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

[Nuroblav]

Bingo. Prolifers (from the ProMISERY cult) want not to just move the goal posts from 24-26 weeks but to shove them right up the woman's Fallopian tubes with a complete ban from conception. They've often admitted this, when even moving the goal posts to (let's pick a number out of a proMISERY cultists butt) 20 weeks, 18 weeks, 6 weeks means that at least in the PRESENT, those fetuses have a ZERO viability/survival rate, and often only at outrageous cost at the current 24 weeks.) When it's an unwanted fetus for any reason (and I bridle at the intellectual dishonesty of those cultists who use hyperbole to claim it's "eugenics" to terminate certain genetic defects when in a free country, a woman would be FREE to have a defective child if she wishes), who the heck do these cultists think they are to impose their bizarre "morality" on others? It's the most disgusting attempt to hijack rights and turn women into breeder chattel and it has to be stopped before the nation is plunged into a medieval dystopia.

Nuroblav, by saying I'm centrist, I presumed my indictment of the extremes being corrupt included by default ALL the crazies, zanies and loonies - commies, antifa, et al.

Precisely why I'm not pro-life. Thanks for clearing that bit up at the end. I am a bit crazy myself to be fair

Anyway, finish your novel. More important than a useless topic like this.

[Godular]

Useless? I've learned a great deal keeping this topic up. Besides, a goodly number of the arguments on NSG in general could be labeled as 'useless' under similar definitions. This is the forum for arguing and debate.

[Nuroblav]

Useless? I've learned a great deal keeping this topic up. Besides, a goodly number of the arguments on NSG in general could be labeled as 'useless' under similar definitions. This is the forum for arguing and debate.

Well true - I've learnt a lot as well. Maybe I phrased things terribly again. I always do.

What I meant to say was that the novel was probably a better thing to focus on imo.

[Thepeopl]

One can conceivably live celibately, eliminating all risk of pregnancy. That's a lot more feasible than living without going near cars...

Sure, married couples who have children and don't want to have more, should live their remainder of their fertile lives in celibacy. Or, till death.

Living without going near cars is easy. Just emigrate to Vlieland.


https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Vlieland

Or Hydra

https://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/0 ... e-allowed/

My father did not have a driver's licence and thus no car. We travelled to our destination by bike, motorcycle, public transport or walking.

Granted we did have a tractor (two), because I was raised on a farm. But it was only used for agricultural purposes

[Oubliettica]

Egad, so we're still having to play the whack a mole game against those who would incessantly beat the drum for oppression and zealotry?

1. {Directed at Antityranicals silly comment} The specious DNA argument has been debunked because DNA alone does not equate to personhood. No real live baby could survive if put back into a womb. That is why expulsion and disconnection from the host female is a rights-determining date. Despite that, the proCHOICE side accepted a compromise of 24-26 weeks WITH protections for the female AND the understanding that real compassion might mean terminating defective chimera, something the callous, misogynist, extremist zealot faction still finds unacceptable. Kudos to [The New California Republic] poster who used a great DNA graphic even a caveman could comprehend to make that tumor point earlier. It's just not convincing to scientifically illiterate cultists.

2. No fetus is a real baby except in the emotional hyperbole loving minds of those who are gullible enough and/or uneducated enough to fall for anthropomorphic similarity in the womb. OTOH, it's a legit term of endearment by those wannabe parents who WANT a baby as the end result of a pregnancy.

3. NO "defenseless children or babies" are "murdered/slaughtered/killed" in the womb despite the monotonous hysterical hyperbole spewed by cultists. Technically, a fetus is indeed a tumor that can, similarly, damage or KILL the host female. Pause for cultist gasps to subside. The sophomoric retort by cultists that "a fetus is as dependent on the female host as is a real baby is to parents, an orphanage, or govt-paid foster parents" is a disingenuous apples to oranges comparison, common from those who suffer from the False Consensus Effect.

4. Fetuses are only rarely terminated in the late months and in almost EVERY situation (aside from the very very rare rogue doctor) it's because of serious foetal defects or to protect the woman's life. Again, the callous religious cultists don't care about the woman OR the defective fetus OR the unfortunate human BEING that results from an unwanted but forced birth that will endure REAL pain, major disabilities and in almost every incident, a significantly shortened life.

To those callous proMisery types who spew the trite "they have a right to a full and productive life" (of what, 10 minutes or 10 pain-wracked days in ICU before expiring?) as an ongoing emotional albatross around a woman's neck and the taxpayers who'll have to pay for the ICU, or who claim the defective fetus has a greater right to be carried to term by an unwilling slave-woman and then be consigned to live (if you call it that) and be cared for from cradle to grave by said unwilling forced parenting or taxpayers (because the proMISERY crowd has long since washed their hands of any responsibility except maybe claiming the church donates a few items of clothing) is a noxious diversion from reality.

