Every sperm and egg has the potential to become part of a human being if it is given the opportunity to meet with its counterpart. Denying them this opportunity is the same as killing the human being they would eventually create. The arguments are logically identical: ...
sorry, can you please clarify that part? how does one deny the sperm of it's egg counterpart? are you talking about contraceptives which when used would be equivalent to killing the baby they would have procreated otherwise?
This debate is pointless because we already have our own views on this issue. Its a waste of time. The only debate here is whether the OP is trolling or being a genuine asshole.
But we'll always have our own views on any debatable issue. I think the tone of pretty much pimp-slapping other people's pov (ie "and don't give me this kinda bullshit that....") is not the way to start a debate nor be in one.
This debate is pointless because we already have our own views on this issue. Its a waste of time. The only debate here is whether the OP is trolling or being a genuine asshole.
Better inform all of the policymakers all over the world, apparently they haven't gotten this message. And don't worry, I'm always a genuine asshole. Only the best for high quality people like you IVT.
online predator;49373 said:
sorry, can you please clarify that part? how does one deny the sperm of it's egg counterpart? are you talking about contraceptives which when used would be equivalent to killing the baby they would have procreated otherwise?
Pretty much, and this is essentially the position of the Catholic church regarding contraception. I'm saying that if you puch the line back as far as conception you can also push it back further.
Also why is everyone so thin-skinned that they can't get past my "tone"? Did internet discourse suddenly become universally civil while I was asleep? Get the fuck over it and contribute something to the discussion if you have anything worthwhile to say. Or you know, just continue to whine about how mean I am because I'm not nicer to these people.
No, it has nothing to do whether it is human or not. This entire argument is just based on conservative Christian beliefs and nothing else. Once something is born and outside of the body, then I can see this is a problem, someone else can take care of the child, why kill it? For the entire time it is in a womans body it is her property.
Excluding rape cases, the woman would be the one to blame for becoming pregnant. If she does not want a baby, then she should not have taken the risk of having sex. This isn't a game where the woman keeps having sex, becomes pregnant every time, and then aborts all of them. A woman should have the freedom to choose what she does, but only if it is considered right (in the society she lives in).
Why would it have nothing to do with what stage a fetus is considered human or not? Does it make it right to take away a human life if the fetus is inside the woman and unable to care for itself? In fact, I wouldn't even say that a fetus belongs only to the woman, I'd say it belongs to the father too.
For instance, you give money to an investor to invest in stuff. Once the investor takes your money, it does not make it his own. He is just handling the money for you.
Excluding rape cases, the woman would be the one to blame for becoming pregnant. If she does not want a baby, then she should not have taken the risk of having sex. This isn't a game where the woman keeps having sex, becomes pregnant every time, and then aborts all of them. A woman should have the freedom to choose what she does, but only if it is considered right (in the society she lives in).
Why would it have nothing to do with what stage a fetus is considered human or not? Does it make it right to take away a human life if the fetus is inside the woman and unable to care for itself? In fact, I wouldn't even say that a fetus belongs only to the woman, I'd say it belongs to the father too.
For instance, you give money to an investor to invest in stuff. Once the investor takes your money, it does not make it his own. He is just handling the money for you.
I'm confused, first you claim its the woman's fault for being pregnant in your first paragraph-- now you come full circle and say the male has a choice as well in abortion, you're making dichotomous statements, choose one.
Please read my logic in my examples in my response to Ether, but I'll sum anyway:
The qualitative experience of having a child is different for men and women. You know what, I'll agree with you and say that in our society, if a woman gets pregnant through consentual sex, its her fault. Thus, if the onus is on her, she has the right to do whatever she wants with the child. If you claim the guy has no fault in pregnancy, then he has no right to dictate anything involving the pregnancy.
Next,
The stage when something is considered life is irrelevant. Who are you or anyone else to define what human life is? You're trying to argue on a term that cannot be conceptualized. What is a 'human life'? Did you read my argument of how everytime we don't consumate, or a guy jerks off you're killing off potential cells that could create children? How is this any morally different from what you are claiming is human life? Sounds to me like pre-meditated murder.
Morally, it would be wrong to murder a child after it has been born. Why you ask? Because it is malicious, someone else could take care of the child-- there are other options. Now lets look at the 'baby' or whatever it is, before birth. The child is entirely dependant on the mother to come to term and stay alive and develop. What alternatives are there to the cells being supported if the woman does not want to support them, at the risk of her own health (death, malnutrition, emotional / financial hardship)? The whole it is morally wrong to abort something pre-birth is such a one-sided argument that doesn't look at the whole picture.
