>>291
"I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer."
No, the argument is that if she didn't take the actions necessary to prevent the forming of an developing human inside her, she should have to bear the consequences. It is easy to prevent it, so there is really no reason why she shouldn't be held responsible.
"Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs."
How is an innocent fetus anything like someone who knocks down people in a theater and attempts to harvest their organs? How does this relate to the abortion debate in any way?
"Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument."
The logic is fine. I have yet to see a good refutation for it. If the woman didn't want the baby, she should have used birth control. Simple stuff, really.
>>292
"The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid."
I wonder what would happen if people like this guy set up the country.
"A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week."
I never said a 'fetus > a woman'. Why does this shit keep coming up? It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.