[b]That's my point. It's his responsibility to know that, if he doesn't want a child. Go ahead and keep pressing this point, buddy. You're digging your thesis deeper and deeper into it's own grave.
[b]
No. You see, the reason we have all of these abortions is because of people who don't make sure of their own security (or just can't stop having sex--Either works). Suppose a guy
did ask if the girl was running too high a risk of getting pregnant before intercourse (as oppose to you assuming that they never ask) and she says no, but they end up getting pregnant anyway, are you still going to put the bulk of the blame on the male when the female is in the best position to know what's going on with her own body? Of course you will...
Prove that the destruction of what you percieve to be "the principles of our society" will undo society. Prove to me that (and how) illegalizing abortion is going to improve society.
It's very simple: Read a history book.
Before Iraq was dictatorial, it was a republic. When Saddam Hussein was eventually elevated from his position as Secretary General to house chairman, he was given the ability and authority to allow things to slip. Eventually, without a majority exercise of republican philosophy, which was of course tweaked for the sake of representing of every faction in social conflict of the time, the true principles of what the government first enacted broke down, and power was slowly sliding more and more into Hussein's direction. The citizens didn't pressure the Iraqi government to stick to its system and, as a result, they suffered a dictatorship that costed thousands of lives. If the repubic of Iraq had stayed intact, Hussein would have never gotten the country all to himself.
The same story is pretty much played out with Lenin, who gave Stalin his inheritance.
I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not).
Okay, you just repeated what you already said. I guess I'll just respond in kind!
"Precisely. Babies' lives shouldn't be owned by the state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island
You're kidding me right? What happened to Easter Island is just as nebulously defined as what happened at Roanoke...Or perhaps Rome would be a better example; everyone seems to want to blame its downfall on one particular source when there were many destructive variables involved. Hell! On that same page you linked me to, it was revealed that overpopulation wasn't the problem since an expedition led there found that their island was very fertile. i.e. the famine was a footnote. And if you're also referring to wars fought on it, than you're presenting yet another fallacious argument. Wars are not caused by overpopulation, but rather by conflict.
Finally, even if I were to advocate the belief that the island was dreadfully crowded, I don't see how their options to continue living as a society were used up. What you've spelled out for me is that a bunch of people who didn't want to deal with eachother anymore and had a rough patch of weather decided to go fight amongst themselves. That doesn't mean the situation was hopeless.
[quote]The fetus isn't sentient until the third trimester,[/quote]
And yet again, the word "sentient" is thrown around like so much toilet-paper when you can't even seem to stand the definition.
The fetus has active cells and nerves just as a post trimester baby does and both sets of tissue react to certain stimulation. If you're going to play the "consciousness" card, then you're not going to get very far since a post 9 month baby barely has any to speak of except that of his or her most basic receptors.
thusly there are no "post 3rd trimester" abortions. Problem solved. Sleep well.
Actually there are. But since you already consider that wrong, we won't get into that.