Now this only accounts for a portion of people that will seek an abortion, but what does "stupid enough to get knocked up" mean?

Murder involves intent, unplanned pregnancy doesn't, so this is not a good example at all when discussing consequences of said actions. 

The question in this situation is, are the consequences of this action (forcing someone to carry an unwanted child to term) proportional to the action (accidentally getting pregnant)?

 You can use this argument for crimes that are committed now, mainly manslaughter. If a man drunk at the wheel accidentally falls asleep, and hits someone, its a crime because of his negligence. Sex is too casual now, and abortion is the scapegoat. People need to be more responsible for their actions in sex, and in the age of condoms, spermicide, birth control and pulling out, how anyone who neglets these and becomes pregnant is only doing so because they do not think there are many repricutions. Is the consequences of manslaughter proportional to 2-3 years? If a life has ended, yes it is.

So... until age 18? (earlier in some cases...)

This is a good thread. People interested in this topic should also consider looking at an old thread on abortion, http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=14835&page=1 It has a slow start, but some really good points get made from many perspectives.

1. Birth control doesn't always work.

2. I agree abortion shouldn't be a scapegoat.

3. Consequences of an unplanned pregnancy and giving a child up are not necessarily 2-3 years.  Especially now considering that children given up for an adoption have a legal right to track down their parents years later.

4. You are defacto attaching the same right to life to a foetus that you do a person, which isn't the generally accepted view in society.  If it were, even women who are in a situation where delivery might risk their life would be forced to carry their pregnancy to term, whereas in many places in the world this is acceptable justification for termination.

5. The reason i am not pro-life is because it's an all position i.e. you can NEVER abort a foetus.  It's not realistic, there are situations where the vast majority of people would concede that abortion is a humane alternative (rape of a minor for example)  Given this, many people would concede that abortion is sometimes necessary.  Given the nature of law it is impossible for us to determine before the fact how a law will be applied, laws are often not very specific.  To me pro-choice is just the more practical position.  You can be conservative pro-choice, argue that abortion law is applied too liberally, which i think is a very fair and defensible position in todays society.  However if you concede that sometimes it is the woman's right to seek abortion, you can't reasonably or practically defend a pro-life position, the foetus either has full right to life or it doesn't.

I was going to enjoy jumping into this debate until I read half of it, only to see the OP has no willingness to see other people's views or ideas as valid points or reasonings. Next time you want to call everybody wrong and try to force your conservative ways onto others through a video gaming forum, just say so.

I can think of many instances which haven't been brought up that would absolutely 100% warrant immediate abortion, no matter if you consider it a living person with rights or not.

Also, it isn't immediately a fetus, it isn't until the second gestation period. Until then it is just an embryo, making it even less of an issue.

Whether it's foetus or an embryo doesn't directly affect the issue as it's a delineation based on embryology.  It has no real bearing on the issue, particularly for people who believe that life begins at conception.

However i agree with your original point.

 Um, what? Every post I made, mostly in the first half of this thread, was asking why everyone held their views. I stated why and to what reason I held mine. And even when someone arguing against me posted a great link, I applauded their effort because they at least showed their source. I don't mind being wrong, but show proof and reasoning to why. If its a clash of opinions, you can say that all of us have no willingness to back down because its then just opinion against opinion. And to say I want to force my conservative ways down others' throat is really disturbing seeing as I'm more moderate than anything, and abortion is the only issue that pushes me to conservative.

I'll address my own views on when I believe abortion is rightful, I have never said it was an end all. Incest/rape/mother's life is indanger. Incest because the potential birth defects of the fetus might destroy its life or hinder its existance to the point that it has none. Rape because the mother had no choice in becoming pregnant. I believe in the right to privacy to the extent of this, but once there is a fetus, and you can argue if it has the right to life or not, which this entire argument and controversy is about, the right to privacy and the right to life clash, in which I believe the right to life supercedes the right to privacy. But if conception occured because the destruction of the right to privacy, then that was violated before there was even life to be had. And now mother's life in danger for abortion; the fetus is living, and has a right to life but it is still potential life as no one knows whether or not it might die in birth. The women's right to life supercede's the fetus' as hers is proven.

You can argue that I am conservative and take hard stances, but don't put me in the same position as many pro-lifers and conservatives on this site that put no effort in recognizing and accepting other's opinions, because there are just as many if not more liberal posters that do the exact same, and so many more just in this thread that I wanted to call out since no one else was. So please stop calling the kettle black, especially if this kettle is gray.

It shouldn't be done unless the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise it's murder; why should the baby, who wants to live, suffer for your negligence?

From what I know the baby will try and move away from the abortion tools at 12 weeks. I am researching further to see if there is evidence of this at earlier stages.

Now as for the mother issue. As terrible as it might sound, if a woman is raped, well, I think that she should go through with the pregnancy. That just my opinion and I know people will think that's terrible but yah. I mean I understand that she did not want ot become pregnant , but at the same time that baby didn't ask to be created either.

See now I understand how you called me out for the mother issue "which as I think about it more I agree that in those circumstances they should let nature take it's course" but I ask you the same question, are you not bieng hypocritical yourself? To say that your pro choice, but yet at certain stages in the baby's development you become pro life? So when does it go f4rom being a mother's choice to a baby's right to life?