Abortion is Wrong?

[Dempublicents1]

look above. Eating is life-threatening as well , then

There are risks associated with eating, yes. Far fewer than those associated with pregnancy, but they do exist. Everything we do carries some degree of risk. Of course, there are also risks associated with not eating that far outweigh the risks associated with eating, hence the reason that we all do it. But then I don't believe we're talking about the government force-feeding anyone and making them take on those risks. We are, on the other hand, discussing the government forcing a woman to take on all the risks associated with pregnancy.

[The Adrian Empire]

how much permanent injuries happen in developed world due to pregnancy?

Define "injury". Even a perfect pregnancy results in permanent physical changes and increased risk of certain diseases.

And how much due to *gasp* work?

Irrelevant, unless it is your contention that the state can force people to take on the risks associated with a job they do not voluntarily enter into.

You see, everything carries risk. Besides except for rape which is another case i am all for abortion, nobody forced the woman to fuck

That's irrelevant to whether or not she should be forced to take on all of the risks listed.

You are ridiculous. Unlike skydiving pregnancy is less risky than many jobs people do (and are economically forced to)
Besides if you are so afraid of the risks do not fuck. I already said it. That is what creates the risk in the first place. But some like to have their cake and eat it as well.

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

Central Slavia, I am not wont to agree with your arguments, on most issues, I vehemently disagree, but you are spot on here. Dempublicents is being completely audacious with her claims of "life-threatening" issues. Yes, pregnant women do die before and after childbirth, but this is very very rare especially nowadays. And in the case of the baby presenting life-threatening complications it is acceptable to sacrifice the dependents life for the good of the host

[Central Slavia]

look above. Eating is life-threatening as well , then

There are risks associated with eating, yes. Far fewer than those associated with pregnancy, but they do exist. Everything we do carries some degree of risk. Of course, there are also risks associated with not eating that far outweigh the risks associated with eating, hence the reason that we all do it. But then I don't believe we're talking about the government force-feeding anyone and making them take on those risks. We are, on the other hand, discussing the government forcing a woman to take on all the risks associated with pregnancy.

but nobody uses artificial insemination on you either, to make you pregnant.
And as said above there going to elementary school is life-threatening (i personally know of two cases) and yet law forces you to attend

[Dempublicents1]

Central Slavia, I am not wont to agree with your arguments, on most issues, I vehemently disagree, but you are spot on here. Dempublicents is being completely audacious with her claims of "life-threatening" issues. Yes, pregnant women do die before and after childbirth, but this is very very rare especially nowadays.

How common does it have to be before you agree that you shouldn't force someone to take that risk? Put a number on it.

And why is death the only complications that matters? If someone survives, but can no longer have children, is it ok to force that on them? If they survive, but they're now disabled or suffer from chronic disease, is it ok to force that on them? If someone survives, but is in so much debt that they will never get out of it because of the complications and medical bills associated with their pregnancy, is it ok to force that on them? If someone survives, but ends up with osteoporosis and dies due to complications from a broken hip, is it ok to have forced that on them? And so on...

And why can't we force people in society to take lesser risks for the survival of others? As an example, why don't we force all citizens to give blood regularly and be on the bone marrow registry? Both are far, far less risky than pregnancy.

The difference between you and I is that I don't think we should force a woman to take on these risks, regardless of whether or not they are seen as a low probability. And, if you look back at the list, there are health complications that are downright commonplace with pregnancy. The fact that they don't necessarily directly kill her doesn't change the fact that they affect her health, quality of life, and can eventually contribute to her death. I'm not placing any arbitrary lines here. These risks are hers and hers alone to assess - and to decide whether or not she is willing to take them on.

[The Adrian Empire]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex, they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.
In the same way if I am in a plane with 5 parachutes and 6 passengers I cannot kill one of the other passengers simply because the plane may go down and I may not have a parachute

[Dempublicents1]

but nobody uses artificial insemination on you either, to make you pregnant.

Irrelevant.

