"Pro life" is not a conservative position.

[Concerned American]

Comparing murder, robbery and rape to abortion again. lolz

Run along. You clearly believe in murder as long as it meets your requirements. I am more of a pragmatist that doesn't change the meanings of words to meet my narrative.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yep. Use the govt to force your "morality"
Force that woman to endure 9 months of something she doesnt want to do. **** HER

Where do you get the idea that the Government doesnt force morality?

What are murder laws? Assault laws? etc etc.

 

[Trickster]

What species is the fetus inside a woman?

Women do not have other species living inside them, weirdo.

I assume you meant inside a pregnant woman and the answer is human, duuuuuh. But, this is not the mic drop or pwn you think it is. It is just context dropping, evading the argument and more emotionalism.

 

[Unkotare]

... purple hair nose ringing SJW with black wide-framed glasses does….

"Wide-framed glasses"?
???????????????????????

You just keep coming up with things to be scared of.

 

[Couchpotato]

Women do not have other species living inside them, weirdo.

I assume you meant inside a pregnant woman and the answer is human, duuuuuh. But, this is not the mic drop or pwn you think it is. It is just context dropping, evading the argument and more emotionalism.

Is a fetus alive?

 

[Trickster]

Run along. You clearly believe in murder as long as it meets your requirements. I am more of a pragmatist that doesn't change the meanings of words to meet my narrative.

You use words imcorrectly all the time.

• Baby instead of ZEF
• Child instead of ZEF
• Unborn instead of ZEF
• Mother instead of pregnant person
• Murder instead of abortion

 

[Trickster]

Is a fetus alive?

Are sperm alive?

 

[Couchpotato]

Are sperm alive?

Not the question I asked. Why are you afraid to just answer the question I asked?

Is a fetus alive?

 

[Trickster]

Not the question I asked. Why are you afraid to just answer the question I asked?

Is a fetus alive?

You have not addressed my previous post where I layed out a long argument on why lifedoes not begin at conception. Until you do that I do not owe you any more serious responses than that.

 

[TNHarley]

Where do you get the idea that the Government doesnt force morality?

What are murder laws? Assault laws? etc etc.

That involves a victim FFS.

 

[Unkotare]

That involves a victim FFS.

As does abortion - of course. Every honest human being knows that.

 

[he just circle K]

You have not addressed my previous post where I layed out a long argument on why lifedoes not begin at conception.

Human life does.

 

[Trickster]

That involves a victim FFS.

Isn't it funny to see they do not have any arguments whatsoever? Heck, even a few Bible verses or a simple "my god says so" would be more intellectually honest than these childish games they are playing.

 

[Trickster]

As does abortion - of course. Every honest human being knows that.

Bro, you cannot even tell cluster of cells from human being.

 

[Unkotare]

Bro, you cannot even tell cluster of cells from human being.

That specious argument has failed every time you've repeated it, ghoul.

 

[Trickster]

That specious argument has failed every time you've repeated it, ghoul.

Where is your argument? Lay it out.

Be a man.

 

[Couchpotato]

then you are guilty of friggen mass-genocide by your own standards, but of course you do not actually believe this.

ZEF:s are not people by any metric. It is an asdrttion that is scientifically inaccurate and philosophically inept. It is straight up outrageous.

Absolutely not. My argument throughout this thread has been philosophically solid and biologically accurate. The emotionalism has always come from your side ("innocent", "unborn"and " look at this picture").

Being anti-abortion is morally reprehensible.

None of this is an argument.

The claim that life begins at conception completely collapses under scrutiny because it is both scientifically inaccurate and philosophically inept.

Biologically speaking there is life before conception as both sperm and egg are alive, they even contain DNA, but even the anti-abortionists realizes that granting them rights would be outrageous (even if "alive" and "DNA" are their most used arguments). At conception a zygote is formed, still a single cell organism and human bengs are certainly not single cell organisms and it is therefore not yet life in the human sense of the word (personhood) and we are not even at the stage of pregnancy yet and are not even guaranteed to ever see it happen. So, how can life begin at conception when it might not even result in pregnancy (it fails to do so in up to 70% of cases)? It is simply an outrageous claim.

You problem is that neither sperm or egg is a complete individual capable of development without its other half. You're just being pedantic when everyone who is honestly debating the topic understand that while your skin is "alive" it isnt a distinct individual, which a fetus is.

A pregnancy test will not be positive, but somehow the implication of the argument is that the woman is now pregnant?

So because we don't have the ability to tell if a woman is pregnant she isn't? This is just an illustration that you don't understand how pregnancy tests work not.

48 long hours after conception, the embryo still only consists of a handful of cells and the claim that this microscopic organism with no brain or nervous system is morally and legally equal to a fully developed human is absurd. To assert it takes precendence over the pregnant woman (in some cases girl) is monstrous and immoral.

Talk about an argument from emotion. It's alive and an individual.

But ok so once it has brain function abortion should be illegal then?

The brain of a fetus begins developing about 3 weeks after conception. Brain waves at 6 weeks.

The embryo has not even reached the uterus yet. Often times it does not successfully implant and if life actually begins at conception it logically follows that the woman's body has naturally murdered a person. But, no anti-abortionist would claim that because they know it would be outrageous. If everything goes right, it is not until two weels after conception that the pregnancy actually begins.

But, even at this early stage a lot of cases are miscarriages before the woman even knows she is pregnant. So, truth is that life does not begin at conception. Conception is simply the starting point of a very long process that only if completely uninterrupted for more than nine months will result in the birth of a human person (and even then stillbirth can happen).

Life does not begin at conception. That is not science and we do not write laws or strip away rights based on potential in any other context.

ok so when does life start?

All the way up intil birth the ZEF is no more than a potential life and even "viability" is a stageof potentiality. Ths is why only the pregnant woman (god forbid girl) has a say. She is the only one with rights.

So it's a "potential life" even if at the time of the abortion if the doctor just took the baby out of the uterus it would live on it's own?

Emotion anyone? That's completely illogical.

 

[Couchpotato]

That involves a victim FFS.

yes and the prolife argument it that the fetus is the victim you twit.

 

[Couchpotato]

You have not addressed my previous post where I layed out a long argument on why lifedoes not begin at conception. Until you do that I do not owe you any more serious responses than that.

I answered you post now answer is a fetus alive?

 

[Unkotare]

Where is your argument? Lay it out.

Be a man.

The obvious truth has been pointed out to you a hundred times on this thread alone. Ghoul don't know what ghoul don't want to know.