So it's not better to have a life than to have none at all? Sorry if you misunderstood.

As for you maths the correct equation (where the hell did you get yours from?) is:

(2 lives + 1 death) or (2 deaths + 1 life).

I say no because the person is unwilling. What's your answer?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Yes.

There are only two people involved; the mother and child.

Which person is unwilling? Or are you trying to claim the baby wants to be aborted?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If "We" as a people can not decide if a fetus is a thing or human.. then the INDIVIDUAL must make that choice themself.. This country is free, lets let people use their own judgment once in awhile.. BTW: who decided I must wear a seatbelt? Thanks for the concern, but it should be a choice of mine.. not the government. (and yes, the 2 are the same thing.. called personal choice) Now go find a hobby and stop trying to control everyone else's decisions on life.

No i'm saying the mother is unwilling to have the baby. Thus despite a possible better overall result you have to rip a unwilling persons life apart to get that result (that's where the 1 life or 2 question comes in). So sadist, new question time, would you force a mother to destroy here own life to have the baby?

Besides are you claiming the baby doesn't want to be aborted?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Which individual are you referring to? The mother or the child?

I agree. Give the child a choice.

If you dont wear a seatbelf the risk is your own. If the mother aborts her child, she is taking the choice away from the child. Good analogy.

I wonder if rapists and pedophiles could say the same thing...

Killing the child is the same thing as "ripping a unwilling persons life apart". The child is left with no life at all.

Yes...the mother would still be alive and has a chance to salve and restore her life. In an abortion, the child does not have that option.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

So we either can either destroy the mother's life or the babies. I side with the mother on the grounds the fetus isn't yet aware.

A mother's can have no chance to restore her life, the've been a fair few suicides by mothers who just couldn't take it, countless others have been/would have been condemned to permanent poverty with the costs of raising a child.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Yes. Except that the levels of "destruction" are not the same. In the Baby's case it is absolute...zero chance of recovery of any kind. That is not true in the mother's case.

So if someone cant protest it is ok to kill them? Is that your logic?

If someone is asleep it is ok for me to kill them, because they are not aware. That is analogous to what you are saying.

Prove it.

Lots of women have had children and then gone on to live their lives. Having a child does not end a mother's life.

How many? Whats the ratio?

By contrast, the number of aborted children that have not recovered their lives is 100%.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I'm saying that the mothers life is preferable to the baby not because the baby isn't aware of the world around it but because the fetus can't think, it's not sentient in the early stages. I'm mean 'aware' in that sense.

Prove it?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/26/115258/362

How's she going to get her life back?

Lots have women have had a great lives with kids. Lots of mothers have wanted kids. Lots of mothers have had their destroyed because of having children/being pregnant. Lots of women haven't because abortion was available.

And stop harassing me about the 100% ratio. I've already said i don't want to rip the mothers life apart. Percentages don't come into play. If you do want to play with numbers you might want to recognize that 100% who aren't aborted go on to live. 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Many children die while still a infant. Many would rather not be alive.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

That ends the argument right there then. You consider the child to be an object and not a person. If I thought the child was an object, I would agree with you.

His mother made the CHOICE to commit suicide. The child has no choice. IMO, the child should be given the same choice as a mother. it is a person, not an object.

The same way every mother does. Or are you trying to imply that a mother's life ends when she gives birth?

Providing a fact is "harrassment"?

If you consider the child an object, then that view makes sense. I dont agree with you that the child is an object.

They do in this context.

That is true. That supports my argument.

All abortions end in the equivilent of miscarriage.

All aborted children die.

How do you know they would rather not be alive?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

All the people who have committed suicide and all those who are depressed but don't have the bottle to do it. The'd have preferred to be aborted (well at least some). You kept them alive against there will. Bastard.

What necromancy? I'm try to imply a mothers life ends when she commits suicide.

If you ban abortion then the mother doesn't have ant choice does she? A mother can be driven to suicide and by banning abortion your condemning many mothers to to having no lives.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.