And as said above there going to elementary school is life-threatening (i personally know of two cases) and yet law forces you to attend

Not where I live. Your parents can choose to home school you if they feel that an actual school is too unsafe.

[The Adrian Empire]

Central Slavia, I am not wont to agree with your arguments, on most issues, I vehemently disagree, but you are spot on here. Dempublicents is being completely audacious with her claims of "life-threatening" issues. Yes, pregnant women do die before and after childbirth, but this is very very rare especially nowadays.

How common does it have to be before you agree that you shouldn't force someone to take that risk? Put a number on it.

And why is death the only complications that matters? If someone survives, but can no longer have children, is it ok to force that on them? If they survive, but they're now disabled or suffer from chronic disease, is it ok to force that on them? If someone survives, but is in so much debt that they will never get out of it because of the complications and medical bills associated with their pregnancy, is it ok to force that on them? If someone survives, but ends up with osteoporosis and dies due to complications from a broken hip, is it ok to have forced that on them? And so on...

And why can't we force people in society to take lesser risks for the survival of others? As an example, why don't we force all citizens to give blood regularly and be on the bone marrow registry? Both are far, far less risky than pregnancy.

The difference between you and I is that I don't think we should force a woman to take on these risks, regardless of whether or not they are seen as a low probability. And, if you look back at the list, there are health complications that are downright commonplace with pregnancy. The fact that they don't necessarily directly kill her doesn't change the fact that they affect her health, quality of life, and can eventually contribute to her death. I'm not placing any arbitrary lines here. These risks are hers and hers alone to assess - and to decide whether or not she is willing to take them on.

It comes down to simply this:
Is it ok to kill another human being, whom had no idea they were doing this to you, to avoid those complications?
If I for some reason inadvertently smoked next to you for nine months I would be causing pain to both you and myself. But you can't legally kill me for it. Now were it possible it would be acceptable for you to remove me from your presence, but you can't just kill me

[Grave_n_idle]

The point is as far as murder is not the goal just a necessary consequence in the current state, you argue that the act commited is not really murder.

I didn't argue that, your logic isn't logical, and your parallel is not parallel.

So... three fails in one sentence. There is a new king.

[Grave_n_idle]

Dempublicents is being completely audacious with her claims of "life-threatening" issues. Yes, pregnant women do die before and after childbirth...

That's what 'life-threatening' means.

[Dempublicents1]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex, they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.

Women who have consensual sex (protected or not) are taking on certain risks. But I still don't see how one of those risks should be "lose your rights to you own body and be forced to be an incubator for 9 months because we want to give rights that no one else has to something that doesn't even yet have consciousness."

In the same way if I am in a plane with 5 parachutes and 6 passengers I cannot kill one of the other passengers simply because the plane may go down and I may not have a parachute

If you take the last parachute, you have effectively killed the 6th person on board. If I refuse to donate bone marrow, despite being a match for someone who needs a transplant, it is likely that I have effectively killed that person (as finding a good match is rare). If I, as a woman, refuse to allow an embryo/fetus to use my body, it will die. That's unfortunate, but it is still my body and therefore my right to refuse its use to others.

[Grave_n_idle]

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex,

And, thus far, most pro-choice advocates would agree with you. People SHOULD use protection.

they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.

You have to show that a 'human life' has STARTED, before you can argue it can be ended.

Merely being living tissue, or human tissue, or having unique DNA is not enough to prove that. Cancers are living tissue, chimerism means unique DNA, and you shed human tissue every time you shit.

You need to come up with a better argument for WHY anyone should accept your 'it's a human life' story.

[Grave_n_idle]

look above. Eating is life-threatening as well , then

Are you about to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to have medical treatment to remedy problems caused by eating?

[Central Slavia]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex, they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.

Women who have consensual sex (protected or not) are taking on certain risks. But I still don't see how one of those risks should be "lose your rights to you own body and be forced to be an incubator for 9 months because we want to give rights that no one else has to something that doesn't even yet have consciousness."

