Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

I never said there were not other ways. You are arguing a non point.

Again you are arguing a non point. The argument is about medically induced abortion. A liver cell will never implant itself into a womb as an independent unique human. Stop with the rabbit trails and deal with the real argument.

The Human zygote is the complete human organism at its earliest stage of development. Science confirms this fact. Once the zygote implants it is completely viable unless nature or medical attack kills it.


Yes, you did. You said "in ancient times they had no early means to confirm pregnancy." They did, certainly, before 14 weeks. The quickening was about viability.

You moved the goalposts on the liver cell too. You originally said "no matter the conditions provided it." Now you seem to be demanding that it implant by some "natural process," whatever that means? Are those fertilized in vitro not human?

A human zygote is not a complete human organism. It's a single cell that might develop into a human if healthy and conditions within the mothers womb are right. Implantation is just another step but does not even come close to establishing viability.

Apparently, you are in the habit of saying things you can't support and then trying to change them after the fact.
 
let's take a different tack on this problem you're having.....I realize you don't accept the fact that a zygote is a human being, though you apparently have no problem accepting it after the ninth month of the pregnancy......if you're okay with aborting the zygote because it's unicellular and isn't human, how do you feel about the fifth day of pregnancy and beyond?.......

When you start seriously arguing that life begins at 5 days after conception then maybe we can discuss that seriously. Like I said before, the unicellular characteristic is just the beginning. If your desk has no drawers, legs or even a flat surface to write upon then, obviously, it's not yet a desk.
 
Last edited:
No moron. Which is why I specifically stated that it provided an exception to abortion. But they can certainly extend those basic human rights protections in the same fashion. I know you enjoy the fact that a million kids are killed each year... but do try not to gloat so much over their deaths.


Congress could do what you suggest, and if that resulted in abortion being outlawed, the Supreme Court would simply cite R. v. W. when they declared that portion of Congress's actions unconstitutional. Do you really suffer from that serious of a lack of understanding about how the S. Ct. works?
 
I am glad you endorse jamming metal spikes into the heads of unborn children or ripping them apart with suction... tearing their limbs off... yeah... good on ya Maine.

Show me where he endorsed any of that, lying is unbecoming to you and does not advance your argument.
 
The comment wasn't to you; but I'm sure you'll enjoy the response, if you're deemed worthy of one.
Especially since God is aware that you promote the death's of His most precious creations.

How dare you promote the belief of a being that created billions of galaxies but how low key racist feelings. I don't use that words loosely
 
How dare you promote the belief of a being that created billions of galaxies but how low key racist feelings. I don't use that words loosely

I guess if you don't have a problem with the wholesale extermination of blacks through Planned parenthood living out the dreams of Margaret Sanger why should I?
 
No. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional

Interesting

So why does the government outlaw someone selling a kidney?

It meets all of your requirements

1) just a clump of cells
2) not sentient
3) her body
4) just a medical procedure

So on what authority does the government outlaw a medical procedure like selling ones kidney?
 
Back
Top