No, that would be killing gays.
Homicide is the death of a human being at the hand of another. Every abortion after the 2nd Division though is a homicide.
It isn’t necessarily murder but it is homicide.
The morality is clear. You just convince yourself that it’s not.
I’m not anti abortion in all cases as you know but at least I’m honest enough to admit that every successful abortion kills at least one human being.
The dehumanization of the unborn was key to getting abortion on demand pushed through and made a popular “choice” when pregnancies are deemed inconvenient.
Well, no…the reason there are a variety of views on the issue is because the morality is not clear.
I respect your logical and morally consistent response. I may not agree with it 100%, but I can respect it.
Thanks!
So you think an embryo or zygote that is non-viable is a human?
So you believe a non-viable embryos and zygotes are human beings?
It isn’t a matter of thought, it is a matter of science.
It is a “Human Zygote”, or a “Human Embryo”.
Both are simply stages of development.
Women are not fully developed until somewhere between 15-25 and men between 25-30. Shall me make it legal to kill them until they are fully developed?
1 Like
But the science tells us they are not viable outside of the womb. In that way, they are different from ‘Human Beings’ and many see that as a fundamental distinction.
So what? They are still human. We have adult humans all over this planet that are not "viable’ without a great deal of intervention. The overwhelming majority of babies aborted on the other need nothing but for nature to take it’s course in order to survive.
1 Like
There is the morals of the Pro-life movement.
everyone who disagrees is amoral;
the absolutism of some the pro-life people is despicable.
Allan
You are distorting the definition of ‘viable’.
How about frozen embryos?
How many are destroyed every year?
Allan
Of course it is. What other species would it be?
Look, you’ve asked all these questions 100 times before – to me, to WR, and to plenty of others. You know the response to them all. Each time the FACTS of the matter are explained to you (if you are not simply ignored because of apron tugging), and apparently each time you either reject the facts or choose to forget them. But either way, it shows why you choose to remain confused.
As far as I am concerned, it’s not a matter of unclear morality. It’s a matter of chosen ignorance on your part.
Yes, the embryo is human. It is no other animal. And biology tells us that it is alive. Biology tells us is it a unique organism, a human organism, a living organism. It is a living, respiring, growing, human life. It’s biological fact.
That doesn’t change what they are, what species they are, whether or not they are alive, whether or not they are human.
And “viable” is yet another of those terms abortion advocates use to justify killing them. Once again you demonstrate that you need a formal law to tell you right from wrong, and because the current formal law tells you “viable” is a valid justification for killing that human life, it’s just fine with you.
In fact, for that developmental stage of the human life, the fetus is perfectly viable in the environment that nature and evolution have developed for that stage. It’s actually absurd to demand (else we can kill it) that the fetus should be able to live in a different environment, no less absurd than to demand that you can live submerged in amniotic fluid.
And I know this has been explained to you as well. But you choose ignorance and insist on repeating the same justifications for allowing the killing of those human lives.
1 Like
Equally wrong.
Wether or not the embryo is viable has implications on the morality of abortion for many people.
Sorry you disagree.
It’s just an excuse to justify killing your child.
-
Nope.
-
I can’t have a child. And neither can you.
What an absolutely disingenuous statement!!
The child your wife or girlfriend kills is your child too.