In the same way if I am in a plane with 5 parachutes and 6 passengers I cannot kill one of the other passengers simply because the plane may go down and I may not have a parachute

If you take the last parachute, you have effectively killed the 6th person on board. If I refuse to donate bone marrow, despite being a match for someone who needs a transplant, it is likely that I have effectively killed that person (as finding a good match is rare). If I, as a woman, refuse to allow an embryo/fetus to use my body, it will die. That's unfortunate, but it is still my body and therefore my right to refuse its use to others.

No. he is not speaking about the plane actually coming down, that is analogous to a situation baby vs mother when abortion is medically warranted.
In this case it is analogous to the smoker as he described - the mother is just going to be inconvenienced or have a risk of something in the future maybe

[Dempublicents1]

It comes down to simply this:
Is it ok to kill another human being, whom had no idea they were doing this to you, to avoid those complications?

If avoiding the use of my body and the complications associated necessarily results in the death of another human being, it is my right to do so. Whether or not I would personally do so is another question, of course. After all, it is my right to avoid the risks of blood donation, but I choose not to avoid them, instead opting to give of my body to help others. I'd never argue that someone should be forced to take on those risks, however, even though complications from blood donation are incredibly rare.

If I for some reason inadvertently smoked next to you for nine months I would be causing pain to both you and myself. But you can't legally kill me for it. Now were it possible it would be acceptable for you to remove me from your presence, but you can't just kill me

if it were the only way to keep you from doing harm to my body, it would be my right to kill you. Now, as you said, I can remove you from my presence without killing you, so there's no issue. Unfortunately, a woman cannot deny the use of her body to an embryo/fetus without killing it unless it has already developed to the point of viability.

[Central Slavia]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex, they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.

Women who have consensual sex (protected or not) are taking on certain risks. But I still don't see how one of those risks should be "lose your rights to you own body and be forced to be an incubator for 9 months because we want to give rights that no one else has to something that doesn't even yet have consciousness."

i can frame it the opposite way - why should a future citizen who would have been born die, just because a woman cannot go without casual sex and cannot bother with birth control

[Central Slavia]

It comes down to simply this:
Is it ok to kill another human being, whom had no idea they were doing this to you, to avoid those complications?

If avoiding the use of my body and the complications associated necessarily results in the death of another human being, it is my right to do so. Whether or not I would personally do so is another question, of course. After all, it is my right to avoid the risks of blood donation, but I choose not to avoid them, instead opting to give of my body to help others. I'd never argue that someone should be forced to take on those risks, however, even though complications from blood donation are incredibly rare.

If I for some reason inadvertently smoked next to you for nine months I would be causing pain to both you and myself. But you can't legally kill me for it. Now were it possible it would be acceptable for you to remove me from your presence, but you can't just kill me

if it were the only way to keep you from doing harm to my body, it would be my right to kill you. Now, as you said, I can remove you from my presence without killing you, so there's no issue. Unfortunately, a woman cannot deny the use of her body to an embryo/fetus without killing it unless it has already developed to the point of viability.

So you are entitled to kill someone if he inconveniences you just because you cannot avoid him?

[Grave_n_idle]

When I say barring unforeseen circumstance, I mean it is meant to go this way, if it doesn't something has gone wrong.
Every human child born today will become an adult human unless they are killed by disease, murdered, or suffer some other gruesome death. It can then be said that all children grow into adults or die.

Indeed, they all either die, or grow into adults AND die.

Dying is not (yet) optional.

Therefore all adult humans were once children and all human children who grow up will become adult humans

Okay...

Similarly all human zygotes will eventually become adult humans or they will die. They will never become something else. Therefore they are humans

Ah - this doesn't follow.

All people will eventually die. Therefore they are corpses.

No?

What you might POTENTIALLY be, doesn't say what you are NOW.

Hitler wasn't a genocidal dictator when he was three.

The argument for 'potential' is bunk. Worse - it's an argument for special exception. If it was intrinsically logical, it would apply universally - so, we'd let children vote because POTENTIALLY they'll be voting adults, we'd let them drive, drink, and have sex, because POTENTIALLY, they'll be consenting adults, we'd bury them or cremate them, because POTENTIALLY they'll be dead.

