[gtwizard]

This is the problem. We have to remove the issue of “Life” from the argument. The central issue is really one of EQUAL RIGHTS. Granting that the pregnancy is the result of a consensual meeting of two people (Sorry we have to allow exceptions for rape and incest) and of course that the pregnancy is healthy ... the key point of interest is at what time do the RIGHTS of the two parties split and become unequal? This must become the argument.

At the moment of conception the rights of the two parties are essentially split and become unequal. The Woman maintains ALL her rights while the Man looses many of his options without consent.

The true issue of “Choice” must focus on the choice to risk pregnancy by engaging in consensual activities. If we are to consider that choice a “Right” then it comes with incumbent “DUTY” attached. Right to choose, Duty to live with the consequences.

[wagglebee]

Sorry we have to allow exceptions for rape and incest)

WHY?

Rape and incest (except in cases of murder, where there is not pregnancy) are NON-CAPITAL CRIMES. Why should the child be put to death for the crimes of his or her father?

the key point of interest is at what time do the RIGHTS of the two parties split and become unequal?

The rights of the mother and child NEVER become unequal. Both have an absolute right to life.

[DJ MacWoW]

You've bought the emotional lib argument instead of seeking facts. Pregnancy from forcible rape and incest is rare. You can look it up.

The child is always innocent. Why do you believe there is ever any situation where the child should be murdered?