Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well obviously there's a difference, you cretin, because one is murder on a human being, one is killing a foetus or cells.
Which are technically the same, one has less cells. Its wrong it was legalized, and the term of what is human and not is not only poorly defined, but wrongly thought out.
What you need to realise is that you're showing where you believe a difference exists. There isn't once, this is what kind of ruins your argument.
No, exactly the opposite. Im saying YOU beleive a difference exists, when it doesnt. Just because we like to think a human baby is different from a developing one, or even a fully formed but unborn baby -doesnt mean it is. And it isnt.
What do you have to say about the age thing? Is there a difference between the murder of a newborn baby and the murder of a 90-year old?
Hypothetical, conceptual, imagined. Neither of these mean real, actual, factual. An infant child can breath alone, so to say it's AS helpless as a foetus being kept alive on fluid because it can't breathe, it wrong.The fact of the matter is; a foetus or cells are nothing more than foetus or cells. They are not a future anything, they have POTENTIAL to become something, that's what the word means. What matters is what they are, as I have proven and as others have.
You already said they were a potential life, and now you go back on it. Not only is that fetus a future life which you are killing (just the same as if the child was born and you killed it at any point in its life, because every point in its life is non-existant because it was aborted) but it is that same life in of itself. You are the same person throughout your whole life -you may think differently (or not much at all as in the case of newborns or fetuses) but that doesnt mean you still arent that future person too. Potential is enough to allow a child to live.
You fail to see distinctions because doing so would ruin you. I can prove there's distinctions, I have, others have. You have just kept saying "I believe this." with no irrefutable backing.
Lets see some irrefutable backing, along with the differences between the rights of life of each.
I call that social darwinism -a born child is "scientifically" human, and therefore it is more important than an unborn one.
Anything that isn't the unlawful killing of another human being with definite pre-meditated malice and/or intent is not murder.
The dictionary does not define human though -only "a member of the human race" and I could argue a human fetus is part of the human race.
And this is why intent is what I brought up before. The reasons of abortion are important. That is why therapeutic abortions are in my mind alright. All else is unjustified.
Yes, so call it frivolous killing, because by fact and law it is not murder. You might WANT it to be, but it isn't.It's not a person; scientifically, medically.
-AC
Considering the entire abortion debate is about changing the law (which happens a lot) you cannot use the law as a reason for not stopping abortion. Slavery used to be legal too, but if saying the right to slavery was a law too, and the courts still bought it, then we would still have slaves.
And wow do I see a connection between the abortion debate and the slavery debate. Slaves>property. Fetus/growing children>property. Slaves> Objects, can be disposed of, not human. Fetus/growing child> object, can be disposed of legally, not human.
The day science and medicine dictate right and wrong, is the day your "tyranny" might come true. Except it will be tyranny brought on by the entire human race to eachother.
Originally posted by Devil King
You've really got to stop with the stupid argument that abortion is equal to killing the kid after it's been born and gone off to kindergarten. That's just ****ing stupid.
Tell me the difference. Because one is human and one is not -or because one has been given its chance at life and one has not.