If the woman chooses to give birth to a majorly defective fetus and assume all responsibilities financial and otherwise, I have no quarrel although clearly a lot of unwitting "fathers" would and do. However, for an agenda-driven govt or lawyers or an oppressive cult choose for her and condemn her or the taxpayer to such care is wrong on too many levels to list.

Anyone who believes they have such a right to impose their myopic and oppressive laws on women, go to a religion-controlled country that already is that oppressive, that forces kids as young as 10 to go to term (hello parts of South America) or sacrifices a woman for a fetal heartbeat (hello Ireland, I believe.) GO THERE, don't quash science and rational thought and respect for women and try to elevate wholly unproven sky fairies and pseudoscience into things that justify your desire for Draconian governance. To argue in favor of anyone other than the mother to make a choice, and force her to go to term against her wishes (no, not her wishes after she's brainwashed and guilt-shamed by the cult or "counseled" by hecklers in protest lines) is the act of a very callous and sanctimonious individual who supports tyranny.

I agree with challenging the term "useless" - "pointless" is likely a better term for these forum topics since in the past few decades - as the proMISERY cult's been actively engaged in nibbling away at a woman's legal right to a safe medical procedure - the nation's needle on this issue hasn't really budged, has it? NO arguments put forth by the cultists have swayed balanced legislative or court decisions, only those co-opted and biased legislatures and courts stuffed with.... ta dah.... proMISERY cultists. Sadly, the truly caring and honest people are left with few options other than to try to educate on forums and fight against the tide of ignorance, tyranny and agenda-based propaganda.

The opposing side will continue to spew specious arguments, half-baked, lame, sophomoric pseudoscience laced with emotional hyperbole. They have no legitimate claim for stealing the rights of women in a free country. They're either proMISERY and proTYRANNY, or they are misogynists willfully intent on muddying the water and "winning" by attrition, not logic, Reason and fair representation of REAL LIVE WOMEN. Funny how the same game is played by other right wing extremist activists to "win" by ignoring the bedrock principles of the nation - whether on sex education, climate debates or to foil impeachment efforts. They all belong at the back of the bus with the flat earthers, psychics and astrologers, IMHO. They are irrelevant in a modern civil society when the success of a nation should be dependent on ethics, real science and the practical application of critical thinking skills, not emotional suasion and regurgitations of duplicitous blogger propaganda and specious religious dogma.

The same applies to left wing extremist activists who want to bankrupt this nation and turn it into a third world cesspool. I want neither a cesspool nor a medieval dystopia. Neither makes any rational sense, it just makes the two corrupt sides of the aisle feel warm and fuzzy when they "win" their temporary Pyrrhic victories. That's not the way to run a nation. We need a third party comprised of centrists, moderates, independents, ethical free thinkers, atheists/agnostics and whatever percent of the eligible electorate who for now holds their noses and votes for one of the corrupt sides in the hopes its policies turn out to be slightly less evil than the other party's platform, despite knowing that never turns out to be the case. (I thought the thread would die... silly me.)

[Godular]

(I thought the thread would die... silly me.)

QUIT TRYING TO ABORT THREADS YOU THREAD-MURDERER.

[Oubliettica]

Good tongue in cheek humor, gawdular.

Considering this thread's advanced age and the pain it's in (can you hear it pleading for a right to death with dignity?) I'm waiting for another group of zealots with their shyster lawyers and religious-bent doctors in tow to try and force tubes and wires down its throat to extend its life by another few pages.

FACT: Outrageously expensive week or so of End of Life "care" stranded in a for profit hospital and begging to be let go is as evil as the outrageously expensive unwanted preemie ICU costs and potential foster care the proMISERY cult (not to mention the destroyed families) foists on women and taxpayers. heh Surely this rational post will silence proMISERY critics, right? No?

[Nuroblav]

Just to clear things up and make sure, I am not against abortion and never said I was.

(I thought the thread would die... silly me.)

QUIT TRYING TO ABORT THREADS YOU THREAD-MURDERER.

*tut tut*

We already told you: if it's not born it's not thread yet!

(On the other hand, if this isn't a born thread yet I dread to think what the real thing would be like...)

[Thepeopl]

By "a human" you mean an individual human being. Such a concept relies on personhood. Personhood starts a birth. You have yet to give us any convincing proof as to why it should be pushed back from that point to include fetuses.


