You're making a dual argument of property rights and of risk. It's really the only two arguments available to the pro-abortion side.
The property rights argument fails miserably once the biological and logical concession must be made that the baby is in fact human, and a distinct individual human. From there, the only property rights argument (the "it's hers to do with it as she sees fit" argument) falls due the illegality and immorality of slavery, which is the only means of one human reducing another to property. To defend abortion on these grounds would necessitate defending slavery.
To the risk argument, the mother is not the only person taking a risk. The father clearly has a financial risk involved. The child is literally risking it's life. When balancing those risks, the risk of one's life outweighs any other risks involved. Only when the life of the mother is at risk, medically, are those risks balanced and does the maxim of self-defense come into play, or in the case of rape/incest the causation of a violent bodily harm causing the pregnancy, and this easily negated in the earliest days for the same self-defense rationale.
So, there is no irrational argument made here. There is no illogical argument made here. Please address each, as they sum up and attack your two positions quite discretely. I await your answers.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