Lastly,
Your example of an investor is not a valid comparison point at all. Please see my point regarding how a baby HAS to be raised inside the mother, and the hazzards this poses. The mother can't just give the baby to someone else to raise and nurture inside of themselves.
---
You know, I haven't been able to think of a good conceptualization of when a fetus is a child and a human life, but I think I have a good idea. When it can live on its own, with no biological aid from the mother. Anything before this time it is just a symbiote or parasite of the mother, its sustenance is entirely dependant on her, thus if she doesn't want it, noone else can keep it alive, and it is not wrong to not want to carry it along any longer.
I'm just curious Shi, How do you differentiate between human life and living cells or other beings?
This debate is pointless because we already have our own views on this issue. Its a waste of time. The only debate here is whether the OP is trolling or being a genuine asshole.
How is it pointless? You know, some people are willing to change or alter their beliefs? Not everything is universalistic. Just because you are unwilling to alter any of your religious beliefs because they are absolute, doesn't mean any of us won't.
Show me a picture of you and jesus programming and maybe I will just have to believe in christianity. I can't speak for ferrous, but I think he would agree.
If I could offer you definitive proof that god doesn't exist, would you abandon your beliefs? Serious question, I'm just wondering. Although I doubt you will even entertain the hypothetical of my question, just confirming what I said above ^.
Excluding rape cases, the woman would be the one to blame for becoming pregnant. If she does not want a baby, then she should not have taken the risk of having sex.
If those people didn't want food poisoning they shouldn't have taken the risk of eating! Also if you're going to exlude rape cases you need to explain why.
Shi2;49380 said:
A woman should have the freedom to choose what she does, but only if it is considered right (in the society she lives in).
So in a hypothetical society in which it was considered to abort every child, abortion would be the right choice?
Shi2;49380 said:
In fact, I wouldn't even say that a fetus belongs only to the woman, I'd say it belongs to the father too.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the rest, but this is an interesting point and I would like to hear thoughts on it. My initial reaction was that the father should have no choice in the matter and it's entirely the woman's decision. The problem I have with this is that if you absolve the father of any role in the decision, you also absolve him of any responsibility. And that doesn't seem right.
randomuser said:
you're making dichotomous statements, choose one.
The word you're looking for is "contradictory." And you're right. But that seems to be the norm in this discussion.
If those people didn't want food poisoning they shouldn't have taken the risk of eating! Also if you're going to exlude rape cases you need to explain why.
bad example, food is necessary for survival while sex is optional
I'm confused, first you claim its the woman's fault for being pregnant in your first paragraph-- now you come full circle and say the male has a choice as well in abortion, you're making dichotomous statements, choose one.
I think the word 'fault' is a bad choice then. I claim that the woman is responsible for letting herself be pregnant (excluding rape cases again). If she does not want a baby, then she should not have taken the risk of sex in the first place. Now once the woman IS pregnant, the father should have a say in what happens to the fetus as well. Being responsible for becoming pregnant and being responsible for what happens to the fetus is different. Where is the contradiction?
I'm just curious Shi, How do you differentiate between human life and living cells or other beings?
At what stage a fetus is considered human is what the whole debate is about as it is considered wrong to kill a human life. In the case of a fetus, I would say whenever it has sentience would be when I consider it a human.
FerrousWheel;49390 said:
Also if you're going to exlude rape cases you need to explain why.
So in a hypothetical society in which it was considered to abort every child, abortion would be the right choice?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the rest, but this is an interesting point and I would like to hear thoughts on it. My initial reaction was that the father should have no choice in the matter and it's entirely the woman's decision. The problem I have with this is that if you absolve the father of any role in the decision, you also absolve him of any responsibility. And that doesn't seem right.
