>Avoidance.

If saying that I'd disagree with your choice enough to kill you and hide your remains in a swamp is avoiding the issue, color me avoidful.

>Owning something, and being held responsible for the actions
>of said thing aren't equal.

It's not black and white.

>I own my car, but if someone
>steals it and runs someone over, that isn't my fault.

I am not a lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that in some cases, legally it is.

>A dog isn't sentient.

Neither is a one-month-old fetus. What's your point?

>People
>would rather kill a living thing than accept responsibility
>for it.

Yep. But, hell, one way or another the convicted murder can almost certainly be rehabilitated too.

>She doesn't have to be obviously pregnant.

For a greater-than-battery charge to stick, I'm guessing she would be.

>Don't give the "situation". I'll trade the decision to keep
>or give away the child for zero say and fininacial
>responsibility anyday.

The biological lottery didn't give you that choice, though.

>I'm sure being pregnant sucks (I have
>three older sisters, so I've *heard*) but being uncomfortable
>isn't a reason to kill. Morning sickness is akin to PMS... ie
>no real change. You only become obviously pregnant for the
>last two months or so. So really, you aren't even giving up
>nine months... TWO MONTHS.

This is stupid on many levels. I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my night than list them.

>This argument is akin to saying to me, "It would be more
>convenient for me if you were dead because you are ahead of me
>in line at the DMV. If you were dead, I wouldn't have to wait
>as long."

No, it's not. It's not even close. The guy ahead of you in the DMV line is not dependent upon you. He's not, in essence, a parasite in your body. There's no possibility that the guy in the DMV line came to be in front of you due to rape or incest. Having a guy ahead of you in the DMV line will have no direct social repercussions. Having a guy ahead of you in the DMV will not possibly cause complications which will maim or kill you. Etc.

>You get two choices, they aren't children till they
>talk/write/sign/whatever, or they are children the instant the
>cells start dividing. Anything inbetween is arbitrary and
>wrong.

You'd have to disregard an awful lot of science to make that claim. I understand that you haven't really taken the time to educate yourself about the science of human development, but it makes arguing with you fairly pointless.

>I didn't see you providing sources for the statements of
>poorer people being the ones getting the majority of
>abortions.

I don't need to.

As extreme of a position as you're taking, for you to be right, every abortion ever has to be completely wrong.

The position of "sometimes, this might be okay" has a much, much lower standard of proof.

I'm not replying further to this thread; it's sunk further into unreason than even the Pro threads on this board.