Happy 40th Anniversary!

 If you don't have a problem with abortion then you can't have a problem with any other mass killings without being a hypocrite


You may well be correct....but ONLY IF the pro-abortion advocate truly BELIEVES the fetus is a living human being.

And, as has been asked before, what does THAT, make a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty?



I'm thinking we don't see everything too clearly when we're at a great distance....i.e., "the high moral ground"

Revan wrote:

Your feelings are irrelevant, the science is settled on when life begins: at conception.

Says who ?  Gametes from potential parents exist right now in the form of sperm and eggs.  In fact, a little girl is born with all the eggs she's ever going to have- to kill her isn't just killing one life by your definition, it's a couple of million to a few hundred thousand potential lives snuffed out (depending when you kill her).

Murder is the business of society, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be any laws against murder on the books.

Except no law defines an embryo, zygote or gamete as a person.  So to kill one isn't murder.  Just as removing a cancerous growth (they're cells!) isn't murder.
 

Abortion is no different than the Holocaust or the millions that Stalin and Mao killed.

Uhh yeah, it's a little different. 

If you don't have a problem with abortion then you can't have a problem with any other mass killings without being a hypocrite.

First strawman of the day ?  I'm sure it won't be the last...

Except no law defines an embryo, zygote or gamete as a person.

So what?  If a law said that gravity does not exist would that make a difference?


Fact: life begins at conception


Fact: abortion ends life


Therefore, abortion is murder without due process

Fact Opinion: life begins at conception


Fact Opinion: abortion ends life

Fixed it

Therefore, abortion is murder without due process

So then miscarriages are "involuntary manslaughter?"

Get real, clown.

So then miscarriages are "involuntary manslaughter?"

It depends on the situation....if a woman is attacked and has a miscarraige in the process then the attacker, if convicted, should be charged based on manslaughter laws.

It depends on the situation..

Do you know that around 40 percent of all zygotes are naturally aborted by the woman's body?  That means every woman is a mass murderer by your asinine illogic. 

Do you know that around 40 percent of all zygotes are naturally aborted by the woman's body?  That means every woman is a mass murderer by your asinine illogic. 

You are just digging yourself deeper, death by natural causes is not murder.  Perhaps you should start defending your position with something other than logic.

death by natural causes is not murder.

Right, and neither is abortion. 

Perhaps you should start defending your position with something other than logic.

You mean like your illogic?  No thanks, I like to be reasonable and concise.

Hard to say life begins at conception when that fetus is completely dependant on the mother. It is part of the mother and since it she directly contributes to its growth and survival she should be able to kill it off. It isn't mine of anyone else's business what happens in there.

It is real easy for people to talk about how some of these fetuses, especially rape ones, are gifts from God and what not and tell women how they are murdering babies when they aren't the ones that ever have to carry it and worry about life after it is born. If men could perform abortions there would be more clinics than Subways.

You mean like your illogic?  No thanks, I like to be reasonable and concise. 

You should use religion. You could have all the evidence in the world go against you and can still say "but what if there is this magic invisible being that is above all this and we don't know?"

Abortion being legal didn't start abortions, it ended women dying from sticking coat hangers up there.

I'm worse then Stalin.  I beat off in the shower and killed millions of lives

sexualchoc11 wrote:

I'm worse then Stalin.  I beat off in the shower and killed millions of lives

You inhuman monster !  Finally something the ACLU and the next pope can agree on...

Hard to say life begins at conception when that fetus is completely dependant on the mother.

Dependency is irrelevant, my grandma at one time was dependent on my father for her survival, was she not a real person?  How long could a baby survive completely on its own?  At what age could a kid take care of itself well enough to survive?


It is part of the mother and since it she directly contributes to its growth and survival she should be able to kill it off.


This argument, while better than the others provided so far still fails:


1. If directly contributing to a person's survival is the litmus test then anyone who is completely dependent on you for their survival (babies, the elderly, the handicapped, etc.) could be killed by their caretakers and not get punished for it.


2. People who receive artificial parts that keep them going when otherwise they would be dead are dependent on those parts, therefore the "owner" of those parts could kill the person and not get punished for it.


Either people have inalienable rights or people do not, dependency is irrelevant when determining what constitutes a person.

Revan thinks jaging off isn't murder because the sperm only has the potential to be a person, but thinks aborting a single celled zygote is murder. 

Mind numbingly stupid logic. 

Dependency is irrelevant, my grandma at one time was dependent on my father for her survival

No, she wasn't.  She was dependent on another human being, but it could have been anyone.  A fetus is dependent on the mother, and no other human being can substitute.  That's because it's part of her body.

How long could a baby survive completely on its own?

The question is how long a fetus could survive outside the mother. 

Either people have inalienable rights or people do not, dependency is irrelevant when determining what constitutes a person.

Except your analogies don't work.  We're not talking about depending on someone to take care of you.  We're talking about depending on one particular human being's body to keep you alive.  The fact is a fetus is part of the woman's body; take it out and it dies.

 That's because it's part of her body.

---

No.

The fetus (comprising all of its cells including the umbilical cord and placenta) is genetically, and immunologically different from the mother it is parasitizing.

No.

The fetus (comprising all of its cells including the umbilical cord and placenta) is genetically, and immunologically different from the mother it is parasitizing.


So is a tapeworm. 

So is a tapeworm. 

---

also true

At least the fetus is of the same species as the mother.

No.

The fetus (comprising all of its cells including the umbilical cord and placenta) is genetically, and immunologically different from the mother it is parasitizing.

That's great, and since her body created it and is helping it grow and it can't exist without her, it's part of her body.

It is attached to her and feeds off her.  It is a parasite until she shjts it out.  It doesn't matter what it is genetically. 

That's great, and since her body created it and is helping it grow and it can't exist without her, it's part of her body.

---

No.

The fetus (comprising all of its cells including the umbilical cord and placenta) is genetically, and immunologically different from the mother it is parasitizing.

No.

The fetus (comprising all of its cells including the umbilical cord and placenta) is genetically, and immunologically different from the mother it is parasitizing.

I guess I'll try explaining it differently for the stubborn.  Call it whatever you want; it's still part of her body until it can survive on her own.  Or you can keep arguing that it's not, as if it makes a difference in any way.

Call it whatever you want; it's still part of her body until it can survive on her own

Babies can't survive on their own...are 2 year olds not considered people either?

Babies can't survive on their own...are 2 year olds not considered people either?


When you know you've lost a debate, you start saying stupid shjt like this.  ^^^

When you know you've lost a debate, you start saying stupid shjt like this.

When you know you've lost a debate, you start evading questions like this ^^^

Babies can't survive on their own...are 2 year olds not considered people either?

2 year olds are people, zygotes are not. 

Babies can't survive on their own...are 2 year olds not considered people either?

You intentionally misconstrued "on its own".   A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's body; a 2-year-old can.  Essentially, if you can survive outside of someone else's body (even if you need a whole lot of help), you're a human.  If you can't, you're not a human.

Essentially, if you can survive outside of someone else's body (even if you need a whole lot of help), you're a human.  If you can't, you're not a human.

What if I can survive inside a whale's body?