1. I am excluding rape cases because it would not be the woman's fault for becoming pregnant since it was forced.
2. That is correct. That action would be considered right in that society alone.
3. Why would the baby not belong to the father as well? He's called that for a reason and that is because it is his sperm that made it possible for the baby to be created.
bad example, food is necessary for survival while sex is optional
Fair enough, here's a better one: "If the bitch didn't want to die in a car crash she shouldn't have been driving." That said, I would argue that expecting people not to fuck is only slightly more grounded in reality than expecting them not to eat. Very slightly. Of course I suppose we could all just have gay sex until it's baby making time, but that's not really an IVT friendly solution. Because it isn't a real Christian solution until someone is suffering needlessly.*
Same logic. It just isn't a reasonable or compassionate standard to hold other human beings to, especially since accidental pregnancies can happen even if all precautions are taken. Condoms break, birth control pills just don't do the trick for some reason, someone is using the rhythm method because they're Catholic, or what have you.
Which brings me to another relevant point**: Without human intervention, a very large per cent of embryos spontaneously abort on their own and get flushed out with the next period. They get fertilized and then expelled without the woman ever knowing she's pregnant. The most conservative estimates of this percentage are around 40%. What are we to make of this? Should we be trying to save these poor zygotes, or is letting them die morally acceptable where killing them is not?
*Ideally everyone.
**I say "brings me to" because the pope-approved rhythm method actually causes this to occur in a higher percentage of embryos. So according to their own definitions the Catholic way kills more babies.
I think the word 'fault' is a bad choice then. I claim that the woman is responsible for letting herself be pregnant (excluding rape cases again). If she does not want a baby, then she should not have taken the risk of sex in the first place. Now once the woman IS pregnant, the father should have a say in what happens to the fetus as well. Being responsible for becoming pregnant and being responsible for what happens to the fetus is different. Where is the contradiction?
At what stage a fetus is considered human is what the whole debate is about as it is considered wrong to kill a human life. In the case of a fetus, I would say whenever it has sentience would be when I consider it a human.
1. I am excluding rape cases because it would not be the woman's fault for becoming pregnant since it was forced.
2. That is correct. That action would be considered right in that society alone.
3. Why would the baby not belong to the father as well? He's called that for a reason and that is because it is his sperm that made it possible for the baby to be created.
Firstly, in regards to your definition of when something is alive, there are plenty of living things without 'sentience', what makes humans any better than them?
--
1. It takes two people having unprotected sex to have a child, the reality is, it is both peoples fault. There are forms of male AND female contraceptives.
That said, the woman has a lot more to do with the child reaching term than the father. I'm not quite sure how you're not seeing the link of how there are different roles in pregnancy allotted to the male and female. Can you address my point of the risks of child rearing women have to bear alone? I'm just curious if you see my point there.
Allow me to use a mathematical forumla:
A healthy baby brought to term = x (fathers sperm) + y (womans egg) + z (internal sustenance provided by the mother at the cost of her own health and time)
We give equal weight to x & y, z is solely attributed to the woman, thus the woman has more to do with the child / embryo reaching term than the father. Even if the father wants the child, it is the woman's choice to provide 'z', do you know how much pain is involved in pregnancy not including giving birth, which can have the complication of death to the mother?
2. I understand your basic logic that taking a life is wrong, but I don't think that logic is looking at the entire situation-- this has a lot to do with choice, whether or not you agree is irrelevant. It requires the mothers biological support to keep the child alive, thus there is choice involved when bringing the child to term is at the expense of the woman.
There are animal species where the father leaves right after, vice versa. It doesn't require two parents after conception for the child to be taken care of.
you idiot..... my point was: try going a month w/o food, then try going a month w/o sex. Obviously sex is less important than food
i give up. Arguing with a douchebag is absolutely useless
Okay don't respond to him.
Anyway, in regards to my other question not regarding abortion I'm curious about your response on it.
How I said that: if you showed me a picture of you and JC chillin out (jesus christ) I would believe in Christianity.
But if I gave you irrefutable evidence about the non-existence of god would you change your beliefs, or would you not even be willing to acknowledge this hypothetical?
I'm just wondering, as I'm not in your shoes and don't know what your answer would be.
Anyway, in regards to my other question not regarding abortion I'm curious about your response on it.
How I said that: if you showed me a picture of you and JC chillin out (jesus christ) I would believe in Christianity.
But if I gave you irrefutable evidence about the non-existence of god would you change your beliefs, or would you not even be willing to acknowledge this hypothetical?
