When a woman can create a baby alone, then it will be her and her choice alone. After you conceive it is no longer her choice alone because she damn sure didn't do it alone. I hate the BS excuse its her body. Like that didn't apply when she was spreading her legs. Just a complete joke of an excuse.

I'm simply saying abortion rids both parties of responsibility for that child. It's ultimately the woman's option to have an abortion because its her body and that's the way it should be.

We're arguing in circles. I will never agree a man should be able to opt out of caring for a child.

I don't think there's any argument that an innocent human being has a right to live. The argument is whether a fetus is a human being. Many more innocents get accidentally shot and killed by police and the military, should they stop trying to protect lives?

I'm not arguing there isn't anything wrong with the system.

But a lot of men don't want to be repsonsible for the child period. That's even more wrong.

Frankly, I've seen many women not go after the father for child support. I'm surprised by how few single mothers even get child support. So lets not generalize, all men are not getting screwed over the by system or by mothers.

The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)

Rape.

Men who run out on their children deserved to be punished - I totally agree with that.

But yes, the court generally favors women. 90% of custody cases have women victors, for example.

Here is my opinion: Women should be able to have an abortion, but if she doesn't and a custody battle happens, then the child should go to the parent that can best support him/her (instead of just going to the mother because she's a woman).

What ever happened to VGC being about gaming? Stop posting these unrelated topics.

The fetus is a human being, is a statement. It says nothing more than just that. In order to have substance to the argument, you must also state "human beings have a right to life." Consequently, criminals are human beings. If one believes rights are inalienable, and that if one forfeits the right of another they also forfeit their own, then they must remain consistent across the board regardless of one's perceived innocence or guilt. The only valid reason to take one's right to life is if there is an imminent threat to another's life caused by the aggression of the person whose life you are taking. Meaning, if somebody is about to shoot somebody else, it is alright to shoot that shooter because you are protecting (directly) somebody else's right to life. But if somebody is already in prison for life, then there is no reason to enact the death penalty because there is no aggression taking place at the time. The law should never be punitive, but preventative or rehabilitative. 

Are infants capable of sentient thought? Is infanticide alright, if not?