No, sir you don't. You are choosing the rights of the embryo over the mother because you are forcing the mother to keep the child whether the mother or the child wants it. In this case it is neither's rights you're concerned about--you're exercising your preceived "right" to mind other people's business such as their own body and life.

The unfortunate necessity arrives when an animals comes to kill you. You can always ignore that and die but the matter of the fact is that other people have the right ro defend themselves. They also have the right to hunt for susetance. Susetenance requires killing the animal. As long as its done humanely that's fine with me.

Clarify. That makes no sense to me.

Problem is that other people may not view their opinions as warped. Oftentimes life is far more grey than people give it credit for.

An embryo may eventually gain enough sentience to qualify as a human but without the mother's womb it never will. A horse is already born and proven that it cannot attain sentience relative to its race. An embryo is no more than a cluster of cells.

Again clarify.

People have the right to whatever with their money but not with an cluster of cells in their body?

Generosity is the world's way of balancing out the unfairness of the world. If generosity wasn't enforced there would very many more children dying today. I can afford to lose a few dollars. I can do without that other video game. A child who's only income is donations that the government makes people pay cannot.

I feel that in general people should learn to be more giving. Who knows...maybe someday you or I would be on the streets depending on the generosity of people who are stingy to give.

...You are very insistent that mothers keep a child they didn't want/might have been forced into but you don't care for the child itself? What's the point of fighting to force a child into the world when you clearly couldn't care what becomes of them when arrive? There's no logic in that.

You don't care about what happens to the mother or the child. Why do you care so much about the embryo? Why is the embryo more important than both of them?

Education and childcare are critical to building a happy society. The money that people pour into these things makes happier, heatlhier, more productive members of society...that ultimately don't drain the health care system as much or require as much policing. It's all a cycle and by ignoring one part you make the rest suffer.

In the same manner that I am 'forcing' people not to murder or steal.

I never said I would not defend myself to the point of killing an animal. I would defend myself to the point of killing a human in the same way. If they are threatening my life, where is the immorality in that?

I agree.

See just above.

Which does not change the fact that they are.

So your perceived importance of upcoming sentience only cuts off when it depends upon other sentience to develop?

If there was necessity, most humans would revert to cannabalism, just like animals. You may say no, that this only occurs in more primitive societies, but it is not so. Modern armies of excellent civilisation have reverted to the practice in desperate times.

But this is of little matter, since both of us seem to agree that the need for sustenance overrides any justice that operates otherwise.

Last time I checked, money was wholly inert.

Those who do not/cannot achieve fall behind. How is that unfair?

Unfortunately true, but this only impacts upon one's own life if one perceives a need to prevent such deaths. I do not. My life is mine; others' lives are theirs.

That is your choice. It makes you neither better nor worse than me.

It is simply unfortunate that it is not born with the means to achieve such pleasures. But birth does not entitle it to them.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Ayn Rand

I still do care that it should not be actively murdered. No blame can be attributed in a passive death.

I never said it was. Mother, child, embryo - all have an equal right to their existence, and each right runs parallel to the other, not infringing. As long as this right holds, none should kill the other. If any of them are killed by nature and circumstance, it is a different matter.

So no society before the 19th century was happy?

Assuming that there are no other apparati for socialisation in place.

Personally, I believe that only women should make this decision, and men should just step aside. This may sound kind of weird, coming from a man and all, but hear me out. We men have absolutely no idea how truly hard it is to bring up a child - we'll never have a being growing inside of us for nine months, we'll never experience hot flashes and mood swings and all those things that accompany pregnancy. All we can do is offer our aid and see that - wow, she must be going through a lot.

Once the child has entered the world, who takes care of him or her most of the time? The woman, right? Yes, there are some stay-at-home dads, but I'm talking majority here. So not only does a child involve a lot of responsibility, what with feeding, clothing, and providing shelter for another individual, but the little guy or girl also requires the caretaker to convert a huge chunk of their lives.

A child is one of the greatest gifts you can create. But if there's no one to take care of him or her, they are doomed to a rough life. Why would you want to put an innocent child through that sort of life? To be bitterly resented, ignored, or shoved off to an orphanage when you've done nothing wrong but exist, it seems. Orphanages are already packed, and can't possibly provide the same amount of love and care that parent/s who wanted them could.

Also, I don't know about you guys but I can't remember much of my childhood. If not for your parent/s telling you about what sorts of things you did, you'd never know. As the egg and sperm cells join, yes you can argue whether or not it's living. But the fact remains that it hasn't developed enough to exist on its own, or know that it even exists yet. Only in time does the cell develope into something functional on its own, but it depends completely on the mother in the beginning stages. Therefore, in my opinion, the mother has the right and power to deny or give life. She will be the one most affected, not the man. So if she feels that she won't be able to take care of another, or that she doesn't want the little him or her, it's best to stop the process before the child knows its existance, and save both from difficulty.

"Pro life" is a term created by idiots. Honestly, do you really think anyone is "anti life"?

Why not? Because my bias detector went off the instant you used the term "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion".