No they aren't, and YOU are the one playing word games in an attempt to flee from the discussion at hand. I'm not talking about the "can be" "might be" "possibly be" instances that come up in 1% of abortion cases. Those cases are set aside. I concede those cases away. Let's just focus on the other 99% of abortion cases. A little toe is a PART OF a human. We are discussing the human species itself. You continue to go down rabbit holes... just focus on my question: My question hinges SOLELY on what is considered to be a human, and how one determines whether or not a human is "alive". Personally, I wish to stick with doctors/nurses/etc. and consider a HUMAN fetus to be a human, and consider "checking for a pulse" to be how one determines a human to be "alive" or "dead". When one "flat-lines", and that flat-line cannot be brought back into a heartbeat despite all efforts, that person then is considered to be "dead", correct? I currently have a pulse (a heartbeat). Am I not "alive"? Am I not "living"? Doesn't the same thing apply to a fetus with a heartbeat? --- I would assume that you think likewise, but if not, please explain what is in error here. So... given that... Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die?
Nowhere here did you answer my question... Here it is again: Do you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has not expressed any desire to die? We have already agreed upon what constitutes a 'living human', and since a fetus WITH a heartbeat and OF the homo sapien species IS a 'living human' under our agreed upon definitions, you are telling this forum that YES, you DO approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has not expressed any desire to die. This position, in every society that has ever existed, would allow for one to be considered as a "shitty person".
Apparently you do... """come up in 1% of abortion cases. Those cases are set aside. I concede those cases away.""
There you go again, attempting to insert the word 'persons' into the conversation. We are not speaking of 'persons'; we are speaking of living humans. Let's stick with living humans. Yet, every society that has ever existed considers the approval of the choice to kill a living person who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die to be an "evil" position.............
No I don't. Under the question that I have presented, those 1% of abortion cases are not an issue, as the fetus does not have a heartbeat. There is no "life" TO kill in those instances. We are in agreement on those cases, so they need not be focused on. Let's talk about the other 99%...
Nope. As far as life of the mother, rape, and incest are concerned, abort away!! I give you those instances. Now, let's focus on the other 99% of instances...
So you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die? Seems like a rather shitty position to hold, if you ask me...
I have answered it many times already and my answer is still no. Now go ahead and post the "Ha-ha, so why does it change with the unborn all of a sudden?" already. I am so, so, so excited for it! Now hold on! Hold on! No, no, no, no. We never agreed on this utterly idiotic definition. No. The fetus is not a living human. Why don't you answer the 10 questions I asked a few posts back?
It is actually a crucial and fundamental part of the debate since what we are actually debating is not whether a fetus is alive or not, but rather if it has rights or not. God was fine with it when he did it to Jesus, when he asked Abraham to kill his son and when he drained the entire world and killed every animal on the planet though.
Hey, Darwin, I think I agree with you afterall. Every embryo and newborn is a potential Democrat, so I suggest we count every pregnancy and baby born in an election year as a vote for the Democratic Party. I mean, who is it that are voting? It is the "homo sapiens species" and what are embryos and newborns if not that? . Do you now realise how ridiculous your position is or do you still consider it a valid and rational one? A fetus cannot even poop independently. That is how pre-human it is and you want it to attain even greater rights than an adult woman? Sounds sick. I will say it again; If fetuses are "unborn children" with rights, you are an "undead corpse" and can be taken to a lab to be obtucted for purposes of medical research and the 5 year old is an "ungrown 18 year old" who can give sexual consent. A fetus is not a child and "unborn" even applies to the child I will never have with Jennifer Lawrence, but I guess we still have a child together now (How lucky am I to have such a pretty and successful lover! ).
"99% of the other instances" are about the woman's life! See, her life is not just something that exists for the few couple of moments between she finding out she is pregnant and has it terminated - Her life is here and now and it is there and then. If she is forced to carry a fetus for 9 months and give birth to it against her will, you are threatening her life.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Apparently you do... """come up in 1% of abortion cases. Those cases are set aside. I concede those cases away."" LOL, so you tink a fetus that hasn't developed a heartbeat is dead !!!!?? No, it's living. So you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die? Evasion noted.
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, that would be the description of anyone who wanted to deny half the population their rights... No, "shitty" is taking a statement from a poster and mangling it to suit your invisible "point".
Seems that poster NEEDS to mangle and "misinterpret" what others post BECAUSE HE HAS NOTHING ELSE …..
So you approve of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die. Why? So your contradiction isn't so obvious?? Seems like a rather shitty position to hold, if you ask me...
How anyone can be so obsessed with an individual's private medical matters and private sex life is beyond me. Saying it is about "life" is just purely dishonest since it is all about controlling and restricting the right to life. He just hates sex because his faith regards it as sinful and he hates that people are taking control over their own lives because his faith tells that should be "up to God". Let's not pretend there is anything else that is driving his opposition. If he at least could be honest with what he believes instead of keep dressing the windows with pretend-secularism, it would be less pathetic. "I believe life begins at conception because that is when God puts a soul into the being" is all he has to say. Of course this won''t really help his case, but it is at least honest.
Those Anti-Choicers who claim they'd make an exception for a rape victim ? .....LOL. It ALWAYS boils down to "punish women who had consensual sex" .
Don't forget that some of them unironically want to ban - or at least restrict - contraception and birth control too. Such a "beautiful, conservative society where family, self-ownership and love comes first" they are proponents of, yes?
So you're making the 'compassion' argument. So you are now outside of the realm of the 'bodily autonomy' argument, which is what we were talking about. What happened? You can't refute my argument against that argument so you suddenly switched to a different argument? I wouldn't be subjecting them to anything. They would be subjecting THEMSELVES to it! You know this. You know it PERFECTLY well!