I'm just wondering, as I'm not in your shoes and don't know what your answer would be.
yes i would consider this. You know, my faith is not based only on "the Bible says...." (it used to be) after I have been to countless church services and have seen many people speaking in tongues and hearing reports of people getting healed... THAT to me proves that God does exist. Basically for me to deny the existence of God would be blatant stupidity. As for you and other atheists I don't hold anything against you because you haven't seen this stuff. either way, you are entitled to your opinion
you idiot..... my point was: try going a month w/o food, then try going a month w/o sex. Obviously sex is less important than food
i give up. Arguing with a douchebag is absolutely useless
And try living your life doing only what is absolutely necessary to survive. I already provided a better example- saying anyone who dies or is injured in a car crash deserves it because they chose to take the risk of driving.
But if you give up by all means stop posting because you make the baby Jesus cry every time you do. The big kids can handle this discussion just fine without you.
o btw Randomuser: if a fetus is not "alive" until after birth, then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder? It should only be one count, right?
o btw Randomuser: if a fetus is not "alive" until after birth, then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder? It should only be one count, right?
If you read any of my arguments you would have noticed on several times I explicitly stated that I don't care when something is said to be alive, it wasnt the crux of my argument, the crux of my argument was the choice of a women when her body is forced to keep the baby alive.
And with your example...do your research, the baby was full-term, there were special provisions as to why Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder. If you want to play this game, someone can have a late term abortion in the same state he was charged in and it is not considered murder. You want to know why? There is something called intent, which is clearly accounted for by the law. This all relates back to the argument I've repeated several times, that the relationship between the mother and the unborn is a big deal. It doesn't matter when it is considered to be human, or sentient, and the law shows this. The law gives legal ownership of what is inside the mother, to the mother. It is her choice, and noone elses. The baby cannot survive, but for the mothers actions. She physically, and legally gets to choose whether it lives or dies, and that is the end of the argument.
I don't know how much more explicitly I can explain the above point ^. The father does not have a say, because he can't carry the child to term. You can be charged for killing a fetus if you are not the mother because it is not your choice whether the child lives or dies.
1. It takes two people having unprotected sex to have a child, the reality is, it is both peoples fault. There are forms of male AND female contraceptives.
Allow me to use a mathematical forumla:
A healthy baby brought to term = x (fathers sperm) + y (womans egg) + z (internal sustenance provided by the mother at the cost of her own health and time)
We give equal weight to x & y, z is solely attributed to the woman, thus the woman has more to do with the child / embryo reaching term than the father. Even if the father wants the child, it is the woman's choice to provide 'z', do you know how much pain is involved in pregnancy not including giving birth, which can have the complication of death to the mother?
I know it takes both parties to have unprotected sex to have a child. But if a woman really does not want to be pregnant, then why would she allow unprotected sex to take place?
If a woman is not ready for the pain involved in pregnancy and birth, and complications of death, then why would she allow unprotected sex to take place?
Same logic. It just isn't a reasonable or compassionate standard to hold other human beings to, especially since accidental pregnancies can happen even if all precautions are taken. Condoms break, birth control pills just don't do the trick for some reason, someone is using the rhythm method because they're Catholic, or what have you.
That is a risk they are willing to take. No one ever said condoms or birth control pills are 100% effective.
Which brings me to another relevant point**: Without human intervention, a very large per cent of embryos spontaneously abort on their own and get flushed out with the next period. They get fertilized and then expelled without the woman ever knowing she's pregnant. The most conservative estimates of this percentage are around 40%. What are we to make of this? Should we be trying to save these poor zygotes, or is letting them die morally acceptable where killing them is not?
I think most people are assuming zygotes are not at the stage where they consider them to be "human" yet.
I know it takes both parties to have unprotected sex to have a child. But if a woman really does not want to be pregnant, then why would she allow unprotected sex to take place?
Because it feels good? they don't always go commando just for the sake of having a baby you know. It's also possible that both parties simply gave into the sexual seduction and it was unexpected so neither has any sort of protection.
That is a risk they are willing to take. No one ever said condoms or birth control pills are 100% effective.
In another forum I post in this logical progression has been dubbed "fuckem's razor." Basically you're going straight to "bitch had it coming" without giving a single thought to how the situation compares to anything else. I'm fairly certain that more people are involved in car accidents than get pregnant due to failed protection. The risk of driving is greater than the risk of pregnancy while having protected sex. Does this mean that everyone who gets in a car accident is at fault because they knew the risk? Unless they're directly at fault for the accident, no. Same with food poisoning from eating at a restaurant, same with walking downtown at night, same with traveling by airplane, same with any number of activities that aren't necessary for survival but that we do anyway.
