensual sex. Financial circumstances would mean that the woman is unable to support herself and a child and opts for abortion - if she takes maternity leave her employers would fire her on the quiet in her absence. She cannot afford an employment lawyer to fight this decision.

Treatment or no treatment?

2. 15 year old girl becomes pregnant through consensual sex, but the law regards this as Statutory Rape due to her age. She opts for an abortion. Her parents consent.

Treatment or no treatment?

3. 15 year old girl becomes pregnant through consensual sex, but the law regards this as Statutory Rape due to her age. She opts for an abortion. Her parents do not consent.

Treatment or no treatment?

4. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through consensual sex.

Treatment or no treatment?

5. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through consensual sex with his partner who was carrying HIV unwittingly from a previous partner.

Treatment or no treatment?

6. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through a blood transfusion.

Treatment or no treatment?

7. A man presents with lung cancer. He is a heavy smoker.

Treatment or no treatment?

8. A man presents with lung cancer. He has never smoked in his life.

Treatment or no treatment?


Hopefully you're getting my point by now, though I'd still like to see your answers.

 

[Swift]

It's not his body, it's not his choice. He can't FORCE her to carry his baby to term - that would be wrong. Also, he didn't "lose the son or daughter he could've had", he lost nothing - nothing more than he loses by choosing not to have a kid with her at this very instant. Her having an abortion is no different than her taking birth control or even not having sex in the first place - because it isn't a child.

It has been proven by two seperate members that getting an abortion DOES effect the father. So you saying that they lost nothing isn't a fair point at all. They did loose something. They lost a child that was taken from them. In these cases, unknowingly. You should really talk to some more guys about this before making that kind of statement.

It's not done there, not by a long shot. That's not what this discussion is about, that's totally beside the point. You're dodging the tough questions with this line of reasoning.

The issue is, what's the deal with abortion right? well what I'm saying would virtually eliminate the need for abortion. So how is that beside the point? People are looking for ways to do as much as they can with no consequences. Rather foolish way to live if you ask me.

EDIT: Hey Famine, I thought this thread was about abortion. What's with all the talk about other diseases and what not. You act like when someone gets pregnant they were just relaxing in bed one day then, pop! Whoa! I'm pregnant. Come on, people go into these situations KNOWING the consequences. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part it's consensual sex.

 

[Famine]

You should really talk to some more guys about this before making that kind of statement.

You probably ought to talk to a few more women before telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies...

 

[Swift]

You probably ought to talk to a few more women before telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies...

I have! and many of them very much regret not having their baby. So, thanks.

 

[Famine]

Awesome...

Presumably you made this a nice, scientific study? With women who could have chosen abortion who didn't and those who could have chosen keeping the baby but didn't?

Going to answer my examples any time soon?

People KNOW that they might get lung cancer if they smoke. People KNOW that they might get AIDS if they sleep around. People KNOW that they might get pregnant by having sex.

All examples are of diseases - including pregnancy - which can have a marked effect on health, to the point of death which can be contracted accidentally or through a deliberate act. All are relevant. If there is ONE example where you would give treatment to both accidental contraction and an outcome of a conscious decision then your position is inconsistent.

 

[Danoff]

It has been proven by two seperate members that getting an abortion DOES effect the father. So you saying that they lost nothing isn't a fair point at all. They did loose something. They lost a child that was taken from them. In these cases, unknowingly. You should really talk to some more guys about this before making that kind of statement.

I ddidn't say that it doesn't affect the father - it has a huge effect on him! If she decides to have the baby he's responsible! If not, he's not but he doesn't get a kid. That's a big deal!

...and one that his only input in is to *gasp* not have sex.

Still, even though it has an effect on him, it isn't his body so it isn't his decision. It doesn't become a child until she successfully brings it to term.

The issue is, what's the deal with abortion right? well what I'm saying would virtually eliminate the need for abortion. So how is that beside the point? People are looking for ways to do as much as they can with no consequences. Rather foolish way to live if you ask me.

Because the discussion is "when is abortion wrong?" not "how can we reduce abortion?".

 

[TheCracker]

I have! and many of them very much regret not having their baby. So, thanks.

But at the time i bet it was the best thing these women could have done in that situation. Life would be perfect if you could go back in time and change things you'd done in the past, but life isn't perfect and sometimes you have to make tough choices..... but its good to be able to have those choices isn't it?

Thats the thing with the whole pro-life / pro-choice situation - when is it ever better to not have a choice in the day-to-day decisions of your life?

And i'm sorry, but, when it comes to whether you want to spend the next 9 months of your life pregnant its always the womens decision - its her body, simple as that.

 

[Giancarlo]

This debate really is complicated. I think the best thing we can do is teach girls [as soon as they're ready] that sex has extreme consequences. If you are old enough to have sex, then you should be able to understand what happens when you make a mistake. We should not, however, scare them out of all emotional contact; there is a line not to cross i believe.

I also believe, however, that it's very wrong how most of you talk about pregnancy as a horrible disease. Especially when it's directly called that, as Famine did.

