[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus, or aborting during birth, or aborting even after brith

Ho ho ho...

[Katganistan]

I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule, then, Godular. I was raised Catholic but very much definitely am pro choice.

Same with my mother. My grandparents, devout Catholics, are very pro-life, my mother is very pro-choice, and I am very pro-life.

My mom's pro-choice as well, which is surprising given her age.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Same with my mother. My grandparents, devout Catholics, are very pro-life, my mother is very pro-choice, and I am very pro-life.

My mom's pro-choice as well, which is surprising given her age.

My mom started out pro-life. It was an actually reasonable argument from my grandma that made her take the pro-choice path, and that same argument makes me want to spit and laugh in the face of anyone who says a fetus does not inherently harm or threaten the woman within which it resides. Those people make fools of themselves in so doing.

Trust me, my person/self-defense argument is robust and fleshed out. So joke’s on you, Pretantia. I’ve GOT my evidence, you just never stopped to read back.

Last paragraph not intended for Kat, if it is unclear...

[The Free Joy State]

My mom's pro-choice as well, which is surprising given her age.

My mom started out pro-life. It was an actually reasonable argument from my grandma that made her take the pro-choice path, and that same argument makes me want to spit and laugh in the face of anyone who says a fetus does not inherently harm or threaten the woman within which it resides. Those people make fools of themselves in so doing.

My mother's pro-choice (and also Christian). Actually, my Dad's also pro-choice. Which, considering -- not only his age, but also his highly conservative views on any number of other postions -- is somewhat surprising.

My mother's mother didn't live long enough for me to have an in-depth conversation on the subject. But since she had a backstreet abortion in the 50s, I can guess her stance pretty well, too.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

My mom started out pro-life. It was an actually reasonable argument from my grandma that made her take the pro-choice path, and that same argument makes me want to spit and laugh in the face of anyone who says a fetus does not inherently harm or threaten the woman within which it resides. Those people make fools of themselves in so doing.

My mother's pro-choice (and also Christian). Actually, my Dad's also pro-choice. Which, considering -- not only his age, but also his highly conservative views on any number of other postions -- is somewhat surprising.

My mother's mother didn't live long enough for me to have an in-depth conversation on the subject. But since she had a backstreet abortion in the 50s, I can guess her stance pretty well, too.

Grandma’s fourth kid cost her a kidney. She decided then and there she could not afford to have another, and contraception access just wasn’t what it is now back in the 70s. So up comes mom as a teenager, ravening pro-life talking points, and grandma says “How dare you tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body? I have one functioning kidney because of my last pregnancy, and you can damn well bet I’ll get an abortion if I’m ever pregnant again. I like my remaining liver and I can’t share it anymore.”

Somewhat embellished, but mom agrees with the gist of my re-enactments.

Bip bam boom, mom dropped the pro-life crowd like a rotten tomato.

[The Free Joy State]

My mother's pro-choice (and also Christian). Actually, my Dad's also pro-choice. Which, considering -- not only his age, but also his highly conservative views on any number of other postions -- is somewhat surprising.

My mother's mother didn't live long enough for me to have an in-depth conversation on the subject. But since she had a backstreet abortion in the 50s, I can guess her stance pretty well, too.

Grandma’s fourth kid cost her a kidney. She decided then and there she could not afford to have another, and contraception access just wasn’t what it is now back in the 70s. So up comes mom as a teenager, ravening pro-life talking points, and grandma says “How dare you tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body? I have one functioning kidney because of my last pregnancy, and you can damn well bet I’ll get an abortion if I’m ever pregnant again. I like my remaining liver and I can’t share it anymore.”

Somewhat embellished, but mom agrees with the gist of my re-enactments.

Bip bam boom, mom dropped the pro-life crowd like a rotten tomato.

It was somewhat similar with granny. Apparently, she'd always had difficult pregnancies. My mother was premature. Not sure about the second. Mum remembers her being really ill with her third pregnancy, but I can't be sure as to how.

Anyway, her husband ups and buggers off and my granny discovers she's pregnant. She's already struggling to raise three young daughters on a pittance -- her husband's totally uncontactable. Her body's shot to hell from three previous pregnancies. So she has a backstreet abortion.