I'm not saying people are absolved of any responsibility; they aren't. Especially if they don't bother with protection at all. That being the case, culpability isn't a huge issue. I've been talking about the issue because the general "they had it coming" attitude I've seen is both callous and stupid. Seriously what are you people republicans?
Shi2;49458 said:
I think most people are assuming zygotes are not at the stage where they consider them to be "human" yet.
The default lifer position is that life begins at conception. These are fertilized eggs we're talking about; according to the horrifying protesters in the youtube videos I've been posting they have a "right to life". And yet we let most of them get literally flushed away without a thought. There is an undeniable contradiction here.
Comments
Also why is everyone so thin-skinned that they can't get past my "tone"? Did internet discourse suddenly become universally civil while I was asleep? Get the fuck over it and contribute something to the discussion if you have anything worthwhile to say. Or you know, just continue to whine about how mean I am because I'm not nicer to these people.
Why would it have nothing to do with what stage a fetus is considered human or not? Does it make it right to take away a human life if the fetus is inside the woman and unable to care for itself? In fact, I wouldn't even say that a fetus belongs only to the woman, I'd say it belongs to the father too.
For instance, you give money to an investor to invest in stuff. Once the investor takes your money, it does not make it his own. He is just handling the money for you.
Please read my logic in my examples in my response to Ether, but I'll sum anyway:
The qualitative experience of having a child is different for men and women. You know what, I'll agree with you and say that in our society, if a woman gets pregnant through consentual sex, its her fault. Thus, if the onus is on her, she has the right to do whatever she wants with the child. If you claim the guy has no fault in pregnancy, then he has no right to dictate anything involving the pregnancy.
Next,
The stage when something is considered life is irrelevant. Who are you or anyone else to define what human life is? You're trying to argue on a term that cannot be conceptualized. What is a 'human life'? Did you read my argument of how everytime we don't consumate, or a guy jerks off you're killing off potential cells that could create children? How is this any morally different from what you are claiming is human life? Sounds to me like pre-meditated murder.
Morally, it would be wrong to murder a child after it has been born. Why you ask? Because it is malicious, someone else could take care of the child-- there are other options. Now lets look at the 'baby' or whatever it is, before birth. The child is entirely dependant on the mother to come to term and stay alive and develop. What alternatives are there to the cells being supported if the woman does not want to support them, at the risk of her own health (death, malnutrition, emotional / financial hardship)? The whole it is morally wrong to abort something pre-birth is such a one-sided argument that doesn't look at the whole picture.
Lastly,
Your example of an investor is not a valid comparison point at all. Please see my point regarding how a baby HAS to be raised inside the mother, and the hazzards this poses. The mother can't just give the baby to someone else to raise and nurture inside of themselves.
---
You know, I haven't been able to think of a good conceptualization of when a fetus is a child and a human life, but I think I have a good idea. When it can live on its own, with no biological aid from the mother. Anything before this time it is just a symbiote or parasite of the mother, its sustenance is entirely dependant on her, thus if she doesn't want it, noone else can keep it alive, and it is not wrong to not want to carry it along any longer.
I'm just curious Shi, How do you differentiate between human life and living cells or other beings?
Show me a picture of you and jesus programming and maybe I will just have to believe in christianity. I can't speak for ferrous, but I think he would agree.
If I could offer you definitive proof that god doesn't exist, would you abandon your beliefs? Serious question, I'm just wondering. Although I doubt you will even entertain the hypothetical of my question, just confirming what I said above ^.
So in a hypothetical society in which it was considered to abort every child, abortion would be the right choice?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the rest, but this is an interesting point and I would like to hear thoughts on it. My initial reaction was that the father should have no choice in the matter and it's entirely the woman's decision. The problem I have with this is that if you absolve the father of any role in the decision, you also absolve him of any responsibility. And that doesn't seem right. The word you're looking for is "contradictory." And you're right. But that seems to be the norm in this discussion.
2. That is correct. That action would be considered right in that society alone.
3. Why would the baby not belong to the father as well? He's called that for a reason and that is because it is his sperm that made it possible for the baby to be created.
Same logic. It just isn't a reasonable or compassionate standard to hold other human beings to, especially since accidental pregnancies can happen even if all precautions are taken. Condoms break, birth control pills just don't do the trick for some reason, someone is using the rhythm method because they're Catholic, or what have you.
