while others choose to enslave the women for the sake of fetuses, even non-viable ones.
Which is why they will continue to lose. Slow learners.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
while others choose to enslave the women for the sake of fetuses, even non-viable ones.
A fetus and a child are the same thing.
As someone who is strongly in the pro-life camp, I’m disappointed with the result in Ohio but I’m content that it was the people of the state of Ohio who made the decision. It wasn’t mandated by an unelected Supreme Court, nor was it done at the federal level. The Tenth Amendment should forbid either the Supreme Court or Congress from weighing in on abortion. All states should have absolute say over that issue even if it means some will choose to enshrine a right for women to murder their own children.
while others choose to enslave the women for the sake of fetuses, even non-viable ones.
If you are talking about abstract things like ideas and plans, or tangible things like humans, the word 'conception' mean to bring into existence. Your question is asking the difference between destroying a thing doesn't exist versus destroying a thing that does exist. One is ending a human life while the other is only averting potential. I certainly don't equate the ending of an existing, "concieved" human life and the destruction of what is nothing other than what could possibly be, but I also don't see the latter as entirely inconsequential, a thing to be dismissed as "okay". I think that is what has driven the societal norms of insisting that women and children go on the lifeboats first, and Hamas making claims over how many Palestinian women and children were killed to garner sympathy for their cause. The potential of future generations is not without value.how is it that the microsecond before conception it is okay to terminate while the microsecond after conception it is murder?
Gametes from humans are 1) human, 2) alive, and 3) separate and individual. Killing a human sperm/ovum is killing a human life. Your dividing line is as arbitrary as anyone else's.One is ending a human life while the other is only averting potential.
As someone who is strongly in the pro-life camp, I’m disappointed with the result in Ohio but I’m content that it was the people of the state of Ohio who made the decision. It wasn’t mandated by an unelected Supreme Court, nor was it done at the federal level. The Tenth Amendment should forbid either the Supreme Court or Congress from weighing in on abortion. All states should have absolute say over that issue even if it means some will choose to enshrine a right for women to murder their own children.
Eh, I think you're both wrong, but each is entitled to their own, etc. but I just know I'm not the one who is affected so I'm not the one who should be making the decision one way or the other. Let the mother decide. The state (both the State and the states) rarely knows best, so they should butt out.while others choose to enslave the women for the sake of fetuses, even non-viable ones.
God said in the Bible that man should not spill his seed on the ground. So apparently the God of the old testament agrees that sperm are holy.I have questions.
how is it that the microsecond before conception it is okay to terminate while the microsecond after conception it is murder?
And isn’t killing sperm or egg that would have impregnated a woman stopping a human life? If your parents had practiced birth control you would never have existed.
How is a god who murders all first born Egyptians considered pro life?
Yeah but to be fair once they come together they make an entirely new thing. So there is that.Gametes from humans are 1) human, 2) alive, and 3) separate and individual. Killing a human sperm/ovum is killing a human life. Your dividing line is as arbitrary as anyone else's.
With that point of view, should any murder be prosecuted? Seeing as you seem to believe the one murdered doesn’t get a say, and it is the murderer who is the one affected by being prosecuted for murder, should the state butt out in all cases where one human kills another?I just know I'm not the one who is affected so I'm not the one who should be making the decision one way or the other. Let the mother decide. The state (both the State and the states) rarely knows best, so they should butt out.
See that's where you're wrong. But that's ok. The definitions matter, and it's in these that we can't get consensus. Until we can all agree on exactly when that definition applies to a fetus we act on what is commonly legally accepted now. So your argument is only valid in that everyone agrees with your definition, and they obviously don't. So it's pointless to take that approach in this context.With that point of view, should any murder be prosecuted? Seeing as you seem to believe the one murdered doesn’t get a say, and it is the murderer who is the one affected by being prosecuted for murder, should the state butt out in all cases where one human kills another?