No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

1. Yes I have. . If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth. That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.
2. This is simply medically incorrect. I don't know what to tell you...

1, "Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood"

https://theconversation.com/this-is-wha ... rth-117186
That is a whole lot of nothing...

A fetus is very different from a baby. A fetus has two organs extra. The Placenta and the amniotic sac.

Also the blood circulation is different

https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/ ... irculation

2, medical science, artificial womb

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/1542 ... erm-infant

Again: it only works for fetuses with a functioning heart.

The first flutters are not strong enough to maintain circulation.
This system could work for fetuses around 22/ 24 weeks old. It isn't yet tested on human fetuses

[Oubliettica]

[quote="Nuroblav";p="36460592"]Just to clear things up and make sure, I am not against abortion and never said I was.

We already told you: if it's not born it's not thread yet!

Nuroblav, I for one am clear about your sage anti-proMISERY stance. And, the score board now reflects an extra point for your sense of humor! I don't come here often enough to have gotten the hang of this forum's formatting and layout so I apologize for overlooking your kind words about my novel(s). If I may quote you on the dust jacket of my forthcoming book and tool kit, "Trepanning, the Perfect Gift for the Trump/Pence/Pelosi/Schumer/Bernie/AOC/Omar Apologist In Your Family" (probably not sold via NationStates) I'll use a fake attribution so armed zealots don't come to your pizza shop trying to free the baby fetuses in the basement while other extremists riot and picket outside.

I won't be reading the 460+ pages of posts prior to my OP, but there's definitely stuff to be learned even on "pointless" threads (except by close-minded proMISERY types, of course) via the links from honest posters. It's a question of education vs inculcation/indoctrination. Learning is a good thing. Memorizing ancient rhetoric found in fantasy holy books or its modern-day equivalent (proMISERY pseudoscience, emotional hyperbole and hypocritical/fallacious philosophical spew) is not a good thing. Too bad this isn't the Gong Show else the necks of the proMISERY cult would all suffer a traumatic curve around their Adam's apples.

[The New California Republic]

I won't be reading the 460+ pages of posts prior to my OP, but there's definitely stuff to be learned even on "pointless" threads (except by closeminded proMISERY types, of course)

You should. You'll find that the pro-life position has consistently got rekt. And I don't just mean a little bit rekt, I mean ground into dust and scattered to the winds kind of rekt.

[Cantelo]

I won't be reading the 460+ pages of posts prior to my OP, but there's definitely stuff to be learned even on "pointless" threads (except by closeminded proMISERY types, of course)

You should. You'll find that the pro-life position has consistently got rekt. And I don't just mean a little bit rekt, I mean ground into dust and scattered to the winds kind of rekt.

My boyfriend's uncle is a flat earther and I've had a handful of long discussions with him about it. The prolifers on here have argued exactly the way he does: Tell a fact, and it gets dismissed or turned into an infinite semantics competition with pseudo-philosophical talking points. Oh, and God is also mentioned quite a bit in both.

[Oubliettica]

To - New California Republic "You should...."
Nah, they've lost EVERY argument since the topic first came up long before Roe was enacted. They can't debate, they only do their round robin prance - argue, spew fallacies and hyperbole, prance, run away to create a new alias. After wasting way too much time whacking the zealot moles and trolls on forums for over 20-years (guess it's going on 30 years by now) I have mostly retired. The Sisyphean effort expended by myself and many MANY other rational, educated and civil folks showed absolutely no ROI because as Dr. House once opined (paraphrased), "If we could reason with zealot fanatics and close-minded religious tyrants, there would be no zealot fanatics and close-minded religious tyrants."

The cult(s) will NEVER accept that their mythical man-invented entity, pitifully pious and hypocritical entreaties and all the pseudoscience that's come after is false. They simply do not want to lose control - of women, of the minds of young children, of oppressive government lawmaking. (pssst, it's the tithes, y'know. Just follow the money to the ornate temples of idolatry, incl televangelist mansions.)

I'm sure those posts contain much of the exact same FACT-based verbiage I and many others were posting decades ago. The needle never budged because our side accepts the science and logic and Reason and truly cares about women and taxpayers, while the other side has its collective head stuck up its collective arse sanctimoniously thumping their holy fantasy books while groveling to magical sky fairies.

That's a very comical contortion if you've ever witnessed them perform it, btw. A clumsy ballet of canards, pivots, specious alt-facts and denials followed by scurrying back under their rock whenever the light shines on 'em and they aren't allowed to get away with it.

