The “legal precedent” argument is pretty much an argument of last resort, akin to saying “well that’s just the way things are”. I guess we should just abolish the entire legislature in your book; I mean, all the laws and judicial interpretations are perfect, right? I never said things are changing anytime soon; I just said they should change. Big difference. I’m smart enough to know things aren’t changing anytime soon.

That wasn't really an argument, more of an observation. I was more or less stating my comfort in knowing this sort of viewpoint is not going to see the light of day for a long time (and probably never will unless world governments start collapsing or something). I'll concede it was probably unnecessary to include it in my comment.

PS - I’m pro choice, I assume you are too; if a woman isn’t doing anything unethical why are you arguing an emotional burden?

The ethics of it are certainly debatable, but I wasn't arguing about ethics. I was stating that there are difficulties associated with pregnancy, whether it leads to abortion, carry-to-term and keep, or carry-to-term and put up for adoption. Do you not understand that any of those can be difficult decisions that carry burden? Do you not understand the biological burden?

And if a woman carries it past that point, it’s her choice.

Not always. That depends on geography.

Would you rather be the man, and not have a choice of any kind?

Men have choices in the matter, just like women. They are just different choices with different impacts, and there are also parts where both parties have no choice whatsoever. Although I have already stated this, so clearly you are not getting it.