I Guess No One Cares.

This point seems rather a non-sequitur, since a child cannot decide not to be born after the fact. Unless you mean suicide.

It's apparently too far over your head. My post stated that first trimester (twelve weeks) abortion is legal in all states in the US. The law has made the concession that fetal 'life' begins beyond that point. It would seem this is unacceptable to you, and that all abortion is to be outlawed under the 'life begins at conception' rule, which was originally promulgated by the Church, and has little or no legal or medical standing elsewhere. Either that, or you have no clear idea of when 'life' per se begins, and you simply don't want admit to that point, preferring to spout endless obfuscatory, faux-legal rigamarole instead.

And the crux of your issue, as it is with all anti-choice zealots, is that you have not yet been able to bend the law to your say-so.

Again, it seems Captain Bryce was right. You have been abnormally bad even from your standards. Trolling is a pretty sadistic behaviour. It tells that you enjoy deliberately annoying people with nonsense. Well, nobody is taking you seriously. Sorry.

If you read drystyx's pretty heavy-breathing post, it sounds like the one coming back with 'extremist emotionalism' is himself. At any rate, I don't think anyone is likely to mistake him for Mr. Spock based on it, lol.

AIDS has no doubt contributed mightily to its' being taken more seriously. However, it's a fact of human history that nothing has ever completely prevented the pursuit of it for purely frivolous, sensual and non-procreative purposes. And that will likely never change.

I never "threaten" suicide. Everyone should have the right to the most peaceful method of suicide that medical technology can offer; although even if that was offered, people would still have to overcome their survival instinct, not to mention have had unconsensual suffering imposed upon them up until the point where the prospect of more suffering overwhelms their social conditioning and instinct. Also, why would anyone educated about suicide 'attempt' suicide using harmless sleeping pills? You're so ignorant that you don't even realise that barbituates are no longer used to make sleeping pills, and even if one swallowed a few bottles of the pills that are now available, it couldn't do much more than send one to sleep for a long time and maybe give a mild headache and some nausea. The barbituate that used to make sleeping pills so lethal (Nembutal) is the substance that is now tightly restricted and can only be obtained either by travelling to Mexico and finding a veterinarian willing to sell it to you, then hoping that you don't get caught at customs, or ordering it from a single legitimate source in Mexico and hoping that it passes through customs.

I personally wouldn't have a moral issue with a day old baby being euthanised in a peaceful and painless way, given that they would not have invested any desires or hopes in their future by that stage. If the baby had severe disabilities, then I think that euthanasia should be required. Otherwise, birth is a neat dividing line, and therefore it's fine to say that abortion is legally permissible, but killing a healthy infant is not. Given that there's no easily identifiable age at which a child develops a sense of personhood and starts to invest hopes and desires in their own future.

As for killing someone who hadn't asked to die; that would not be permissible due to the fact that it would instill fear of being arbitrarily singled out to be murdered. So that would be prohibited not on the basis of a harm that is never experienced by the victim, but on the basis of respect for the presumed wishes of the individual concerned (which isn't applicable to foetuses, of course).

In what realm would the counterfactual future person be "deprived" of any pleasurable experiences, if such a consciousness doesn't exist in any known dimension that science can ascertain? Pleasurable experiences are valuable, but their value is contingent upon having a need or a hunger for such experiences. If the organism never develops to such a stage where it feels the hunger for experiences, then it can never be deprived of those experiences, nor can its desires be thwarted. And what this "chance to live" actually amounts to is nothing more than being entered into a lottery where the worst outcomes can be absolutely catastrophically harmful, and the best outcomes consist of nothing more than satisfying the cravings and attending to the needs that are created by life itself. So it's creating a mess and then cleaning up part of the mess, and then proclaiming that this is a profitable endeavour.

Really, your beliefs on this are about the same as the average Catholic, and are motivated by ignorance and atavism.

There's no society that yet exists on Earth. All societies strongly proscribe suicide and it is always an act that has to be carried out in private and with all risk borne by the person who decides to commit suicide. Anyone who is actually showing signs that they are going to commit suicide is liable to have all their rights summarily stripped from them (except the 'right', or rather obligation, to life) and can be imprisoned in a psychiatric ward for an unlimited period. Being able to do something covertly that is forcefully proscribed by society and law inforcement is not the same as possessing the right to choose. The closest that there comes to being an exception to that rule are Belgium and The Netherlands, where some people who have been suffering from illnesses for a long period of time may eventually be cleared for assisted suicide or euthanasia. But even in those cases, the patient would have had to have suffered severely with some form of illness over an extended period of time, and it needs to have been found that none of these have been successful.

In all other cases, if you fail to complete suicide (suicide has about a 20 failure to 1 success ratio) and end up severely disabled and cannot reattempt, then you're imprisoned in your body for the rest of your lifetime with no way of escape.

A grown man can be presumed to have invested desires and plans in his own future so, although he wouldn't experience much harm,we would not be respecting his presumed desires. This would be harmful to society at large. Can you name any of these risks and privations which are intrinsic goods, and not merely acceptable on the basis that we anticipate either the relief of satisfying the deprivation (which is not always a given), or that the costs/harms of being too risk averse may be greater? And why should it be anyone else's privilege to gamble with my wellbeing without my consent, when I don't even need or desire the benefit they purport to be able to offer?

I also take issue with your claim that risk and deprivation are not universal. Living is always highly risky for a sentient being, and similarly there are always deprivations to be avoided, even for a wealthy person. An illustration of this is drug addiction amongst the wealthy, who just move onto other, more dangerous cravings after their hunger for material comforts has become so well fed that it can no longer be regenerated. Everyone is also at risk of becoming seriously ill or disabled.