There are people who'd say difficult pregnancies and no financial means of supporting a new child isn't reason enough to abort (despite a lack of reliable contraception to prevent the situation). I'm sure my mother would have rather had her mother, than be shipped off to underfunded foster-care (or Australia) had her mother died due to pregnancy/childbirth related issues or been no longer been able to feed her.

I'm sure that's at least partly why my she's pro-choice. That, and, from her Christian perspective, when I was a child, one of her most-employed phrases (in general) was: "There but by the grace of God go I" (and then said, don't judge -- you could end up in the same situation through no fault of your own).

[Distruzio]

There's no right to kill, certainly, but there is a right to choose whether one remains pregnant or not. And it is always the woman's choice.

Plus, what do you define as human life? If you define it by consciousness and mental ability to suffer (as I personally do), then a foetus is not alive until 24-30 weeks. If you define it by autonomy (can it survive outside the womb?), then a foetus is not alive until viability (at the very least 20 weeks).

I define it by its species. Is it human? Then it cannot be killed unless it poses a threat to the mother, or society.

No other option is reasonable.

If we take your definition, then sleeping humans can be killed. The mentally challenged can be killed. Those who live only due to surgeries, in comas, or due to technological intervention can be killed.

[The New California Republic]

Plus, what do you define as human life? If you define it by consciousness and mental ability to suffer (as I personally do), then a foetus is not alive until 24-30 weeks. If you define it by autonomy (can it survive outside the womb?), then a foetus is not alive until viability (at the very least 20 weeks).

If we take your definition, then sleeping humans can be killed. The mentally challenged can be killed. Those who live only due to surgeries, in comas, or due to technological intervention can be killed.

All of those are sentient and sapient, and are people. Fetuses aren't.

Humans being asleep doesn't take away their personhood. Humans having psychiatric difficulties doesn't take away their personhood. Humans being in comas doesn't take away their personhood.

Sleeping humans are sapient and sentient before, during, and after being asleep, the difference is that sapience and sentience is exercised in a dream state when asleep. Humans with psychiatric difficulties are sapient and sentient, it just doesn't function according to the average. Humans being in comas, unless clinically brain dead, are sapient and sentient in a dream-like state.

The fetus, on the other hand, up to a certain stage does not exhibit sentience or sapience, and is not defined as a person until after birth.

[Distruzio]

If we take your definition, then sleeping humans can be killed. The mentally challenged can be killed. Those who live only due to surgeries, in comas, or due to technological intervention can be killed.

All of those are sentient and sapient, and are people. Fetuses aren't.

Humans being asleep doesn't take away their personhood. Humans having psychiatric difficulties doesn't take away their personhood. Humans being in comas doesn't take away their personhood.

Sleeping humans are sapient and sentient before, during, and after being asleep, the difference is that sapience and sentience is exercised in a dream state when asleep. Humans with psychiatric difficulties are sapient and sentient, it just doesn't function according to the average. Humans being in comas, unless clinically brain dead, are sapient and sentient in a dream-like state.

The fetus, on the other hand, up to a certain stage does not exhibit sentience or sapience, and is not defined as a person until after birth.

Irrelevant.

It's human. That's enough.

As your explanation amusingly illustrates, "personhood" is so supremely subjective that it is wholly without value as a quantifiable benchmark for consideration. I mean... the logic you just used counters itself as you admit that sapience and sentience are processes of being unique to time, situations and individuals. If both sapience and sentience are transitional in the manner you describe... why doesn't the same - do not kill - rule apply to those that will become sapient or sentience in time, under difference circumstances, depending on the individual?

In other words... if I cannot kill a sleeping person because he will wake up... why can I kill a fetus even though he will, also, "wake up"?

[The New California Republic]

All of those are sentient and sapient, and are people. Fetuses aren't.

Humans being asleep doesn't take away their personhood. Humans having psychiatric difficulties doesn't take away their personhood. Humans being in comas doesn't take away their personhood.

Sleeping humans are sapient and sentient before, during, and after being asleep, the difference is that sapience and sentience is exercised in a dream state when asleep. Humans with psychiatric difficulties are sapient and sentient, it just doesn't function according to the average. Humans being in comas, unless clinically brain dead, are sapient and sentient in a dream-like state.

The fetus, on the other hand, up to a certain stage does not exhibit sentience or sapience, and is not defined as a person until after birth.

Irrelevant.

It's human. That's enough.

As your explanation amusingly illustrates, "personhood" is so supremely subjective that it is wholly without value as a quantifiable benchmark for consideration.

