20 new species ... including a giant blue scorpion and massive hairy spider

Damocles said:
First it would have to be an absurd claim, however this guy honestly believes that a child the day before delivery should be sweet and tender and ready for the killin'. He's stated so. His main argument is that their circulation changes. Not kidding.

Yes, I was using his own absurdity against him, but I really wasn't using a fallacious argument. Although he was. I turned it back on him with a bit of truth about the absurdity of his own argument.

And it is Reductio ad Absurdam...
Click to expand...

One more time. A valve closes and redirects blood flow. Veins atrophy and become cords. Organs come on line. They go from a liquid environment to a gaseous one. These are major changes, changes that if a human being went through them they would die.

As for killing a fetus one day before delivery have you ever heard of that happening? Like everything else in life there needs to be a specific date/line drawn because there will always be someone trying to push the envelope. However, it's not about killing anything. It is about the removal of the fetus. A woman does not enter a clinic and say, "Kill my fetus". She asks that it be removed from her body which is her right and should remain her right. The point being IF, for whatever reason, the fetus needs to be removed the fetus should not be considered a human being and here's why.

Let's say a pregnant woman goes for a check-up at five months and it's discovered she has a virulent type of cancer. Survival rate is low at the best of times so doctors want to treat her right away with surgery, chemo and radiation. An abortion is necessary because the fetus won't survive such procedures. Along comes her Neanderthal husband and argues what is the sense of killing a healthy “human being” (his son/daughter) when his wife has such a slim chance of living/surviving.

(Excerpt) While many fewer women are diagnosed with this disease than with breast cancer, lung cancer sufferers are far more likely to die from the disease: “More than 72,000 women nationwide are expected to die of lung cancer this year, according to the American Cancer Society. …..“What’s especially disturbing is the number of deaths compared with the number of cases — the American Cancer Society is estimating fewer than 82,000 cases of lung cancer in women this year...(End)

82,000 cases yearly. 72,000 deaths yearly. It’s insanity to bet on those odds when the stakes are the murder of the man’s child. What sane individual would propose killing an innocent, healthy “human being” on the 1 in 8 chance another human being would live?

People talk about self-defence and a woman’s right to protect her own life but by doing so she would be killing an innocent human being according to the Neanderthal. If a person is shot and bleeding to death do they have the right to protect their own life by speeding through the city on the way to the hospital killing pedestrians on the way? What would give one person a right to kill someone (the fetus) in order to live and not the other person the same right to kill someone (the pedestrian), if necessary?

Well, we all know what would eventually happen. An ill, defective woman vs a (supposedly) healthy, thriving child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top