I assumed that you approved of it in the european country poll thread with this comment " Hahaha lol. It was kinda similar here in Serbia lol.  Thats what they get for not listening to the public and the majority (I assume Georgians were also against having a parade)" But I may have misinterpreted it.

I'll copy paste what I said about it in the thread

They did have it coming. They were dumb to even have a parade there. It makes about as much sense to have a parade in Georgia as it does in Iran or Saudi Arabia. They knew general public was against it, so what did they expect to happen ? That's what i said 'lol'. Not because they were attacked, but because they actually attempted to start the parade.

There is a very important distinction between abortion and killing someone in a coma. With some people, the brain is still active, even though they aren't 'awake'. An old relative of mine got a heart attack, and was unconciouss for a few days, but when he woke up, he could remember what the doctors around him had talked about.

But you said ''it wont experience anything', that's not the situation you described there. There are lots of cases where humans are in vegetable state of coma, they wouldn't experience anything as well, so we should be allowed to kill them too? I mean, they won't experience anything, but they are a living human.

People in comas have had consiousness, and if they would some day wake up, they would probably experience a continued conciousnes. Personally, the only time that I'm in favour of dropping life support is when it can be proven that all brain cells are dead. Early fetuses have never been concious, and have never had a brain to be concious with. It's a totally different situation.

You did not address my point. By killing a developing human life inside a womb, you deny him a chance to live it's life. That's very similar to murder. The fact is as simple as that 

I did adress your point. Even if there is zero brain activity, but the cells are living, the person has had a conciousness, and would likely experience the same conciousness if his brain was restarted. So killing him would be wrong. However, if the brain cells are dead, the person is already irreversibly gone, so no need to keep dragging it out.

I'm not denying anyone anything, because 'it' is not a 'him' yet. By not aborting a fetus, I'm denying a second kid that could have been born under better circumstances the chance to live. Both kids are equally 'sentient', even if only one of them has made it to the fetus stage yet.

Frankly, my argument is that we shouldn't give the woman special powers. Do not legalize abortion for irresponsible women. Only allow it for women who have health risks or were raped (and even the latter case is contesable.) There is no natural right to kill a fetus. And no, this isn't morality I'm assuming, but natural law. 

Sperm cells will not develop into a person on their own, neither will eggs. Once conception occurs development begins. Consequently, a unique diploid organism is produced, and humans only come in diploid form. That's the difference between an egg or sperm cell and a fetus.

But maybe if they had some big bucks coming in from child support we'd have less people relying on the government to get by.

They should teach this to girls in school. Only get knocked up by guys with lots of money. It'll save the country.

That's the risk with anyone though. Just because they didn't abort doesn't mean they can't be shitty parents. It's sort of luck really if you are born to good parents. Although those who want to abort but can't normally are bad parents

And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph ? What 2nd kid? You keep avoiding my point. ''It not a him yet''  It's GOING TO BE HIM in few weeks, and by killing him, YOU DENY them a chance at becoming a fully developed human being and thus you deny him a chance at living his life. You keep arguing whether or not it's a human or just a lump of cells we're talking about when that's completely irrelevant to my point - denying a chance to live. When you take the seed out of ground, you deny it a chance to become a plant, despite it not being a full plant yet. I really don't know how to make this more simple to you. It seems to me you're arguing just for the sake of your liberal agenda  

No. Just no. A woman (or more accurately, any person) should not be able to reach financial security just from getting knocked up. The money a parent receives from child support is supposed to go fully into the child; the parent should not benefit from it at all.

And even with your suggestion, people would still be relying on the government to get by. They'd be relying on the government to take away someone else's hard earned money and to transfer it to them. How is that fair?