His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.
On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.
If murder is the illegal taking of life, then most abortions aren't murder in the eyes of the the law. The morality of the act can always be considered, no matter what the legal position, and that's mostly a decision owned by the patents, being the only ones in a position to know.
On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.
If murder is the illegal taking of life, then most abortions aren't murder in the eyes of the the law. The morality of the act can always be considered, no matter what the legal position, and that's mostly a decision owned by the patents, being the only ones in a position to know.
