If that's required for you to take one's opinion on this I have a three year old child and I don't find fault with Rol's reasoning. 

Thought thread was going to be about recent state legislatures passing anti abortion laws even in cases of rape and incest.

How about this hypocrisy? Repuplicans are anti welfare and anti abortion. Well you can't have it both ways... You'd think republicans would be in favor of abortion if it kept the poor off welfare.

The youngest person to become pregnant was 5 or 6 depending on which resource material is used but it shouldn't make a difference.

Although that case went on successfully, a child that young faces a plethora of future complications including death.

In the scenario which a child is raped at such a tender age and impregnated against her will, then she has every last right to abort the child at any stage of development and because of this, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't anyone else's choice other than the mother. It should be that easy.

The whole restrictions past 8 weeks passed by recent state legislatures is bullshit. Most women don't even know they are pregnant till around then.

I would be sad but I'd get over it. In the end, as the dude, you can't require your girlfriend or wife to take on pregnancy and child birth if she's not 100% into it. It's a tough process that culminates in an incredibly painful and sometimes (though thankfully rarely these days) fatal event. 

As a dude it can be easy to say "well you got pregnant you're going to have to deal with it" when that has nothing to do with us. 

The fetus is not a conscious being and neither are you or anyone else under the proper effect of anesthesia. So if a doctor kills a patient under anesthesia then the doctor committed no crime and should not face any consequences because the doctor didn't kill something conscious that "suffered".

If you say that being under anesthesia is a temporary state then so is the state of being a fetus.

Children don't have the same responsibilities and rights as adults, but that sure as hell doesn't mean anyone can go and kill them without society batting an eye.

The limits to the things that a children can do are precisely attempts to keep the child healthy and alive, it is not some arbitrary attempt to rid the child of his humanity.

I can't agree with what you find acceptable, but I have to admit that your views are consistent.

"Democrats have used the argument that developing babies in the womb can be thought of as parasites?" Really? Are you serious?

You chose a group of nobodies for the sample, and.you decided to call them Democrats? This OP was already started on misinformation and fact-twisting.

For the record, I strongly support a woman's right to choose, and I find UBI ridiculous.

"You didn't answer my question, why do you think that way?"

i said i agreed with you that mothers should be able to murder their unborn children

" There's no reason in a civilized society that multi-billionaires, whose profit comes at the expense of the people, should be treated better and be able to get huge tax cuts and breaks while the very same people that they profited off of die "

so resources should be channeled from people who have more to people who have less

the developing child in the womb needs resources from the mother to survive, why in this case where the person in question is much more vulnerable and in far more need do you renege on your position and go in the opposite direction?

and the mothers also profit from society btw as every single person does

"so far the wealthiest have just been taking"

how do you think people become wealthy?