To: Cantello YEP, all these fanatics follow the same duplicitous tactics using the same muddy the water/sow seeds of doubt strategy from their Handbook of Zealot Canards. "Goddidit" is a classic fallback argument for religious zealots. That dog don't hunt. I say (and so should every court) ... Prove there's a god first, cause the thousands of man-invented religions have utterly failed to prove that any of the thousands of man-invented gods have ever existed. Although I'll admit that a talking stone in a hat comes real close to being scientific proof. cough

Hope you all have a safe and enjoyable Festivus.

[MadisonN14]

I am against abortion but I see the need for some mothers to do so. I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion. This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization. People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

[The New California Republic]

I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion.

Why? What significance does that have?

This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization.

No. Most women only find out they are pregnant after 3 weeks.

People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

"Pregnancy as punishment for sex" again. Everybody drink. It's Friday after all...

[Cantelo]

I am against abortion but I see the need for some mothers to do so. I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion. This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization. People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

1. A heartbeat should not determine the beginning of life, much as how the cessation of it isn't what determines death.

2. As another person already said, nobody would know they're pregnant until about 5 weeks into a pregnancy

3. Stop concerning yourself with how people have sex. This attitude of "fuck you, you deserved what you got" is unbelievably toxic in any application, especially when talking about pregnancy.

[Oubliettica]

I am against abortion but I see the need for some mothers to do so. I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion. This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization. People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

How nice and generous of you to "give" them 3 weeks. LOL If you got an education instead of an indoctrination, you'd know that embryonic heartbeats can't be detected until 6 to 8 weeks. More importantly, the detection of a flutter motion by nascent differentiating cells DOES NOT translate to either viability of the heart or viability of a pregnancy. Doctors know this. Some zealots likely know it as well, but they don't care and sweep facts under the rug using the "don't let facts interrupt attempts to enslave women" rule etched into their policy handbook cover. As I posted earlier, even more developed hearts are nothing but an organ designed to push nutrients, oxygen and waste products around. EVERY freaking animal that develops a heart does so during gestation, so a heart is NOTHING special.

The developing brain (neural synapses, etc.) is a far better determinant even for those who just love oppressing and punishing women by limiting their options. At 3 weeks, a fetal brain doesn't even begin to form much less reach a stage where sentience and self-awareness can begin. That's why rational people accepted the 24-26 week point WITH added special exceptions for the host's well-being and to eliminate severely defective fetuses. Educated, rational people don't buy into religious pseudoscience or their fake morality memes that run contrary to the entirety of human evolution (you probably winced at that pesky word "evolution" didn't you? LOL) - "don't have sex if you can't afford the consequences." Or, the fallacy that there's a real live baby paddling around in the womb just waiting to be freed, or the callousness that is a hallmark of tyranny. BTW, sentience requires a functioning brain and from all I've seen over my lifetime, the brains of zealots have been rotted by religion, quack-concocted pseudoscience and a misogynist desire to control women.

Guess what, you're spewing a typical insulting zealot canard by painting all women trapped in an unwanted pregnancy as irresponsible and haughtily implying they should be punished and saddled with all that an unwanted pregnancy entails if there result is unwanted - when there is a safe and legal way to reset their lives, one of very few "do over" buttons women in this free country can press. The billions (rough estimate) of uneducated or poorly educated people who aren't aware of their options (thank you zealots, thank you TRUMP/PENCE for pandering to the zealots by attacking Planned Parenthood, supporting scurrilous TRAP laws and scrapping foreign aid to educate impoverished women in other countries) or even how to avoid pregnancy (the myths circulating haven't changed much in the 2000k years since hypocritical pious self-righteous thugs first began shipping their "accidents" off to another state to be "fixed") - like those who still think the catholic "rhythm" method makes any sense whatsoever.

While sanctimonious zealots continue to point to and INFLATE/EXAGGERATE the incredibly few women who become serial abortion users, there are billions more ('nuther rough estimate) who ARE informed, responsible women who didn't "plan" to have a birth control method FAIL (puleeze, don't cavalierly spew the smarmy canard that they should have "doubled up"), or who are forced to have unprotected sex by bullying abusive husbands or conniving boyfriends who coerced them, or by strangers who drugged them (considering rape is almost impossible to "prove" thanks to a multitude of technicalities not to mention the threat to the female for outing a rapist), or even the immature teens and millennials who still can't put two and two together and realize they should fight the inane peer pressure to get drunk or high (with the real possibility they'll also become addicted), not to mention the many many many thousands of good people who WANTED a baby but didn't anticipate a mid-to-late term major genetic problem popping up, or had their fortunes change due to lost jobs, health issues, or those who rationally and bluntly do not want the burden of a genetic defect/crippling disease/whatever that might blow up their family or weigh down their lives really appreciate your magnanimous gesture. (I think I won an award for that run-on sentence!)

