The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction

I'll first address the utilitarianism argument. I, for one, do, to a significant degree, advocate utilitarianism. With the regards to the scenario you brought up, however, I do not believe that a utilitarianist must say that the doctor is morally obligated to kill one man to save four others. More than anything, this is not the doctor's choice to make, but rather the man whose death is in question. And yes, I might say that the "right" thing to do would be for him to give his life that four others may live, but there are really too many circumstantial details to be able to form a clear image of what right and wrong are. With regards to how this relates to my argument, I do not believe my position is worse. We are not "allowing" the death of a fetus by conceiving it. It is a mother's responsibility to do all she can to ensure the survival of her child, and if in doing so the pregnancy still fails, it could not be said that it was allowed to happen. Only if the mother was actively putting the child's life in risk after its conception could you lay moral responsibility, such as if she were to smoke or drink. To address the birth control pill: I do not personally know a good deal about birth control pills or other forms of pregnancy protection, as this is something I have not had to deal with yet (as I abstain for moral reasons). However, if it is indeed the case that using birth control pills means there will later on be a higher chance of fetus mortality, then I definitely would be against it. You make it seem as if this position is absurd, yet I see no reason for it to be so. For waiting until science progresses to the point that it can significantly increase the chance of fetus survival, I believe this is simply illogical and impractical. While me may assume that science will be available in the near future, we cannot know for certain. To hold off an conceiving a child on the basis that, at some unkown time in the future, there might be a higher chance of survival is absurd. While once this technology is readily available I would certainly advocate its use, as I see nothing wrong in believing that one should in fact do all they can to protect a child, unborn or not, I see no sense in simply waiting around for it to occur. Now, for the idea of making it illegal for women with a higher chance of birth failure to naturally conceive. I will concede that, at least to a degree, you are right. I consider it prudent and wise to make sure that there are no significant risks before going about trying to conceive a child. However, legislature requiring one to do such would only be valid to any degree if there was also similar legislature against abortion. And while I do take the position of being against abortion in this argument, never have I said that there should be legislation against it--finding abortion morally reprehensible is not synonymous with necessitating its illegality. Thus, your claim to legal action against higher risk for a fetus has no basis as I have not argued it should exist for abortions. Finally, I will make one more argument against your claim as a whole. To be blunt, you have drawn out the idea of pro-life to an illogical absurdity. One could equally argue that if you are pro-choice you are necessarily in favor of infanticide. For, if you can advocate the killing of a fetus because it is not a fully sentient and conscious being, why not kill a newborn for the same reasons? However, to make such a claim is unfair, as it draws an idea to such an extreme that it naturally does become illogical. As a last word, I address the voters: DO NOT VOTE FOR THE SIDE YOU AGREE WITH. Just because you are against abortion does not mean you should not vote for my opponent: this is not a contest of who is right, who is wrong, but of who can present the -better argument-. I swear, if anybody votes for one of us simply because they agree with our stance on a moral level, I will find out where you live, hunt you down, and shake my fist at you angrily. -Very- angrily. And for kvaughan, thanks for the debate. I had a lot of fun, and you are definitely a (at least) worthy opponent.