David Palmer .. your farewell suggests you are merely a hit and run merchant, having a say but not hanging around to defend your position or the weaknesses in your argument.

Regarding “for it was not the anticipated outcome of mutual love between the two, and therein I suggest lies the heart of the matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”

The debate is not about the outcome of sexual congress. Most times the outcome is nothing more than a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction, occasionally preceded by much screaming and gasping.

When condoms fail, pills malfunction etc. then the outcome might be an unrequired pregnancy.

So what? It is nothing to do with you. You are not obligated to wear sackcloth and ashes.

However, just as copulation is a private endeavour, so to any pregnancy is a private endeavour,

The copulation would have involved two people. The pregnancy however, involves predominantly one person, the woman (as a father I can vouch, the “duress on my body” was limited to practically nothing throughout the gestation periods of my daughters).

That you are not one of the copulating participants leaves your opinion and authority right out there in the cold.

Your view just does not matter and you should try to avoid interfering or attempting to impose your moral decisions into the lives of people who you do not know.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “It is not an issue of the mother or fathers right but that of the (unborn) baby's rights!”

(Borrowing what I have just written on another post)

The rights of the unborn are the same as the rights of the un-conceived. If an unborn’s or unconceived’s rights were to prevail over the woman’s, you are declaring every pregnant woman a slave to her biology.

You are reducing her to being merely a vessel for procreation and production of the next generation

and that is a heinous position to debate from

Bugsy wrote:

"Whatever Kinsey's faults I'm pretty sure that he did not advocate child molestation."

Bugsy, instead of having a fit of mental convolutions why not just do your homework and get your facts straight. Or are you afraid that factual evidence will shatter your comfortable illusions?

However, you musn't expect those who have a genuine concern to take seriously your suggestion that the likes of Kinsey and the other scoundrels in his entourage should be put on a pedestal from there to dictate to the masses what their worldview should be on important matters concerning their humanity.

Sheesh, you will have to do better than that.

Col Rouge,
Re “(Borrowing what I have just written on another post)” I had not read that post of yours and as such did not borrow it, otherwise I would have acknowledged it.
As for “You are reducing her to being merely a vessel for procreation and production of the next generation and that is a heinous position to debate from”, that I view is inappropriately stated. If I did not take part in the conceiving of a child then the persons doing so themselves are binding themselves to, so to say, a contract that the (unborn) child has rights, neither-party-can-disregard.
Why should it be that the moment a woman is pregnant the father can be held legally accountable for cost associate with the pregnancy and a person who harms the unborn child can be legally held accountable but somehow the mother can harm the child without responsibilities? Come on. If a woman doesn’t like to be some incubator for a child then she can ordinary avoid it in the first place. I have made clear I have no religious views in that regard and neither oppose the abortion of a child where special circumstances exist that might jeopardise the life of the mother but to take it that 50,000 or 1200,000 or more abortions a year all are special circumstance is absurd. I taught my sons that if they get a woman pregnant then they have to accept responsibilities for this. Likewise I expect women to likewise accept responsibilities for getting pregnant. It is not relevant that the woman is the incubator (so to say) for the child, as she knows that from onset. That is the part she plays in the human evolution process. I do not demand women to procreate at all, merely state that if they take the decision to copulate they know the risk. If they don’t like to have the risk then it is up to them to avoid it in the first place! Simple as that.
A woman's function is not to procreate rather it is her ability to do so. As-such, if-she-makes-the-decision-then-she-must-be-bound-by-it-and-accept-the-consequences-as-much-as-a-man-has-to.

"I do not demand women to procreate at all, merely state that if they take the decision to copulate they know the risk. If they don’t like to have the risk then it is up to them to avoid it in the first place! Simple as that."

Hang on, sex is not exactly illegal! Why should a woman not have
choices about her life, how many children she has etc?

The issue here is the so called "holy zygote". Thats a religious
concept. You might not be religious, but it seems you are promoting
it.

People flush live sperms and ova down the world's toilets every
day, without giving it a second thought. When they want to do
the same with zygotes, you have a problem. Why at this point?

Most people respect the sanctity of life in terms of other people,
not in terms of organisms. Zygotes are organisms, not yet people.
An acorn is an acorn, not yet an oak tree!

As is often stated here, you personally are free to do as you like,
free to teach your children whatever you like. But you are not free
to force others to live by your rules. If a woman wants to have
an abortion, that is her business, not your business.

The issue here is not feminism, as aqva always likes to presume.
Its about peoples rights. Zygotes are not people.

Excuse me yabby, but why pull a punk stunt like that and drag me into your 'I hate God rant'. It's one thing to misconstrue Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka's post to justify your attack on religion. It's another to drag someone who isn't even connected into the argument only to slander them as part of your justification. Aren't you the one always lipping off about how moral and ethical you are. It would be nice to see an example of it sometime.
For the record. I'm neither pro nor con. I believe the answer lies with personal education and personal responsibility. I don't think there is anything about abortion to be pro about. There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is being abused. In this day and age medical science has fine tuned prenatal and delivery care to the ninth degree. A women in jeopardy from being pregnant is very rare. Now a women deciding to not want to be pregnant in all honesty should have taken the necessary steps to ensure a new life wasn't initiated.
With rights comes responsibility. Not something preached by the pro abortionist. Or you yabby.

Seems that there is a need for the invention and manufacturing of artificial wombs which the anti-abortion male brigade are welcome to take along on their missions to abortion clinics.
They can then have a newly aborted embryo implanted into this womb to take home, care for, love and keep off the streets for the next 21 years.
Perhaps in the future men can even have an artificial womb implanted in their body and be pregnant ala Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie “Junior”.

Females from the anti-abortion brigade can offer their wombs for implantation today- and if there is a law against that, they can always lobby to change it.