Abortion not allowed

[Esquilax]

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.

Which is why, as I pointed out earlier, humanity isn't the sticking point. Personhood is.

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.

Double standard? Ha, no. A baby is a person; it has a brain, a nervous system, the apparatus through which it can accumulate memories and a personality. At the point at which it has those, I consider it sapient and worth saving, and hence anyone killing that would be acting immorally.

Conversely, a fetus has none of those things and is not sapient. It is human, but it is no more alive than a brain dead body, something for which we are fully morally justified in pulling the plug. A person is not valuable because of their heartbeat.

This has been my position for some time, and I believe I even explained this the last time you attempted to call my position on god and babies a double standard, which leaves me to conclude that you've either forgotten, in which case you should have no issue with retracting this portion of your argument, or you're being thoroughly dishonest in pretending my position is something other than what I've clearly explained.

So are you wrong, or strawmanning me?