No.

Compare=/=equate

I agree that pregnancy is a heavy burden, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy, but it’s the reality of the world. Regardless, the burden of pregnancy holds no weight when discussing the morality of terminating a pregnancy.

As for the “my body” argument, the fetus is not part of your body because it’s an entirely…

In what way does what I have said disagree with my religion?

... because OBVIOUSLY someone who wants to have an abortion as a matter of personal convenience would view the process of childbearing negatively (otherwise, why do it?).

That doesn’t reflect my personal views on the topic. It reflects my sympathies toward the person in those shoes.

I’ve said this a number of times already in this string, but I’ll point it out again for you.

A consequence is a direct result of an action. Good/bad has nothing to do with it. It’s just the result of an action.

Punishment is retributive justice.

Consequence and punishment are not the same thing.

I’m talking specifically about abortions of convenience.

And I’ll gladly accept your criticism if you’ll point out what “isn’t well thought out.”

So far, in every instance where you haven't put words into my mouth, you've actually agreed with me (even if you didn't come to the same conclusion).

Lots of people have engaged. And some have even managed to do so without being insulting.

Also, no, I'm not equating these two actions. Compare=/=equate.

And it’s right because you say so?

If we don't know who's right, what's the wise thing to do?

The word consequence carries neither a negative nor a positive connotation. It’s simply the direct result of an action. Whatever disparate meaning you assign to the word is incorrect.

Punishments are retributive justice.

Punishments and consequences are not the same thing.

I’m not dancing around anything.

Actions have consequences. Unwanted pregnancies should not be terminated because:

1. There is no objective basis by which we can define anything such as personhood. On the chance that we are wrong with our current definition, I think it’s safer, better, more prudent to err on the side of…

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Pregnancy is the ONLY consequence that should be faced. NOW you’re getting it.

SMH.

You're not even trying.

No, I never said anything of the sort.

I said the consequences of pregnancy should be borne out. Not the consequences of an auto collision. Pregnancy. Auto collision. They look a lot alike. I can see how you got confused.

Straw man, false equivalence...

I can’t refute any of your points because you never addressed anything I actually said.

You're probably right. I haven't read up on all the details. I sort of make it a point to stay away from stories like this. Not really sure how I stumbled into this one. Cheers! :)

Telling a random person on the internet that they should be unloved by their parents...

Yes, you are definitely an accurate compass of morality, compassion, and kindness. I think I'll take your advice on the morality of abortion.

The word consequence carries with it neither positive nor negative connotations.

When the moral justification for abortion hinges on the definition of personhood (a completely unquantifiable construct that can and does change on a whim) and the control over one’s body (a fetus, by any scientific definition is NOT part…

I get what you’re saying. I was talking about the “it doesn’t mention what he did” bit. It specifically does not mention what he “did” because that would be (in the words of Jim Carrey) devastating to his case.

If he wants any shot at a successful appeal, he should never admit what he did.

If he wants to be a decent…

1. Legal =/= correct. Laws change all the time. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
2. I made no implication that babies are punishments, nor did I make the implication that the responsibility lies with women. So, you find nonexistent implications creepy. Sorry, I can’t do anything about that.
3. My…

The consequence should be borne out. That’s the point.

We want people to accept the consequences for their actions, no?

That it’s convenient for Gawker (and its readers) to jump on the hate train for this guy doing something abhorrent, yet refusing to jump on that same hate train for other abhorrent actions that don’t fit their agenda.

Actions do have consequences (but only when I’m willing to accept them).
-Gawker Media