Hey I am not the one who can not understand plain English and thus need to resort to condescending tripe. That is entirely your territory.
You continue to have a habit of either not reading or ignoring my posts. I already answered those questions. 1. The taking of life in wartime is supposed to be regulated by the Geneva Convention which the U.S. abides by so, that is considered to be moral. 2. Execution is part of our judiciary and is considered to be moral. 3. The discussion is about abortion used as contraception for convenience sake not extreme cases like the life of the woman, rape or incest. I have never advocated for the repeal of Roe. This is (at least on my part) a philosophical discussion anyway because as a man I have no rights in sexual matters other than to keep it in my pants. From Guttmacher... • The reasons teens most frequently give for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child. The fact that these teens felt 'mature' enough to have procreational sex but felt immature to raise a child speaks to a completely inadequate sexual education which emphasizes contraception and abortion instead of the questionable morality of having procreation sex when one is not ready. 4. I'll add one.....killing in self defense is considered to be moral.
You support war as you say with cause and the death penalty as it is a law and abortion in certain case. You are not trying to protect human life. By fighting against abortion you are trying to control women, play god and wash the blood from your hands from the rest of the human life you can kill and justify in your mind. Protect life my behind. You have now proved my point. In those wars you support thousands of innocent lives are taken. Thousands. I do thank you for responding.
On the contrary, Self-defense is the protection of human life, war is the protection of human life and the death penalty is also the protection of human life...all three protect human life from destruction by a would-be murderer. In the case of a developing human life, unless there is a threat to other human life, killing it is an act of aggression against its development into a human being. SCOTUS has seen fit to place that decision solely in the hands of the woman based the right to privacy. The morality/immorality of abortion then, is to be decided on an individual basis ONLY by women. There is no guideline other than one's own conscience. Morality/immorality is the ability to distinguish right from wrong and it is a learned behavior. Today we are teaching our children that terminating a developing human life for the sake of convenience is moral which goes against the basic morality of only taking life when life is threatened. I am not fighting against abortion, I just think that sucking a future child into a drain should not be done for convenience-sake because it is immoral. (see above) It is certainly not about controlling women as men have 0 rights when it comes to childbirth. If you kill an aggressor bent on taking your life is that not protecting life? YOUR life specifically. I never said I support war, I said that the taking of life during war time is considered moral if done within a certain structure. That structure mirrors the morality of taking a life to preserve one's own and not for convenience. Example: It may be 'convenient' to murder your rich uncle because you are in his will and your life would be much easier with the money that would result but...It is certainly not moral.
I will ignore the rest of the misogynistic drivel and concentrate on this - so, by what criteria are you willing to apply to say that a woman is in risk of her life with a pregnancy? In other words - how much risk does there have to be?
I see you have yet again stooped to self-righteous name-calling. Your misandry is showing. I suggest you answer that question yourself.
Yes speaking the truth about anything that might make the western female look "evil" is "misogynist" crap But if a woman goes on daytime tv and brags about screwing over a man by lying about getting pregnant, and then force him to pay child support shes a "STRONG INDPENDANT WOMAN" Hilarious, one of the many reasons why america is corrupt and laughed at by the rest of the world
1) the onus is on anti aborts to provide proof that a zygote is a human (they are the ones trying to make a law not the people trying to defend the rights of women. 2) I have given you plenty of evidence from Subject Matter experts, Journal articles, and other sources. for example: A) The zygote is not a homo sapien (not having all the traits required for club membership) B) The zygote reproduces asexually; A human is an organism that reproduces sexually. C) A zygote is not a living human because it has no brain. Clinically dead D) A zygote is a single eukaryotic cell .. A human is not a single eukaryotic cell And your list of proof or counter to any of the points A, B, C, or D is ?
