(Original post by Yarr)
The discussion here isn't what we do with the born child, but with the unborn one. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.
No it isn't. I believe you have a burden upon you to be logically consistent in your reasoning. If you will make an exception for one, but not the other, then I will cast your posts into the fiery pit of nonsense. Beware! *shakes hands in ominous manner*
Anyway, what is highlights is the completely arbitrary nature of the opinion which you offered.
However, I will say that the distinction is a very important one; a pregnancy is not a piece of cake or pie, or whatever you favour. If a baby is born into the world, assuming what I argue for is enforced, it will be there by consent.
I don't see how that follows.
I do not know the laws of England.
I don't care - I do not live in England either.
Impertinent to the legal basis (in the UK), you, my forum friend, do not have the right over your own existence. Neither should a fetus.
Well you can argue that, but I think you'd get quite a few objectors, however it is pointless trying to argue it on the basis of "that's what the law says, naananananana, I'm not listening" - particularly when there are sound exceptional reasons for such laws. Who does my life belong to then, if not me?
I also remind you that, while euthanasia is unlawful in the United Kingdom, suicide has been legalised. Rather trumps your argument there.