Have those of you who are pro-choice ever thought of what would have happened if your mothers were pro-choice in her decision?

 

[Famine]

I also believe, however, that it's very wrong how most of you talk about pregnancy as a horrible disease. Especially when it's directly called that, as Famine did.

Medically speaking, pregnancy is a potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.

Just because you want to sugar coat it doesn't change that - and you're ignoring the morning sickness, incontinence, haemorrhoids, tearing of vaginal muscle, the process of labour itself (and let's not forget that the delivery of the placenta is a nightmare made flesh) with the added bonuses of epidurals, episeotomies and C-sections. We won't even start on "getting back your shape".


If my mother were "pro-choice" she'd have chosen to have me. "Pro-choice" doesn't mean "abortions for all!". It means that people should have the option to choose what they want to do with their own bodies.


This all boils down to one thing. Some people do not think that other people are capable of deciding things for themselves. Therefore they want to impose their view on everyone, for their own good.

Who the hell am I to say to a woman she MUST have a baby if she becomes pregnant? It's not my body. I'm not the one who has to go through either the abortion or the birth. It's none of my goddamn business.


Any of you anti-abortionists - answer my 8 theoreticals earlier.

 

[Swift]

Famine, it's like this. Your examples don't apply to what I'm saying. I'm saying think BEFORE you go into a sexual act or relationship and your examples are symptoms AFTER the action has cause and STD, like pregnancy.

I think it's rather bad to call pregnancy a disease when it's the ONLY natural way to reproduce humans.

Now, if you want to look at all those examples. I find it really horrible that we even have to make those decisions in the first place. I'm not going to touch the gay thing cause that's not what this thread is about. But the fact that people have sex, get pregnant and then say, "Oops, I never meant to have responsibility for what I was doing, just wanted to have a good time". That's just plain dumb of them to live like that.

 

[Famine]

They apply to this though:

I think abortion should only be an option when the pregancy was done through a crime. Rape, incest, etc. Other then that, it shouldn't be an option.

The fact that people smoke, get lung cancer and then say, "Oops, I never meant to have responsibility for what I was doing, just wanted to have a good time". That's just plain dumb of them to live like that.

You see how they tally nicely?

 

[Giancarlo]

Alright then..

My examples are as follows. Please answer "No treatment" or "treatment" after each, as if you would be the medical ethics team monitoring the physician administering the treatment (assuming everyone involved has adequate insurance).

1. Woman gets pregnant through consensual sex. Financial circumstances would mean that the woman is unable to support herself and a child and opts for abortion - if she takes maternity leave her employers would fire her on the quiet in her absence. She cannot afford an employment lawyer to fight this decision.

No treatment. Adoption.

2. 15 year old girl becomes pregnant through consensual sex, but the law regards this as Statutory Rape due to her age. She opts for an abortion. Her parents consent.

If the girl is mature enough, and i'm assuming she is if she is having sex, then no treatment. Adoption again, or simply her and her parents raising the child.

3. 15 year old girl becomes pregnant through consensual sex, but the law regards this as Statutory Rape due to her age. She opts for an abortion. Her parents do not consent.

Same as #2, only most likely this will mean adoption as the only options.

4. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through consensual sex.

What does this have to do with abortion/child birth? Treatment.

5. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through consensual sex with his partner who was carrying HIV unwittingly from a previous partner.

Again, i see no connection. AIDS and pregnancy are not the same thing.

6. A gay man presents with AIDS, contracted through a blood transfusion.

Yet again.

7. A man presents with lung cancer. He is a heavy smoker.

Treatment, even less to do with abortion/child birth.

8. A man presents with lung cancer. He has never smoked in his life.

Treatment...

Hopefully you're getting my point by now, though I'd still like to see your answers.

IMO i find your reference to AIDS and lung cancer, or any other disease, to be what is inconsistent here. Can you please explain to me exactly what the chances are between birth occuring normally and a mother's dying during child birth? I have to assume the odds are similar to anything else that has the slightest chance of being fatal; taking medicine, crossing the street, driving, etc.

 

[Danoff]

This debate really is complicated. I think the best thing we can do is teach girls [as soon as they're ready] that sex has extreme consequences.

But it really doesn't unless you're talking about STDs or the cost and risk of an abortion. What is the difference between having an abortion and not getting pregnant in the first place?

 

[Giancarlo]

But it really doesn't unless you're talking about STDs or the cost and risk of an abortion. What is the difference between having an abortion and not getting pregnant in the first place?

It does. Emotional consequences like doing it whenever you want someone to love you, thus never truly finding love, or giving birth when you're not physically/psychologically ready. The only difference between having an abortion and not getting pregnant or having sex [when you're not ready for the consequences] in the first place is that having an abortion is costly, dangerous, and at least according to some of us at least it is also immoral and unjust. I can show many, many images to prove that. But i'd probably be slapped as a propagandist of sorts, so i won't.