Your side cannot justify punishing millions (BILLIONS) of women for having sex (with or without benefit of another religious construct - marriage) with the lame canards you post over and over and over. You all fail miserably, over and over and over, yet like the whack a mole game, you keep popping up to vomit the same fallacies and semantic contortions and insulting condemnations of women, and continue to press courts and corrupt biased legislatures to water down or eliminate women's rights and accessibility to choice. Give it a rest, leave women alone, keep your busybody noses out of their wombs (and also out of public classrooms where indoctrination and misinformation is alrady a growing evil threat to education. Don't you realize kids are having a hard enough time trying to learn and practice how to yell "racist" and riot at the drop of a hat, part of the PC indoctrination agenda?)

Zealots love to smear and paint with a large tar brush. (pointing my gnarled finger at the clown Limbaugh, the hypocritical radio show addict.) Madison, perhaps next you can offer the canard of adoption as a great alternative? Shouldn't be too difficult for you to suspend logic and ignore the important fact that adoption is predicated on FORCING the woman to go to term, risk death during or shortly after pregnancy and childbirth (ever heard of eclampsia, hmmm?) when you have NO right to force the unwilling to do that and when adoption has done little to reduce a huge backlog of zealot-caused unwanted kids, especially for those with serious defects.

[The Free Joy State]

No, Free Joy clearly has a knowledge of medical technology which dates back to the 1980s. Modern technology is really quite incredible...

No, Free Joy gave you the current state of affairs. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you have to resort to engaging in doublethink in order to blunt Free Joy's argument.

Though, in case anyone is prepared to listen to Antityranicals' ludicrous fantasy about "incredible" modern technology making it possible to remove perfectly healthy offspring from the womb early in the second trimester (though it would still involve breaching the woman's bodily sovereignty, meaning it is still no answer to abortion)... more links! I have them all the way up one sleeve and down the other!

The Royal College of Gynaecologists state:

There is international consensus that at 22 weeks of gestation there is no hope of survival, that up to 22+6 weeks is considered to be the cut–off of human viability and for week 25+0 onwards there is also a general agreement that active management should be offered.

[...]
Given the importance of reducing the morbidity associated with extreme prematurity, it is essential that obstetricians optimise all aspects of the peridelivery period at the threshold of viability. Inevitably this includes accurate counselling of likely outcomes, prediction of impending preterm delivery, transferring the woman to an appropriate perinatal unit, promoting fetal maturation, preventing cerebral palsy, as well as optimising the timing, site and mode of delivery while minimising the risk of infection and neurological injury.

JAMA has this study:

One in 4 infants born at the border of viability and offered active care survived without severe complications.

And the NHS, updated 2017, has this to say:

Babies are considered "viable" at 24 weeks of pregnancy – this means it's possible for them to survive being born at this stage.

Babies born this early need special care in a hospital with specialist facilities for premature babies. This is called a neonatal unit. They may have health and development problems because they haven't fully developed in the womb.

So, I repeat: current science indicates it would be cruel to the offspring that are born. That's before you get to how cruel it is wish to to force a woman to remain pregnant when she doesn't wish to be, and suffer the invasion of her bodily sovereignty.

I am against abortion but I see the need for some mothers to do so. I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion. This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization. People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

Firstly, the heartbeat is detected at six weeks. Secondly, that's still a silly cut off point as most women don't realise they're pregnant before then.

Thirdly, the majority of women seeking abortion were using contraception when they became pregnant.

Finally, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

To compare it to one of everyone's favourite things around here, a car: if I consent to get into a car and drive, I do not consent to have a driver of another car accidentally crash into me and break my legs. Should that happen, my doctor will treat all medical issues resulting from the damage that resulted from an action I originally undertook consensually.

[Crockerland]

Finally, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

[Neanderthaland]

Finally, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

Which is why doctors refuse to treat obese people for their obesity?

[New haven america]

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

Which is why doctors refuse to treat obese people for their obesity?

Also, you can eat at Micky D's and not be obese.

You're probably not gonna be healthy, but you won't be obese.

[The Free Joy State]

Finally, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

[Crockerland]

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

Well, most early abortions are performed by pill.

And you were the one comparing sex to eating McDonalds. Don't blame the person who takes your analogy to its obvious conclusion.

EDIT: And a foetus is not a baby. No reputable medical organisation would call it such.

[Neanderthaland]

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

You make the analogy, and then you get offended when people entertain it.