I have never said anything different....the fetus has the value the pregnant woman places on it.....so sometimes it has value and sometimes it doesn't......it's all up to the person who is pregnant with it.
No, it has to do with your beliefs which can affect how you view abortion. You have NO idea what "women are told". You have NO idea what women believe or think. So that's a non-starter.. That was a very garbled and illogical sentence...
He previously referred to his ongoing "lengthy exchange" with another poster over "several pages" as proof of his posting ability, with no reference to word count. It is possible to have a "lengthly exchange" over "several pages" with each post being a 10 word sentence.
It's very simple - I haven't used religion in my arguments against abortion. @Ritter admitted that a couple of hours ago. So you can drop this LAUGHABLE and utterly PATHETIC line of attack, unless you want to continue being destroyed! I have eyes and ears. Your assertion that only women can hear pro-choice messaging and that women don't express their opinions on what they believe or think, is truly strange. It's very simple. Sane, healthy, reasonable women don't seek to have their born babies killed.
FoxHastings said: ↑ UghaDUH, he was talking about the number of words in a post, not posts... That may have been PREVIOUSLY but I was addressing the CURRENT set of posts....he was addressing the number of words. Now, have you the ability to quit nit picking and actually, for once, state a position???
If you feel it was an attack then that's all on you... Yes, I'm sure in your mind you actually showed facts and "destroyed" the opposition....However , there is no proof of that in the forum.. More "misinterpretation".....I never said """that only women can hear pro-choice messaging"""" AGAIN, it's all in your mind since you have NO PROOF I said that... I never said that either....gee, what an imagination you have....it sure helps you believe you are correct.... I never said they did....did that come to you in a dream ?
A fetus' value is subjective. Why is this so hard to understand? If a woman wants children, it is the most precious thing in the world. If she does not want children, it is the most awful thing in the world. The fetus has protection, but the standard of value is the mother, so if you cause harm to a pregnant woman and at the same time harm the fetus, the crimes you have committed are (1) assault on the woman and (2) violation of the woman's right to be a mother. Pets have protection, but they do not have rights.
Whoever it is that is going around telling women it is just a bunch of cells is doing a great job in spreading facts It literally is just a bunch of cells. Pause! Did you say "killing"? Interesting. So, you do not think it is murder afterall? This is just more of the same old Christian nonsense. Abortion is a very sane, reasonable and healthy thing to do for the woman who wishes not to have children. Those who have children because "well, guess it was God's plan" are just being irrational,. second-handed and morally unhealthy. Abortion is very moral and abortion is very good. Accept it. Edit: I thought it read "UNBORN babies", lolz.
You are now denying what you've previously agreed to. We've already walked through what a 'living human' is, and a fetus OF THE HOMO SAPIEN SPECIES with a heartbeat fully meets that definition. Under our agreed upon definition of 'living human', you ARE approving of the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. In every society to ever exist, that would be considered "evil". Yet, this very behavior is what you are approving of. Sad. You have already agreed to the definition of 'living human', so there is nowhere for you to run. [1] What species is the mother's offspring, if not 'homo sapien'? [2] How does one determine if a human is alive, if not by checking their pulse? Your questions are completely irrelevant to the discussion that I am holding with you. They are simply another attempt to divert away from my question to you (and all people who hold your view).
My position is valid and rational. Yours is very irrational, attempting to simultaneously accept AND deny that a human fetus is a human. In one instance you will call it a human, and in another instance you will call it "pre-human", whatever that means. Irrelevant. Then what species IS it of (if not the homo-sapien species)? Irrelevant. Attempts to divert away from your approval of the choice to kill living humans who have committed no crime and have expressed no desire to die. Now THAT is some sick ****...
"" approval of the choice to kill living humans who have committed no crime and have expressed no desire to die."" Says one who is perfectly happy with that when the fetus is a product of rape... BTW, do you ever have a point?
You're attempting to shift definitions. Nope... you're attempting to shift between definitions. Let's stick to the heartbeat definition. The only evasion here is yours, specifically your attempt to shift between different definitions of 'living' after we had already agreed to a particular definition of 'living'.
Alll evasions with , OF COURSE, no point. What's the difference between an abortion performed in a rape case and an abortion performed due to consensual sex?
What's the difference between an abortion performed in a rape case and an abortion performed due to consensual sex?
What's the difference between an abortion performed in a rape case and an abortion performed due to consensual sex?
FoxHastings said: ↑ 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... You said you'd make exception to abortion in the case of rape....so a fetus due to rape isn't living? Isn't human? What's the difference between an abortion performed in a rape case and an abortion performed due to consensual sex?
Are you actually this slow or are you just pretending to be just to be annoying? A fetus is not a living human.
Listen up, Darwin... Don't act like you do not know what is going on here. You are the one playing word-games because you know the only way for you to make a point is by asking a trick-question and have your opponent answer it just the way you want to. A fetus is not a life in the human sense of the word. Claiming that it is is absolutely ludocrous. It is indeed pre-human in that it is not yet human. The only sense in which it is human is that it is the result of a human sperm fertilising a human egg. No, it is very relevant as it illustrates how much of a pre-human a fetus is and that it is de facto part of the woman's body. Oh, Darwin. Are you really this stupid? Tutanchamon is hOmO sApiEnS too, but he has been dead for thousands and thousands of years and lost all of his rights the same amount of years ago. How is that irrelevant? If anyone would know how to "divert away" it would be you, so maybe you are right. It is sick because it is your argument taken to its logical extreme.
Rape has nothing to do with this... Only the presence of a heartbeat, which is how we have agreed to define 'living'. You keep grasping for straws to avoid the conclusion that you, FoxHastings, APPROVE OF the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die.