 

[Famine]

IMO i find your reference to AIDS and lung cancer, or any other disease, to be what is inconsistent here. Can you please explain to me exactly what the chances are between birth occuring normally and a mother's dying during child birth? I have to assume the odds are similar to anything else that has the slightest chance of being fatal; taking medicine, crossing the street, driving, etc.

Worldwide or locally?

In the UK it's near 1 in 5000. In the US it's about 1 in 2000. In "less developed countries" it's as high as 1 in 15. Girls aged 13-16 are twice as likely to die in childbirth than "women" aged over 16.


For your reference (again):
Pregnancy is a sexually transmitted condition. It naturally confers severe health problems and can result in death. Swift and other anti-abortionists would deny all those who get pregnant by a consenting act (sex) the chance for medical treatment, but allow it to those who do not acquire the condition consensually (rape).

AIDS is a sexually transmitted condition. It naturally confers severe health problems and can result in death. I would like to find out if anti-abortionists would deny all those who get AIDS by a consenting act (sex) the chance for medical treatment, but allow it to those who do not acquire the condition consensually (blood transfusion).

Lung Cancer is a not a sexually transmitted condition, but can be acquired by lifestyle choice. It naturally confers severe health problems and can result in death. I would like to find out if anti-abortionists would deny all those who get lung cancer by choice (smoking) the chance for medical treatment, but allow it to those who do not acquire the condition through choice (passive smoking).


In all cases the disease has instances where it can be acquired through your own lifestyle decisions and instances where it can be acquired by acts not in your control.


In your answers, woman #1 gets fired and loses her baby. You're nice, aren't you? Girl #2 and #3 both have their child - at double the risk of dying during the birth - and in one the child must be adopted and in the other the parents, who have had no say in the matter, can look after the kid. Why are you forcing this upon people again?

Man #4 has acquired a sexually transmitted condition through a consensual act. Yet you will give him the treatment he needs despite the fact he acquired his disease through having sex when he could have abstained and you will not allow it to someone who is pregnant and doesn't want to be. That is a MASSIVE contradiction in your position.

Man #7 has acquired a disease through a lifestyle choice - he could quite easily not smoke. The same applies as for Man #4.


Why will you give the option of treatment to people who pick up their diseases through conscious choice - at the risk of their own life - but NOT give it to women who pick up their ailment (pregnancy) through the very same conscious choice?

 

[Giancarlo]

In the UK it's near 1 in 5000. In the US it's about 1 in 2000. In "less developed countries" it's as high as 1 in 15. Girls aged 13-16 are twice as likely to die in childbirth than "women" aged over 16.

For your reference (again):
Pregnancy is a sexually transmitted condition. It naturally confers severe health problems and can result in death. Swift and other anti-abortionists would deny all those who get pregnant by a consenting act (sex) the chance for medical treatment, but allow it to those who do not acquire the condition consensually (rape).

In your answers, woman #1 gets fired and loses her baby. You're nice, aren't you? Girl #2 and #3 both have their child - at double the risk of dying during the birth - and in one the child must be adopted and in the other the parents, who have had no say in the matter, can look after the kid. Why are you forcing this upon people again?

Man #4 has acquired a sexually transmitted condition through a consensual act. Yet you will give him the treatment he needs despite the fact he acquired his disease through having sex when he could have abstained and you will not allow it to someone who is pregnant and doesn't want to be. That is a MASSIVE contradiction in your position.

Man #7 has acquired a disease through a lifestyle choice - he could quite easily not smoke. The same applies as for Man #4.

Why will you give the option of treatment to people who pick up their diseases through conscious choice - at the risk of their own life - but NOT give it to women who pick up their ailment (pregnancy) through the very same conscious choice?

I see. Are those statistics long-term, short-term or both? Can you do me the favor of finding the chances of death from abortion, both long-term and short-term?

Ah, you're practically saying so yourself - what is more important, a job or a baby? I'm going to have to say baby. Like i said, i was assuming the girls were mature enough to have children if they are having sex. I said the parents and the mother raise the kid; the parents do have a say in the matter because they are able to help their daughter cope with raising a child (both financially and emotionally).

I allow treatment to a man who has contracted AIDS through sex and not to a woman who is pregnant because a child's life is gone. At least through the man receiving treatment he may live; there is no child involved.

The man who smokes and got lung cancer also is irrelevant to aborion because there is no child.

Pregnancy i believe is vastly different to what you're saying about AIDS and cancer. Pregnancy, while it may be as dangerous as you say, is IMO a beautiful moment. Just because there is a chance you may die from it, you say it's an ailment that if bothersome at all, you should just end it and get an abortion. You can die from driving and getting into an accident, you can die from crossing the street and getting hit by a bus, you can die by being bitten by a snake while you mow your lawn. Does that mean you stop all of those things immediately? No. And don't think i'm saying that it's ok to be a dangerous person that does anything.

And to answer your last question i repeat that abortion is killing a life. Treating a disease decreases the chance of that happening, it does not guarantee it.

We have to teach tomorrows' generations about what happens when you abuse sex. This is the only way we can stop abortion, AIDS, STDs, etc. etc.