Mike CernovichVerified account

The HONEST debate ultimately boils down to whether or not it's ever ok to kill an innocent, defenceless human being. Everything else is smoke, mirrors, euphemisms and mental gymnastics.

Seems to me that one must also consider the question “When does one person have a greater right to access to a second person’s body than that person, themselves?"

"When it's a pregnancy" seems like a reasonable answer to that question.

Based on what reasoning? We don’t do it in any other facet of life. What makes that answer reasonable?

What other facet of life compares to a pregnancy?

In what way? I would say we are talking about intimate physical access to the body of an unwilling, unconsenting person.

More callous mental gymnastics. Parents have a unique duty of care to their children. And by consenting to sex one is consenting to the potential consequences of sex. Which includes reproduction. Obviously. The disregard for human life and basic responsibility here is vile.

I don’t think we apply that criterion anywhere else. e.g. You can promise to give blood to save my life, but you can change your mind *at any point*, and nobody will force you to comply, even if I will die as a result. Words like “vile” are emotive but uninformatiive.

If you can't tell you are 26 weeks along, it's time to think about sterilization.

Not to mention why couldn’t she put the baby up for adoption. There are so many couples that can’t have children who would do anything to take care and be a part of this childs life. Very sad.

Exactly what I thought. The baby was near term, just give birth and have a loving family adopt him/her.

first trimester, ok, I get it, people make mistakes, however after then, that is a living person.

Where the hell was the sperm donor or was she so promiscuous she doesn't know? If she chose adoption, a couple would've paid her medical expenses but it was more important to get friends & family to 'sponsor' the abortion for $10,500.00. Did they get a t-shirt for their donation?