Show me why killing a fetus is wrong.

What you have done ad nauseum is failed to justify your claim that a zygote is a human.

 

Been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact one would have to be a moron to beleive that a human fetus isn't a human.

 

Most subject matter experts disagree with you ..

only a moron would think that a claim that is denied by most SM experts has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I am not a lifer, but tell me why killing a fetus is right?

 

There are no subject matter experts. We have been through this before.

 

If that is so, on what do you base your opinion?

 

It's actually an almost perfect comparison. It's describing the same sort of development int two different organisms.

It would be better to compare the fetus to a developing seed still attatched to the parent plant in the ovary (a seed already has the capacity to support its own metabolism, a fetus in the first trimester most certainly does not), but the comparison she gave, in the context she gave it, was pretty much perfect.

So maybe a better analogy...... is a developing seed in an Apple tree an individual Apple tree?

 

I don't understand why you have to ask that question. It is plainly wrong on the most basic level to end a life. Any life. There is no question that it is wrong. I am horrified that debating on forums can immure people to the reality of what they are discussing.

Some societies have taken a decision to allow the lesser of two evils and allow abortion. This was an extremely difficult decision, because it is plainly wrong to kill a fetus in the same way that killing a human is wrong.

 

You beat me to the punch, I was about to ask Mega the same question.

People who are advocates for abortion show an extreme lack of respect for human life. It can only go downhill from there.

 

No "human lives" are saved by criminalizing abortion; that only makes abortion unsafe for women.

 

Questions of "right and wrong" are seldom so 'plain' or obvious to everyone. You say it is wrong to "end a life, any life, and yet we step on bugs, swat mosquitoes, trap mice, etc. all the time without thinking anything about it. Is it plain that you really mean "human life"? Then is it "wrong" to end the life of human sperm or eggs? If it is wrong, then not only contraception would be a "wrong", but it would be wrong for men and women not to make an active effort to conceive every month.

It is plainly wrong for a woman to be forced to endure pregnancy/childbirth when she does NOT WANT a child. When society knows that women will have abortions illegal or not, it is plainly wrong for society to place women's lives in danger from illegal abortion.

 

People who are advocates for criminalizing abortion show an extreme lack of respect for women's lives. It can only go downhill from there.

 

That is a naive generalization, especially in light of the fact that humans MUST kill to live, plants, animals and at times other humans.
Yet at the same time we go to extremes at saving some lives, even non human. In order to make sense it all must be place in context and for abortion you would have to show why fetal life is significant at all or at least more significant than the sovereignty of a woman. Can you do that?

By what standard, yours?

Maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit so yo are less inclined to be judgmental and more informed and understanding.

Again, why, who made that determination?

 

How about people who are advocate of freedom? Downhill how? Abortion has been around as long as women and we are still here.

 

What does freedom have to do with the unnecessary killing of innocent human beings?

Have you been to an innercity neighborhood, or picked up a newspaper, or listened to news broadcast lately? Do you think the lack of respect for human life has benefitted society?

 

Yes we have and you are wrong as usual.

Biology is the "domain" of expertise .. Biologists in relevent fields are the subject matter experts in relation to what is an organism, homo sapien, the function of a cell, and the process of how a human is created, definition of a zygote (not a common language dictionary, embryologist, or pediatrician)

This does not change the premise:

Given that the vast majority of scientists (and amost all subject matter experts) do not recognize that a zygote has been proven to be a human.

Only moron would claim that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a zygote is a human.

 

By "unnecessary killing" do you mean "abortion"? By "innocent human beings" do you mean "zefs"? Because I have a lot of experience on abortion boards, I can generally decipher the emotional mumbo-jumbo, but others cannot, so it would be to everyone's interest to speak plainly without couching terms in emotional double-speak. If I have interpreted you correctly, the answer is that no freedom exists for women if they are compelled to bear and deliver every pregnancy contracted.

It is difficult to see how decriminalizing abortion has affected the "respect for human life" , since women have always had abortions legal or not. However, it appears that respect for human life has actually increased over the centuries. Several examples: people of all races are given a more nearly equal opportunity, large numbers of people around the world oppose capital punishment and have worked to abolish it many places, health care regardless of ability to pay has been achieved in many areas of the world. I'm sure you can think of many other examples.

 

For one, the ability to recognize emotional drivel and not be swayed by it, relying instead on rational thinking.

