pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,466
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Let's go forward a bit. I don't have to prove anything. I point out the inconsistencies in your statements for my own amusement. I have never had the intention of changing your mind.It is you who has created the category of potential person and promptly removed them from the protected species category. It's a convenient bit of sophistry which relieves you advocating unjustifiable homicide.
There's really nothing reasonable about killing something which given time will be a person, and claiming you have not killed the person it would eventually be.
Why have you lumped justifiable homicide for self defense, assisted suicide, and abortion in the same category? What do they have in common?
A zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus are indeed potential persons. A potential person is not a person.
I have not lumped homicide for self defense, assisted suicice, and abortion in the same category. Just the opposite. Self-defense homicides and assisted sucide are examples of killing someone, i.e., a person. My point is that abortion is not taking the life of someone, i.e., a person, so manifestly I have not lumped abortion in the same category as the other two.
There is no such thing as causing harm to a potential person (via abortion, in this case). You can’t harm a nonexistent person.
The common element our midnight attacker, elderly friend, and not yet a person share, is if they make enough trouble, the normal protection for sacred life is forfeit. There is no need for the fiction they are not a life, which might one day have blue eyes, smoke cigars and have this conversation.
As for the billions of half-not yet a persons lost down the drain everyday, if you opened your pantry to see the flour missing, you would not say, "What happened to my cake?" anymore than finding the oven open and empty would elicit, "What happened to my batter?"
Let’s back up a bit.
It was you who posed the question, “when is it OK to kill someone?” Now just lay your cards on the table: According to you, is a zygote someone? An embryo? A first-trimester fetus? Are they also “someones?” If you think so, prove it.
A “someone” is a person.
I said it’s OK to kill in self-defense and maybe assisted suicide, depending on the circumstances. However, since I do not believe that a zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus is a someone, I obviously do not thinking that abortion is taking the life of someone.
But now, according to you, abortion is not just killing someone, it’s unjustifiable homicide, no less! Homicide, unjustifiable or not, can only be committed against a person. So you think zygotes, embryos and first-trimester fetuses are persons? What about spermatozoa, are they people too? Is masturbation or using a rubber during sex examples of mass unjustifiable homicide? If not, why not, under the terms that you yourself have set up?
Please refrain from slurring those of us who don’t share your religious hallucinations that in advocating the right of a woman to have an abortion we are condoning or supporting “unjustifiable homicide.” That delusion is entirely your own.
I also love how the pro-forced birth crowed loves to bombinate about Life, O Sacred Life! — yet the vast majority of themn don’t give a shit about the life of the woman whom they would force to bear a child, nor do they give a shit about the life of the child that they would force her to bear.
My original statement was that abortion ends a life, but it's not a big deal, since we end lives all the time. I expected to hear arguments about when life begins, ignoring any discussion about why we kill people and I find that very amusing.
What inconsistencies in my statements? Point them out.
You said I lumped abortion in with killing someone in self-defense or assisting someone terminally ill and in pain to commit suicide. I did no such thing. If I kill someone in self-defense, I am killing someone. If I help a terminally ill patient die, I am helping someone to die. If I abort a first-trimester fetus, I am not killing someone, because a first-trimester fetus, or embryo or zygote, cannot, IMO, be reasonably categorized as someone; i.e., is not a person.
So where, pray, is the inconsitency?
Now, as I said, if you think that a first-trimester fetus IS a “someone,” which apparently is what you do think, the burden is on you to support this claim. If you can support it, I may change my mind on abortion. So support away.