If there was a way to determine if the child in the womb would turn out to be a bleeding-heart liberal when it grows up, I'm sure that number would drop significantly.
You are probably correct! Ironically many pro abortion posters here want to kill off their future voter base because they claim killing for financial hardship is a good thing.
Not in the least. One has no hope of recovery, the other is simply at a stage of development where cognative thought is not yet possible. One is a naturakl stage of development, the other an injury from which one cannot recover!
And an easily preventable one, with legal abortion. So it does not have to be a consequence at all. Having an occasional accident is a known and natural consequence of driving. That does not mean the people who drive want or chose to (consented to) to the accidents.
NOPE abortion prvents NOTHING but the child from living. A pregnancy has already occurred ergardless. Are they allowed to kill someone every time they are excused for making a mistake?
Pregnancy may be. Having a child need not to be with abortion. You are trying to use circular reasoning fallacy - having children is a consequence of sex, so abortion should be illegal. But having children is a consequence of sex BECAUSE and ONLY IF abortion is illegal. If its legal, having children is not a consequence of sex (and therefore abortion should not be illegal )
In the same sense that being married to the wrong person can be prevented by murder. Well see it is funny that you would use a logical fallacy to claim that I am using one. Legality is not a basis for something being right or wrong.
Indeed. Then quit argumenting with current laws ("abortion is not consistent with our other laws" in the other thread).