Show me why killing a fetus is wrong.

It is up to society to define "murder", and our society has defined murder so as to exclude abortion. So once again, the situation is far from "plain."

Please provide some evidence that any sane person suffers bouts of conscience from killing insects.

Then it is necessary to keep that clear.

You said LIFE. Eggs and sperm are alive and human. If you value eggs and sperm as life, then shouldn't women and men make every effort to see that eggs and sperm meet so that their lives may continue? That means that every woman should be having intercourse during her most fertile time. EVERY woman who is of reproductive age. The line doesn't stop at contraception. If you don't value eggs and sperm as life, then you are just drawing your own line while wanting to deny others the opportunity to draw their own lines.

It is NOT "plain" to everyone that a zef IS a "child", nor is it "plain" that a zef is a person. In what other instance is a real person compelled to provide body parts to keep any life alive? Whatever your views of "wrong" may be, there are others who view it as wrong to bring into this world a child that you are not prepared to properly care for.

You are correct about preventing abortion, government simply is not capable of doing so. Whether it is "palatable", matters not to law.

 

You are talking about the survival of the human race, which isn't really in any danger of being extinguished, rather than an individual woman's survival. Any individual woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy might feel her own survival threatened. The survival of the human race at this point does not require every pregnancy to be completed, and in fact, the completion of every pregnancy would actually endanger the human race. Please do not pretend that you are looking at this matter from a purely intellectual point of view eschewing emotion since you are referring to zefs as "children", pregnant women as "mothers", abortion as "murder", etc., all emotionally-laden terms to use when discussing abortion.

 

You are right, it is little, as little as a single cell. Do tell us, are children made of a single cell and have no organs?

That is does, now tell us why it is significant.

Huh?

But you have not established that a single cell or even a fetus is a person, not even why it should be considered one.

While I would not call it evil, it certainly is not an easy decision, nor should it be, but difficulty does not determine legality or morality.

That is true. Also of not is the fact that there are methods, programs and measures that have shown great success in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, reasons to abort and thus the number of abortions.

 

I'm a little confused about your position. In this post, you seem to indicate that a fetus is not a human, but in other posts, you refer to fetuses as "children," as though you believe they are humans. Can you clarify?

 

I never resort to emotional drivel, that is the purview of the left.

 

or inane generalizations, they just happen when the intelligent relevant argument evades you. Its OK, if you keep trying it will come to you...

 

Typical pseudo-intellectual "I'm the smartest person in the room" lib response. Very impressive.

 

Agreed

An child does not exist in the early stages of pregnancy. This is why the situation is different.

This is why most states have abortion legal up until after 20 weeks or so.

 

How and why can it be applied? Let's find out!

Answer this:

Someone shoots somebody else in the head while they sleep..

Is this "wrong"? Why/why not?

 

Is the somebody else attached to an unwilling host and depending upon that unwilling host for its existence? If so, the host can shoot it in the head.

 

Well, since we seem to be descending into lala land. What you're saying is, if a Siamese twin decides he is no longer "willing" to be attached to his brother, he can shoot him in the head while he sleeps?

 

Siamese twins are such a rare anomaly that we cannot make law based on possibilities that might occur with them. Now, Siamese twins should be separated if either twin wants it.

 

I dont like emotional drivel either .. from either side.

Examples this would be the use of terms such as "child killers" or "killing a baby" when referring to the zygote or early stages of pregnancy.

In my experience it has been the religious right that uses such terms.

 

Why are you guys responding with everything under the sun OTHER than answering the very simple question?

Shooting somebody in the head while they sleep.. Just another normal unattached person.. Is this morally wrong to you, why/why not?

 

Of course it's wrong. But libs will not let anything stand in the way of their "right" to rip live human beings from the womb and kill them as a matter of convenience.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women

If you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by gun, you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by knife, and you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by scalpel.

 

ROFL .. you mean emotional drivel like the above ?

 

They are legitimate terms though.. You'll have to come to grips with it.

You might not think of a young fetus that way, and while you reserve the right to call them fetuses, which is just as legitimate and correct of a term, and never call them a child or baby, and only say terminate instead of kill, doesn't mean you can dictate such terms onto language itself.

That would be the exact same thing as me saying, "how dare these pro-choicers call babies "fetuses".. They are babies, not fetuses."

The fact is language is versatile, there are many different ways to refer to the same thing for lots of different things out there, and sometimes a subjective outlook causes people to favor certain terms over others, or identify certain labels as more fitting (child is a more human like term than fetus so people who see the fetus as more human and sacred will choose such a term). We see this process here especially, and we just have to deal with it.

 

Emotional? Absolutely!

Drivel? Only if you consider reality to be drivel.

 

This thread concerns abortion, you need to explain how this is relative to abortion.

 

They are not legitimate terms when used to accuse another human of a crime. For that you need "evidence"/ Proof.

If you wish to believe that a single human cell is the same as a person, that is fine .. but you have no right to get the state to force this belief on others by enacting law .

For that you need justification other than "this is my personal belief or because God says so".

Personal and religious beliefs are not evidence. They are not just "rational" for forcing other people to act in a certain way through the use of state intervention.

 

You have given no evidence to support your version of reality.

Believe what ever you like but if you have no rational or support for your beliefs they are not worth much.

 

I doubt your definition of rationality is the same as mine.

 

Probably not.

Experts disagree as well, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy.

There is little disagreement among biologists as to status in the early stages of pregnancy. Most regarding early stages such as the zygote as a "potential" human/person.

Since there is no solid rational that supports the claim of personhood for the zygote there is no way to value the claims that a zygote should have rights.

If there is no good way to value zygote rights .. the rights of the Woman must then be respected if we value individual freedom.

 

Am I being ignored?

If you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by gun, you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by knife, and you can be convicted of killing an unborn child, by scalpel.