It isn't subjective at all. All of those examples I just gave you fall within the definition I gave you several days ago.

I mean... the logic you just used counters itself as you admit that sapience and sentience are processes of being unique to time, situations and individuals.

I didn't say that at all, I referenced them as a constant thing all the way through. The way they are expressed might be different, sure, but their core definition remains the same.

If both sapience and sentience are transitional in the manner you describe... why doesn't the same - do not kill - rule apply to those that will become sapient or sentience in time, under difference circumstances, depending on the individual?

Personhood. And in all those other cases they either were or are sentient and sapient before or currently. The fetus has never exhibited sentience or sapience before or currently, and is not a person.

In other words... if I cannot kill a sleeping person because he will wake up... why can I kill a fetus even though he will, also, "wake up"?

The first is a person, it'd be murder. The second is not a person, it is called abortion.

[Hakons]

Human rights are based on humanity, not some abstraction called personhood. It is contrary to God's will, nature, and basic morality to kill a fetus because that is killing a human. An abortion is undeniably the killing of a human life, and retreating to philosophical abstraction doesn't change that.

[The New California Republic]

Human rights are based on humanity, not some abstraction called personhood.

Human rights exist as part of legal frameworks, and it is the same with abortion.

It is contrary to God's will, nature, and basic morality to kill a fetus because that is killing a human.

Not everyone shares your religion.

An abortion is undeniably the killing of a human life, and retreating to philosophical abstraction doesn't change that.

Sure, nobody is disputing that. It is not killing a sentient and sapient person however.

[The Free Joy State]

All of those are sentient and sapient, and are people. Fetuses aren't.

Humans being asleep doesn't take away their personhood. Humans having psychiatric difficulties doesn't take away their personhood. Humans being in comas doesn't take away their personhood.

Sleeping humans are sapient and sentient before, during, and after being asleep, the difference is that sapience and sentience is exercised in a dream state when asleep. Humans with psychiatric difficulties are sapient and sentient, it just doesn't function according to the average. Humans being in comas, unless clinically brain dead, are sapient and sentient in a dream-like state.

The fetus, on the other hand, up to a certain stage does not exhibit sentience or sapience, and is not defined as a person until after birth.

Irrelevant.

It's human. That's enough.

As your explanation amusingly illustrates, "personhood" is so supremely subjective that it is wholly without value as a quantifiable benchmark for consideration. I mean... the logic you just used counters itself as you admit that sapience and sentience are processes of being unique to time, situations and individuals. If both sapience and sentience are transitional in the manner you describe... why doesn't the same - do not kill - rule apply to those that will become sapient or sentience in time, under difference circumstances, depending on the individual?

In other words... if I cannot kill a sleeping person because he will wake up... why can I kill a fetus even though he will, also, "wake up"?

You don't crawl inside someone else's body and get hooked up to their organs to take a nap.

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

This forced use of an unwilling person's body, not to mention forcing another person risk their mental and physical wellbeing, is where the issue is.

By the way, personhood does have a quantifiable benchmark. Someone is defined as being a person from birth in the US code:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Likewise, UK law does not award rights to foetuses ("At present UK Law states that the unborn child only becomes a legal person invested with legal rights and full protections, like other human persons, at birth.")

The UN's first article states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Key word: "born", as the UN has also discussed adding an amendment to codify that a foetus is not separate person in law.

So, I'd say that, rather than being abstract, personhood is pretty clearly defined in international law.

[Hakons]

Human rights are based on humanity, not some abstraction called personhood.

Human rights exist as part of legal frameworks, and it is the same with abortion.

It is contrary to God's will, nature, and basic morality to kill a fetus because that is killing a human.

Not everyone shares your religion.

An abortion is undeniably the killing of a human life, and retreating to philosophical abstraction doesn't change that.

Sure, nobody is disputing that. It is not killing a sentient and sapient person however.

Yes, not everyone shares my religion, but the truths espoused by my religion are not contained exclusively within it, but are universally true. In other words, God's will expressly applies to everyone, and not just Christians. Regardless, I also referred to nature (in this case the basic necessity of reproduction) and basic morality (killing of innocence).