Or when I say that after the point of conception the zygote either becomes a human (or multiple humans) or dies. It does not ever turn into hat.

Even if it did, it wouldn't make a zygote a hat.

Your 'if...then' logic is flawed.

[Katganistan]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

Except that the point of driving a car is to get from one place to other while doing some business, while the point of sexual activity is reproduction.
It can be used for other purposes but the chance of pregnancy is high if no protection is used, Besides it is not like it serves any worthy purpose - it is just needless risk just like unsafe driving in this case and that is why the person should not expect that some foetus should be killed just for not to inconvenience her

No, the point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.
This is the point that you keep glossing over or ignoring.
The point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.

When you pay a prostitute for sex, are you making a contract that they have your child? No.

When you pay a surrogate mother to have your child, are you having sex directly with them, or paying a medical technician to implant your embryos?

Clearly the first is NOT for sexual reproduction, and involves sex, while the second clearly IS for sexual reproduction, and involves a lab.

And you are the only one talking about "no protection being used". Others here have pointed out repeatedly that contraception fails.

[Dempublicents1]

i can frame it the opposite way - why should a future citizen who would have been born die, just because a woman cannot go without casual sex and cannot bother with birth control

Your question doesn't make any sense. First of all, you are assuming that a woman who does not wish to be pregnant has engaged in unprotected casual sex. While this is sometimes true, it is not always or even almost always true.

Second of all, your cause and effect chain is messed up. If the woman in question chose not to have sex, there would be no possible "future citizen" to even discuss. Once a woman is pregnant, any discussion of what she could have done to avoid it is moot. She is already pregnant. The question at that point is not whether or not she should have gotten pregnant. It is whether or not she should be forced to remain pregnant.

Why should an actual born citizen die just because another person chose not to sign up on the bone marrow registry, to give blood, or to be an organ donor? It's sad that this happens, but it doesn't change the fact that all of those people who choose not to do so have the rights to their own bodies, and thus to decide not to use them for the benefit of others.

[Central Slavia]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

Except that the point of driving a car is to get from one place to other while doing some business, while the point of sexual activity is reproduction.
It can be used for other purposes but the chance of pregnancy is high if no protection is used, Besides it is not like it serves any worthy purpose - it is just needless risk just like unsafe driving in this case and that is why the person should not expect that some foetus should be killed just for not to inconvenience her

No, the point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.
This is the point that you keep glossing over or ignoring.
The point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.

When you pay a prostitute for sex, are you making a contract that they have your child? No.

When you pay a surrogate mother to have your child, are you having sex directly with them, or paying a medical technician to implant your embryos?

Clearly the first is NOT for sexual reproduction, and involves sex, while the second clearly IS for sexual reproduction, and involves a lab.

Who says prostitution should not be eradicated?

[Dempublicents1]

So you are entitled to kill someone if he inconveniences you just because you cannot avoid him?

No, but I am entitled to kill someone if he harms me or uses my body against my will if it is the only way to stop him from doing so.

[Grave_n_idle]

Being exaggerated as if half of pregnant women in modern world died in childbirth... while the last such death i have heard about was some relative 50 years ago (that is , in my surroundings)

I don't believe I suggested that half of pregnant women die in childbirth. I simply pointed out that all women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term are taking that risk. Women do still die of complications from pregnancy - before, during, and after labor, even in the modern world. And many who do not die suffer from major complications. And those who don't have major complications still have to deal with irreversible physical changes, some of which put them at risk for diseases later in life. Pretending that these risks do not exist so that one can pretend that pregnancy is just a "discomfort" or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

And women who have unprotected consensual sex are taking that risk to, if they are not willing to take it, they should have used protection or not have had sex, they should however not be able to end a human life to avoid those risks.

Women who have consensual sex (protected or not) are taking on certain risks. But I still don't see how one of those risks should be "lose your rights to you own body and be forced to be an incubator for 9 months because we want to give rights that no one else has to something that doesn't even yet have consciousness."

i can frame it the opposite way - why should a future citizen who would have been born die, just because a woman cannot go without casual sex and cannot bother with birth control

Why should anyone entertain your nonsense?