This is funny, you haven't presented anything of the sort. for example: Every homo sapien who ever existed was a zygote in their initial stage of development, are you claiming this isn't true? The growth process used by the early stage human being is irrelevant. Every human being who ever existed existed in a developmental stage prior to brain development. In their initial stage of development they ALL are! See above
Arguing that embryo is not human (what is it, a dog?), or that its not alive (its not dead...) is contraproductive. Instead argue that it should not be enough to merely be alive and have human DNA for life to be protected by law. Having the property of mind should be also required. Embryos and braindead (but biologically alive) people thus are not protected as persons (indeed this is already contained in medical definition of life/death, which are not biological, but cerebral). Human life =/= human being (person) I dont see any reason why we should protect human life that is not a being (has the property of mind), especially at the expense of already existing human beings (sentients).
It is amazing that some folks actually have to be told that. I think it is the result of the constant din from the pro-aborts who are mostly liberal-socialists who have imposed their own questionable reality on their 'sheeple.'
I guess you fall in that pitiful category who called or calls our soldiers murderers. As opposed to placing it in the hands of the likes of you. It is the only just way that maintains self determination and freedom. with no absolutes. That is why it is wrong to impose yours on others. Say like carpet bombing? Why else? Is it not more convenient for you to live in a free society as opposed to under a dictatorship?
How so? I said that killing in time of war is considered moral within accepted conventions. That has nothing do to with what I posted. Again you take aim and misfire. Wrong on both counts. That has been a war tactic used ever since WWII. Has anyone be charged with anything? Again, you are off-point...
Now you are lying. I presented numerous opinions from Ph.D biologists that claimed a zygote was not a homo sapien. Not that this is needed because an organism that reproduces asexually can not be a homo sapien, by definition ! A homo sapien "was" never a zygote. The zygote is a stage on the way to "becomming" a homo sapien. . There is no human being in the early stages of pregnancy. The human being does not exist prior to brain development. There is no human in the initial stage of development. All you have done in all your responses is claim that a human exists in the early stages of pregnancy rather than show that it exists. "assuming the premise" logical fallacy. What you need to prove is that a human being exists in the early stages of pregnancy. Stating "a human exists at the zygote stage" is juste restating the premise that you are supposed to be proving. All of your responses commit the same logical fallacy in different ways. Do you have anything other than logical fallacy ?
Of course an embryo is human .. but it is not "a human". Notice the difference between the adjective "human" and the noun "a human" Human feces is "human". Every human cell, the sperm and egg are "human life" none is a human. I agree with the braindead part. There is no such thing as a "living human" with no brain. Agreed.
So, what you are saying is that you retain the right to play god and decide who what human form is fit to live or die. Innocents die in war. You want to be the judge and say off with the head. That is not a stance that supports human life as you say.
I was discussing the morality generally accepted by society, for instance, it is considered moral if you happen to kill someone trying to kill you. You know...self defense. Where did I write that I have the 'right to play god?'
Funny how killing is "accepted" as long as SOMEONE says it is OK. You said "...all three protect human life from destruction by a would-be murderer." this including war. Now do explain how people who die in war are either murderers or murdered. Of course it had everything to do with what you said. You wish to be the "decider" about women's pregnancies, instead of letting women decide. Really? Why because you can not refute it? Well abortion has been legal since the Roe decision too, so what is your gripe? Point is that you accept the morality of some killings, which in the least make your position hypocritical. Was the concept too difficult for you? Let me simplify what you clearly failed to understand. War is for convenience also.
Yet you disagree with the fact that society does accept abortion and does not wish to see it criminalized. Why the selective acceptance?
Many in society think legally accepted abortion is morally acceptable. All do not think that way. Many think to kill in self defense in morally acceptable. All do not think that way. How do the two differ? You find one morally wrong and the other morally acceptable. I believe the opposite. Yet you are saying that those who believe that abortion is morally acceptable are wrong. You say that abortion is taking a human life and that is wrong. If in fact your belief is that human life should be protected it should be protected no matter what and you position is what I would call pick and choose morality. That relates to playing god and you making the decision who is fit to live and who dies.
