Man's morality

[Esquilax]

If left to develop would it? Your "lump of goo" is still human, it's just in a earily stage of development.

So now we're just giving potential the complete run of the place? We're gonna let toddlers drive because eventually they're going to be old enough to do it right? Or are we smart enough to recognize that what something might become in the future doesn't shouldn't assert any pull on how we treat it now?

There is nothing dishonest in what i have observed. I simply refused to look at the situation through the rose colored glasses i was being offered..

That would mean taking off the blinders, and we know how you love the blinders!

What does it say about an arguement that will not hold up to any level of scrutiny? It says it is an invalid arguement.

It might also say that the person attempting to argue back has decided to literally interpret every word in order to obfuscate what the argument actually is, rather than discuss the intent behind it. Happily, that little dodge will only last you a post, at most: would you put the rights of something without any semblance of a functioning mind above a woman's rights?

There, now you've been asked what the argument actually was, in a way that won't let you tapdance around it. Happy?

Actually it is in the US. If we do not like how our taxes are spent we ELECT new leaders.

That's what happened; your side lost.

But the other interesting point, as the Raptor pointed out, is yet more of your amazing cognitive dissonance, where you care so much about abortions that you're unwilling to pay into any scheme that demonstrably lowers the rate of them, nor any scheme to care for the children your ban on abortions would produce, all the while still bawling about how precious you think those little lives are. Prime christian hypocrisy.

Because you unquestionably believe the propaganda.

Ah yes, the other christian deflectionary tactic: "If you don't agree with me, it's because there's something wrong with you as a person." Not gonna fly.

Your right nothing I can say will do this, but in page 1or 2 I posted a video of a sonigram of a baby screaming and reacting to pain while being aborted, This video and this baby does indeed establish the viablity or rather a fetus is indeed alive.

I'll give you a hint: I'm opposed to late term abortions too. Much better to get it done early... which is something your ilk is desperate to stigmatize anyway.

how so?
What is my theory?
Is 'my theory' based on the same scrutiny you lambasted me for in the start of this post? Are you 'being unpleasantly literal in the hopes of staving off being incorrect for a few more posts while other users correct misunderstandings that you're purposely committing in some form of argument blockade?'

It's very simple: do you worship god? Silly question, right? The god of the bible, the same one who, in the old testament, put many children to death, including ones in the womb, that you still consider to be righteous, for some reason. And I know, new covenant, Jesus and all that, but if you're really willing to forget all of that because the guy said "I changed my mind," and as you already admitted, you don't care about those children because they died a long time ago, then where, exactly, do you have a leg to stand on bitching about child murder now, even if I were to grant that that's what abortion is?

with what wishful thinking? Your word?

Science, observation, and actual thought about my position. And a recognition that, just because you want to ignore my position and insistently try to force your definition of abortion on me and make me argue from that instead of what I think, I'm not obligated to do so.

This is an argument. It's your job to convince me that that little clump of cells is alive enough to call abortion murder, not to just say that it is as though I'm honor bound to just take your word for it.