I don't see the necessity of defining value by sapiency. Human life comes from human life. Since we know an infant is a human, we must necessarily recognize that a fetus is a human. The fault in your position is best expressed by how the phrase "I won't kill a person, but I will kill a human" is considered valid and moral under your system.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, not everyone shares my religion, but the truths espoused by my religion are not contained exclusively within it, but are universally true. In other words, God's will expressly applies to everyone, and not just Christians.

No it doesn't. You might assume or hope that it does, but it doesn't.

Regardless, I also referred to nature (in this case the basic necessity of reproduction)

Reproduction as a whole, yes. Nature doesn't really give a shit about the deaths of individual fetuses though.

and basic morality (killing of innocence).

Innocence is irrelevant if the fetus is there without the consent of the woman.

I don't see the necessity of defining value by sapiency.

I do. Vegetarians and vegans do too, when they justify eating plants and not animals on the basis of consciousness.

Human life comes from human life. Since we know an infant is a human, we must necessarily recognize that a fetus is a human.

Nobody is disputing the former or the latter.

The fault in your position is best expressed by how the phrase "I won't kill a person, but I will kill a human" is considered valid and moral under your system.

I don't see how that is a fault. I would switch off the life support machine of a human who was brain dead...

[Hakons]

Yes, not everyone shares my religion, but the truths espoused by my religion are not contained exclusively within it, but are universally true. In other words, God's will expressly applies to everyone, and not just Christians.

No it doesn't. You might assume or hope that it does, but it doesn't.

Regardless, I also referred to nature (in this case the basic necessity of reproduction)

Reproduction as a whole, yes. Nature doesn't really give a shit about the deaths of individual fetuses though.

and basic morality (killing of innocence).

Innocence is irrelevant if the fetus is there without the consent of the woman.

I don't see the necessity of defining value by sapiency.

I do. Vegetarians and vegans do too, when they justify eating plants and not animals on the basis of consciousness.

Human life comes from human life. Since we know an infant is a human, we must necessarily recognize that a fetus is a human.

Nobody is disputing the former or the latter.

The fault in your position is best expressed by how the phrase "I won't kill a person, but I will kill a human" is considered valid and moral under your system.

I don't see how that is a fault. I would switch off the life support machine of a human who was brain dead...

I really can't talk with you if you think it's fine to kill humans. As is usual for this thread, carry on with your murderous barbarism.

[The New California Republic]

I really can't talk with you if you think it's fine to kill humans. As is usual for this thread, carry on with your murderous barbarism.

I mean you could respond to my arguments, but whatever. If you have upped and left the room then I guess I win our little debate by default.

[Dakini]

Elective and unrestricted as well as justified for all of the reasons given plus just plain old "not wanting (another) kid right now". Unfortunately, it is not possible to select all the justifiable reasons as well as whether or not it should be restricted.

And yes, everyone who doesn't want to be involved in a pregnancy should take appropriate precautions to prevent it, everyone should be educated about their options and everyone should have easy access to all their options. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, so precautions do not always work and the person who finds themselves pregnant should be able to stop it basically whenever.

[Slagenmat]

I really can't talk with you if you think it's fine to kill humans. As is usual for this thread, carry on with your murderous barbarism.

I mean you could respond to my arguments, but whatever. If you have upped and left the room then I guess I win our little debate by default.

I believe that abortion is murder and I think that if you want to do abortion you should have thought about that beforehand.

[Distruzio]

Irrelevant.

It's human. That's enough.

As your explanation amusingly illustrates, "personhood" is so supremely subjective that it is wholly without value as a quantifiable benchmark for consideration. I mean... the logic you just used counters itself as you admit that sapience and sentience are processes of being unique to time, situations and individuals. If both sapience and sentience are transitional in the manner you describe... why doesn't the same - do not kill - rule apply to those that will become sapient or sentience in time, under difference circumstances, depending on the individual?

In other words... if I cannot kill a sleeping person because he will wake up... why can I kill a fetus even though he will, also, "wake up"?

You don't crawl inside someone else's body and get hooked up to their organs to take a nap.

But abortionists do crawl inside another persons body to dismember a second person.

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

This forced use of an unwilling person's body, not to mention forcing another person risk their mental and physical wellbeing, is where the issue is.

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

Period.

By the way, personhood does have a quantifiable benchmark. Someone is defined as being a person from birth in the US code:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Indeed. But that isn't the definition TNCR used, is it? If that's the definition you use for person... I rather think you're being incredibly disingenuous. Because this definition bares no mark on the efficacy of the question central to the thread: "where do you draw the line?"

