The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[Buzz]

What is a person? A person is simply an individual. All sentient lifeforms are individuals.

And a fetus without a brain is not sentient. Case closed.

Fetuses are still fundamentally human: they have the human nature, appearance, etc. They therefore should be treated as such.

Who cares about a human appearance? Corpses have a human appearance, I don't see you valiantly fighting for their lives.

  Fetuses and corpses cannot be compared with each other. Fetuses, unlike corpses, are still alive.

We don't need to fight for the rights of corpses as much as we need to fight for the rights of those who remain alive, such as fetuses.

As Losty has already explained, even if you want to treat it as a human, that doesn't confer upon it the right to commandeer another human body as a host vessel to prolong its life. If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals. You're trying to grant special rights to fetuses, and therein lies the problem. 

And again, you run afoul of the fact that a sperm can also fully develop into a conscious human in a matter of months, therefore we must allow rape (aka: the use of a woman's body without her consent, which is exactly what we're talking about with abortion) to ensure that every sperm produced has that opportunity. 

You sincerely believe that my statements advocate rape?

"If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals." The problem with this particular statement is that it confers fetuses to be mere parasites; enemies of its host body: the mother. Such a viewpoint seeks to degrade the dignity of human persons; Mankind by extension. It also downgrades the natural aspects of pregnancy. 

Fetuses have the innate right to absorb nutrients from the mother. It's nature; its how the mother's body operates. We shouldn't blame the fetus for obeying nature's laws. The two partners would be irresponsible to engage in an activity that is objectively and widely known to produce additional humans. Based on this, the mother did give consent: she gave consent by having sexual intercourse to begin with.

We know that sexual intercourse produces children, so if we engage in sexual intercourse, we should expect children. It's nature, hence why the fetus isn't at fault.

From the way I see it, we anti-abortion folk do not view the unborn as deserving of special rights, we seek to protect the innate rights of the unborn, and all other humans, particularly the right to life.

It's strange that you would be willing to compare the actions of the unborn to that of criminals and the insane.  

Ah the abortion issue is always full of fun and excitement.   I did some looking around and found that the catholic church does indeed do a lot for the poor children of the world.

there are a number of charities for helping the poor including impoverished children and that's good.

But i want you to remember what your Jesus said

Mark  10: 21 something about selling everything and giving to the poor.

the Catholic church has NOT done this.

http://humansarefree.com/2012/03/christi...ancial.htm

By this estimate they could end hunger altogether but the pope still sits on a golden throne.

So by this example I'm not convinced that the church is that concerned about children born or not.

I believe that you are (those common Catholics that fight abortion rights).  Honestly I truly think that you are really concerned with the welfare of the unborn baby.
It's easy to win sympathy for babies and if you left the pope out of you decision to protest I might sympathies with you however.....

to the popes it's not about right or wrong it's about control.

That link is dead. The page could not be found.

Anyhow, the Catholic Church is not rolling in money. Its expenses include the supplying of parishes and buildings all around the globe, in addition to the charity work you mentioned.

The Pope himself is not personally rich; the money he has access to belongs to the Vatican State, same as how the U.S presidents are not personally rich, but have access to billions of dollars, etc.

You may criticize the pope for “not doing enough to help the poor”. Well, he is doing what he can, within his limitations. As you mentioned, the Church is involved in charity work. We, and plenty of other religious organizations and persons, are doing things to help alleviate the pain of others.   

The Church itself has some limitations. It's necessary for the Church, like all other organizations, both secular and religious, to sustain itself financially. Mark 10:21 seems applicable to persons, rather than organizations.