Which brings me to another relevant point**: Without human intervention, a very large per cent of embryos spontaneously abort on their own and get flushed out with the next period. They get fertilized and then expelled without the woman ever knowing she's pregnant. The most conservative estimates of this percentage are around 40%. What are we to make of this? Should we be trying to save these poor zygotes, or is letting them die morally acceptable where killing them is not?
*Ideally everyone.
**I say "brings me to" because the pope-approved rhythm method actually causes this to occur in a higher percentage of embryos. So according to their own definitions the Catholic way kills more babies.
--
1. It takes two people having unprotected sex to have a child, the reality is, it is both peoples fault. There are forms of male AND female contraceptives.
That said, the woman has a lot more to do with the child reaching term than the father. I'm not quite sure how you're not seeing the link of how there are different roles in pregnancy allotted to the male and female. Can you address my point of the risks of child rearing women have to bear alone? I'm just curious if you see my point there.
Allow me to use a mathematical forumla:
A healthy baby brought to term = x (fathers sperm) + y (womans egg) + z (internal sustenance provided by the mother at the cost of her own health and time)
We give equal weight to x & y, z is solely attributed to the woman, thus the woman has more to do with the child / embryo reaching term than the father. Even if the father wants the child, it is the woman's choice to provide 'z', do you know how much pain is involved in pregnancy not including giving birth, which can have the complication of death to the mother?
2. I understand your basic logic that taking a life is wrong, but I don't think that logic is looking at the entire situation-- this has a lot to do with choice, whether or not you agree is irrelevant. It requires the mothers biological support to keep the child alive, thus there is choice involved when bringing the child to term is at the expense of the woman.
There are animal species where the father leaves right after, vice versa. It doesn't require two parents after conception for the child to be taken care of.
Anyway, you do know that if we don't have sex we can't continue the longevity of the species--right?
pretentious dochebaggery at its best
my point was: try going a month w/o food, then try going a month w/o sex. Obviously sex is less important than food
i give up. Arguing with a douchebag is absolutely useless
Anyway, in regards to my other question not regarding abortion I'm curious about your response on it.
How I said that: if you showed me a picture of you and JC chillin out (jesus christ) I would believe in Christianity.
But if I gave you irrefutable evidence about the non-existence of god would you change your beliefs, or would you not even be willing to acknowledge this hypothetical?
I'm just wondering, as I'm not in your shoes and don't know what your answer would be.
after I have been to countless church services and have seen many people speaking in tongues and hearing reports of people getting healed... THAT to me proves that God does exist.
Basically for me to deny the existence of God would be blatant stupidity. As for you and other atheists I don't hold anything against you because you haven't seen this stuff. either way, you are entitled to your opinion
But if you give up by all means stop posting because you make the baby Jesus cry every time you do. The big kids can handle this discussion just fine without you.
Somebody give a logical explanation why?
if a fetus is not "alive" until after birth, then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder?
It should only be one count, right?
And with your example...do your research, the baby was full-term, there were special provisions as to why Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder. If you want to play this game, someone can have a late term abortion in the same state he was charged in and it is not considered murder. You want to know why? There is something called intent, which is clearly accounted for by the law. This all relates back to the argument I've repeated several times, that the relationship between the mother and the unborn is a big deal. It doesn't matter when it is considered to be human, or sentient, and the law shows this. The law gives legal ownership of what is inside the mother, to the mother. It is her choice, and noone elses. The baby cannot survive, but for the mothers actions. She physically, and legally gets to choose whether it lives or dies, and that is the end of the argument.
I don't know how much more explicitly I can explain the above point ^. The father does not have a say, because he can't carry the child to term. You can be charged for killing a fetus if you are not the mother because it is not your choice whether the child lives or dies.
If a woman is not ready for the pain involved in pregnancy and birth, and complications of death, then why would she allow unprotected sex to take place? That is a risk they are willing to take. No one ever said condoms or birth control pills are 100% effective. I think most people are assuming zygotes are not at the stage where they consider them to be "human" yet.
I'm not saying people are absolved of any responsibility; they aren't. Especially if they don't bother with protection at all. That being the case, culpability isn't a huge issue. I've been talking about the issue because the general "they had it coming" attitude I've seen is both callous and stupid. Seriously what are you people republicans? The default lifer position is that life begins at conception. These are fertilized eggs we're talking about; according to the horrifying protesters in the youtube videos I've been posting they have a "right to life". And yet we let most of them get literally flushed away without a thought. There is an undeniable contradiction here.