Killing Babies no Different from Abortion, Experts Say

And? Your point? One should never go to war?

 

A fetus is life. Take a biology course.

 

I embrace science.

I fully understand the definition of a fetus.

A human fetus is a human; it is in the development stage in utero. To argue over whether or not it is a baby is simply playing a juvenile game of semantics.

Premature babies born as early as 23 weeks can survive. Or should we call them fetuses until they reach the age at which they were to have reach their due dates?

I never made that claim, that a fetus can think or choose. I said if they could choose...

So the only science deniers are the ones who have resorted to strawman arguments about the Earth being flat.

 

Scientists have many different opinions about the beginning of life. There is no consensus among scientists.

They have the potential to merge. They are components of potential human beings.

There can be no pregnancy without first having the components of fertilized eggs

"Baby" is the medical term for the developmental stage between birth and one year. That is a fact, not a belief. "Life begins at conception" is a belief, not a fact.

 

Are we talking biology or climatology?

Right. They are called sex cells.

Agreed.

"Baby" is a baby. There is no definitive parameters based on age or location. I'm not talking about legal definitions nor medical terms. I'm talking about common uses in the English language. I already posted a definition which includes unborn babies. That is a fact.

If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? I've had this debate a thousand times, I never get a definitive answer from the pro-abortionists.

 

Your argument is full of holes and defies common sense and science. A baby is a baby at 23 weeks of development outside the womb, but not at 39 weeks inside the womb? That's just crazy. That doesn't sound scientific. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[win#2][/debate][/win#2]

 

It's a fact it's a subjective definition which is no better than any other subjective definition.

Life is a continuum. There is no beginning.

Except for all the times we've answered it. Pro-lifers tend to ignore the answers they get, being those answers shoot down the excuses they use to justify attacking liberty.

 

Why would we be talking climatology? Don't you know what you are talking about?

Common uses of the English language are too vague for abortion debate where specific stages of development are an important part of it. For example, the majority of abortions are performed in the embryonic stage, and most people are not opposed to abortion at that point. Abortions are never performed in the baby stage of development, and the only reason you insist on that word is to dishonestly create the mental image of a post birth child. That is called appeal to emotion, which means you know you can't win without using dishonest logical fallacies.

Life can't be said to begin at a point which is preceded by life. A fertilized egg is preceded by living gametes which are an essential part of the human life cycle.

Maybe that's because honest people don't presume to know the answer to an age-old question that brilliant scholars throughout the centuries have never established.

 

Kind of like the definition of marriage?

The subject is when individual life begins, not when life began on this planet. Nobody is arguing that
life is created where there was no life at the point of conception. You lose credibility when you
employ ridiculous strawman arguments.

And that answer is what? What is your answer to that question? Liberals don't ever give the same answer.

Can't say this is the first time I've seen a non-answer to the question as to when does life begin. In fact, I think I did a thread on that.

Yes, here it is: When does life begin?



Wow! 58% agree, it begins at conception!

 

I would call this post an epic fail. You can't figure out when life begins, and by that I have made it clear, the life of an individual human being, and you fall back on the poor excuse for a strawman argument that life began many years ago. Nobody is debating when life began on Earth. Don't play dumb on purpose. You just make yourself look stupid.

 

Sadly, I'm not all that surprised.

Several pro-choicers in this forum have admitted that they think it is okay to "abort" a fetus outside the womb, in certain situations:

 

What is your point? Are we supposed to jump to the wrong conclusion that abortion then equals murder? If so, you need logic lessons.

 

It's a shame you don't know the difference between inside the womb and outside the womb as simple as it is.....

 

And a premature born at 24 weeks is a baby while a fetus at 40 weeks in the womb is not? How does that make any sense?

Certainly not scientific.

 

It's funny that you think a vagina has magic properties which transform a lump of cells or a fetus into a human being merely by passing through it's magic cervix.

 

Silly lies but then one AntiChoicer in here admitted that they HAD to lie to further their agenda....and saying """Several pro-choicers in this forum have admitted that they think it is okay to "abort" a fetus outside the womb, in certain situations"""...is a whopper.....

 

It's weird and ignorant to think a fetus is a baby.....

 

Hey, just wondering if you've managed to count the "liberals " in your OP article yet....can ya get to 2 ?

 

I know for you "born" is a big word but normal people understand what it means...

 

Meaning you have no rebuttal, and YOU haven't figured out anything. Some pope said life begins at conception, and you believe, even though it is absurd to believe that life can begin after it already exists (gametes) in a human life cycle.

Don't blame your failure to comprehend on others. When I'm talking about a human life cycle, I'm certainly not talking about when life began on earth.

 

LOL As usual you have zero to back up this claim. Anyone can make a silly unsupported claim.

Have you not yet learned about the "Assumed premise fallacy" ?

 

It's weird and creepy that people are so hell bent on preserving an imaginary right of women to snuff their unborn children
that they would go through such twisted logic to defend it.

You mean that peer-reviewed scientific article in the Journal of Medical Ethics? Yes. I can count. Let's not forget the editor who defended the article as well.

Hmmm. Have we failed so miserably that we are now resorting to belittling our opponents? I assure you I have
an excellent grasp of the English language and am a normal heterosexual.

But please, do explain to us how 24 weeks of gestation is a baby if it is out of the womb, but one at 40 weeks in the womb is not?

None of you can give a rational explanation as to how far along before it can be called a life?

Did you see the graph I posted? Here, let me post it again:

View attachment 34468