There is no such thing as a 'future citizen'. Ask your local immigration department. You're either a citizen, or you're not. You don't get special rights just because you might be a citizen one day.

Also - why is abortion intrinsically connected to 'casual sex' and refusal to use contraception?

[Grave_n_idle]

If your car is out of control, and you need to stop, and you swerve off the road and hit a tree... was destroying the tree the PURPOSE of the exercise, or just an unfortunate complication?

By driving a car, you recognize that you may incidentally or intentionally cause damage to other inanimate objects, living things, etc. Same as with a pregnancy. The woman has a right to choose not to have sex. By engaging in sexual intercourse, regardless of how "safe" it is, the woman is waiving the right not to be pregnant.

When you climb in a car, do you 'waive your right' to not be killed in a horrible car wreck?

Do you think you should be refused the option of medical care, in the event of that wreck, because you CHOSE to get in the car?

This is just stupid. In this point abortion necessarily results in the death of the foetus while car driving does not necesarily entice a crash.
Driving stupidly would be a better analogy, and in that case the medical care is an act of misericordy not a right in my opinion

You're apparently misunderstanding the point.

According to the 'pro-life' side, apparently, consenting to sex (the action), is the same as consenting to pregnancy (the risk), and thus abortion (the medical treatment for the results) should not be allowed.

If this logic holds true, the same people should argue the same steps be held to in different circumstances - and my example is getting into a car (the action), should be accepted as consenting to being in a car wreck (the risk), and that such people should be refused medical treatment (the medical treatment for the result) - based on the exact same logic as in the abortion debate.

It's surprising how FEW people that push that logic for abortion arguments, are willing to push the exact same logic for other things (especially things they actually do, themselves).

Except that the point of driving a car is to get from one place to other while doing some business, while the point of sexual activity is reproduction.
It can be used for other purposes but the chance of pregnancy is high if no protection is used, Besides it is not like it serves any worthy purpose - it is just needless risk just like unsafe driving in this case and that is why the person should not expect that some foetus should be killed just for not to inconvenience her

No, the point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.
This is the point that you keep glossing over or ignoring.
The point of intercourse is not always sexual reproduction.

When you pay a prostitute for sex, are you making a contract that they have your child? No.

When you pay a surrogate mother to have your child, are you having sex directly with them, or paying a medical technician to implant your embryos?

Clearly the first is NOT for sexual reproduction, and involves sex, while the second clearly IS for sexual reproduction, and involves a lab.

Who says prostitution should not be eradicated?

Irrelevant. The question was whether there is a legal burden.

[Galtisle]

Calling an unborn baby "potential life"? Who invented that concept? You may not believe in God but you sure do like to play god when it's conveniant. How about you think before you screw. All life is precious. Think of all those poor potential liberal voters you take out with the trash!

Calling an embryo an "unborn baby"? Who invented that concept?

When you go to the store, do you buy a bag of "unbaked cake" rather than a bag of flour?

Instead of "seeds," do you call them "unsprouted tulips"?

Is your newborn baby an "undead corpse"? Do you fight for its right to cast a ballot in this year's elections because it's simply an "un-matured pre-voter"?

When you go in for a checkup, are you comfortable having a high school student perform your exam on the grounds that he's simply an "un-graduated-from-med-school doctor"?

Compare human life to flour, brilliant. Born or unborn, once the sperm meets the egg it's a living being. Maybe ask the scienctists and medical doctors about this one but I'm convinced that calling a baby "potential life" has been invented to support the agenda behind the choice movement, to help aleviate the guilt associated with baby disposal and to justify equating the value of human life with...flour.

[Central Slavia]

look above. Eating is life-threatening as well , then

Are you about to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to have medical treatment to remedy problems caused by eating?

Firstly the treatments are not causing else's death and secondly you do not deserve a medical treatment even in such case - the state provides it as it is beneficial for everyone to have such system in place.