While I resent being associated with terrorists i take comfort that your people will happily defend my right to kill innocent people provided I avoid using Christian justifications. Because, you know, its okay to kill innocent people for Islam or ’social justice’ but you have to draw the line at Christianity.

However, I’m not sure your argument is factually true. Roe V. Wade doesn’t actually specifically allow a woman to determine whether something is alive, right? Doesn’t it just make abortions legal?

I think the idea of a constitutional mamendment defining what ‘alive’ is is an awful, terrible idea, because it gives the goernment a huge new piece of power that it doesn’t really need. After all, you’re already allowed to kill living humans- think capital punishment and self-defense. So, we don’t need to define the foetus as not-alive to perform an abortion, we just have to specify that abortions are legal. Allowing the government to define when life begins is like allowing the government to define what constitutes a family, or allowing the government to what IQ score you need in order to be considered ‘gifted’. There’s simply no reason for them to need to do so, and allwoing them to only gives them more power and influence over our personal lives, to no positive end.

As for the guys, it’s tough because, like everything involving sex and the legal system, it’s he-said she-said. If a guy really specifically stated before the termination date of a pregnancy (including before the pregnancy) that he doesn’t want a kid and will not help to support it, and that was completely unambiguously clear to the woman, then yeah, he shouldn’t be held responsible. If he didn’t, then his situation is the same as the woman - he’s stuck with it. Proving what he did or didn’t say in private, though, is not easy (or possible, often), so he question is should caution fall on the side of providing for the child? I think probably, but I dunno, it’s tough to say.