 

...not really. It is, however, extremely naive to devalue life if you want the human race to survive.

On every level it is wrong. Use any number of morality and womens' rights arguments, but money makes the world go around. Some societies decide the burden on the state is too great if abortion is not available and legalise abortion... that is not about humanity and does not make it less abhorrent or less intrinsically wrong.

No I don't have to do that. If you wish to convince, you would have to show why a child's life is less significant than a woman's wish to do whatever she wants.

Most people try to post their own opinion here. Should I be posting yours?

Most previous (and many current) legal and moral standards in human history publicly declared murder to be completely wrong and preservation of human life high priority, probably for the most obvious of reasons - survival. I'm not the first to come up with this answer. I don't set the standards for societal behaviour. Neither do you.

You have no idea what my horizons are or if I support abortion. You are judging regardless. But we have been asked for opinion here and I have given mine.

Answered above.

If you are one of those debatabots who is not actually interested in genuine discussion or the views of others, please don't bother barking at me again.

 

Rational thinking? What is rational about women taking the lives of their own unborn children?

The most basic human - no it crosses the spectum of living things, not just humanity - the most basic need is survival. That is the point of existence, the main focus of everything we do and it is what almost all of our laws and morality stem from.

One of the most basic elements in survival is the need for the mother to protect and nurture children. How is it a good idea to allow women to view children as optional and lower value than having a good job, or even having a good time?

From a completely non emotional perspective, it is utter stupidity to allow progeny to be destroyed.

 

I appreciate your candor. It takes courage to admit being swayed by mindless drivel.

Good on you.

 

Humans must kill life to survive. You should not use such broad and meaningless terms.

Killing life is not wrong in general. If you believe it is then stop eating plants and animals.

Your claim here is based on a false premise "a zygote is a child"

There is no agreement among experts, or people in general, that a zygote is a child.

You are welcome to maintain your unsupported opinion on the status of a zygote, (not that you do not have support but you have not provided any as of yet) ....

but having an opinion and having justification to force that opinion on someone else are two different things.

Again this is a logical fallacy based on a the unsupported premise that the zygote is a human.

A "human" without brain or heart function is clinically dead so it is not plausible for a zygote to thought of as a Living Human such that it can be murdered.

 

Murder is wrong to everyone and should only be undertaken in extreme circumstances.

Speak for yourself.

I think human life is the OP topic.

Having done the deed and created this little child, it exists. One cannot protect the life of a child who has not been conceived. But of course there is an argument to be made regarding contraception and no doubt people will make it.

That is the issue. Why may a woman kill her unborn child when no other person in society may legally kill another person? Why are mothers outside the law and different? Because the alternative can be worse suffering for the child. As to the mother, is she an adult and accountable and usually capable of not becoming pregnant... It is wrong to force her to go through pregnancy and it is wrong to become pregnant and kill the child. As before, it is a decision between two evils.

In the end, there is no way to prevent women destroying an unborn child whether it is legal or illegal and therefore the argument is moot. It will be done and through necessity arrangements are in place to minimise damage, but it can't make it palatable.

 

Do you see any signs of humanity dying off?

Which levels are those and who established them?

It does doesn't it, but other than the price of tea in Chine, what does it have to do with abortion?

Please elaborate on this further. I am not sure what you mean.

You mean you are not able.

That is not how intelligent debate is conducted. The emotional drivel aside, it is a fetus not a child, has no significance outside that which is accorded to it by the woman making its life possible. You are the one asserting that it has higher significance than that, but clearly not able to support it.

Right and the ones with intellectual integrity make it known that it is their opinion and offer some basis or support for it. You stated that "There is no question that it is wrong." Not an opinion, but a declaration of absolute.

If you were attempting to make a point relevant to abortion, you did not succeed.

Actually, by being a member of society I do. Maybe you have to take your clues from someone else, but those who do like freedom do like to make up their own minds.

Quite frankly I do not care, they are not relevant up to the point where you would like to make them everyone's horizon. If that is not the case, I misunderstood you and I apologize. Perhaps, you can clarify some of your points so that i may better understand you.

Considering your post and declarations it is hard to believe you do. Do you?

No, I am defending, there is a difference.

That is not the impression you created.

Why, are you one that only like to make declarations and cry foul when the lack of rationale or basis for them is pointed out?

 

Oh do try harder, you can do better than that even if you did have to resort to emotional drivel earlier.