You're hiding behind the legal definition as it stands. That's fine. Fair even. But doing that means that you have to implicitly acknowledge the just cause that I, or other anti-abortionists, have in seeking to amend or repeal certain parts of that definition.

If that's the hill you want to stand on. Do it. Cool. Just means that you're ill prepared to argue against the anti-abortionists.

You are, effectively, defending the right to kill on the basis that, at the moment in America, it is legal to kill.

[Estanglia]

You don't crawl inside someone else's body and get hooked up to their organs to take a nap.

But abortionists do crawl inside another persons body to dismember a second person.

It's not a person.

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

Again with this 'it's because it's a woman' line?
There happens to be a pretty big difference between men and women that means only women can have an abortion. And it's not an arbitrary 'it's a woman!' reason.

By the way, personhood does have a quantifiable benchmark. Someone is defined as being a person from birth in the US code:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Indeed. But that isn't the definition TNCR used, is it? If that's the definition you use for person... I rather think you're being incredibly disingenuous. Because this definition bares no mark on the efficacy of the question central to the thread: "where do you draw the line?"

It does. Whether or not you see the fetus as a person can have a bearing on whether or not you support the legalisation of abortion.

You're hiding behind the legal definition as it stands. That's fine. Fair even. But doing that means that you have to implicitly acknowledge the just cause that I, or other anti-abortionists, have in seeking to amend or repeal certain parts of that definition.

Sure, you can try to change that definition.

If that's the hill you want to stand on. Do it. Cool. Just means that you're ill prepared to argue against the anti-abortionists.

How are we ill prepared?

You are, effectively, defending the right to kill on the basis that, at the moment in America, it is legal to kill.

Not really. We're defending the legalisation of abortion for many reasons. In terms of the personhood argument, we defend the legalisation of abortion on the basis that the fetus does not fulfil the definition of a person, as they do not fulfil the characteristics of being a person, whether or not that definition comes from the US government. Even if the definition of person changes, you'll still see people defending the right to choose an abortion on the basis that the fetus doesn't fulfil certain conditions. It just so happens that these conditions form the definition of personhood.

[The New California Republic]

Indeed. But that isn't the definition TNCR used, is it? If that's the definition you use for person... I rather think you're being incredibly disingenuous. Because this definition bares no mark on the efficacy of the question central to the thread: "where do you draw the line?"

It does though. The argument has hinged on the question of personhood for a long time. Go back through the arguments in the hundreds of pages of this thread and the previous abortion thread, it has hinged around the question of personhood for a long time.

You're hiding behind the legal definition as it stands. That's fine. Fair even. But doing that means that you have to implicitly acknowledge the just cause that I, or other anti-abortionists, have in seeking to amend or repeal certain parts of that definition.

We could make the accusation that you are hiding behind your insistence on focusing on species rather than personhood, but...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

At least we have some kind of legal framework that we are working off of. You, on the other hand, don't. In your case, it is more along the lines of "this definition needs to be changed, or we need to put more emphasis on human itself rather than personhood, etc". While that's fine, just know that you are having to change them or the overall legal focus from personhood to human to make your argument cogent; and it isn't necessarily "just" to do that from our perspective.

If that's the hill you want to stand on. Do it. Cool. Just means that you're ill prepared to argue against the anti-abortionists.

I'd say that we are fighting our corner pretty well. If the problem of animosity comes down to differences of definition, then that really isn't our fault.

You are, effectively, defending the right to kill on the basis that, at the moment in America, it is legal to kill.

Oh shit, the red underlined text is being used!

[The New California Republic]

I mean you could respond to my arguments, but whatever. If you have upped and left the room then I guess I win our little debate by default.

I believe that abortion is murder and I think that if you want to do abortion you should have thought about that beforehand.

lolwut.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I mean you could respond to my arguments, but whatever. If you have upped and left the room then I guess I win our little debate by default.

I believe that abortion is murder and I think that if you want to do abortion you should have thought about that beforehand.

On what basis? And you haven’t responded to his points either.

[San Lumen]

I mean you could respond to my arguments, but whatever. If you have upped and left the room then I guess I win our little debate by default.

I believe that abortion is murder and I think that if you want to do abortion you should have thought about that beforehand.

You'd force a victim of rape or incest to carry the child to term?