Abortion

"Pro's argument is simply emotion and concept based. They have their own selectively stylised view of the world which they expect everyone else to subscribe to. They select emotive words and stylised foetal images and disregard the reality of the human condition whenever it suits them to do so. " WHAT! I'M THE SCIENCE DENIER! I'M THE ONE WHO USES EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS AND IGNORES FACTS? ! HOW ABOUT THIS FACT: A FETUS IS SCIENTIFICALLY HUMAN LIFE AND NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN COUNTER THIS. YOU ARE THE ONE IGNORING FACTS! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IGNORING THIS BY TALKING ABOUT VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR. MY VIEWS ON VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DENYING SIMPLE FACTS OF SCIENCE ARE TALKING ABOUT VEGANISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR AND A BUNCH OF OFF TOPIC BS* SIMPLE BECAUSE YOU can't' FACE UP TO THE FACTS! Whew! Calm down. Take a deep breath. Not everybody can understand basic science. Be nice to them and help them learn. Okay. I'll be nice now. Your response is giving me the feeling that you haven't understood my argument at all, Probably because you are just incapable of understanding it. (Whoops) "Your argument completely ignores my argument and simply restates the propaganda you put forward in your previous response but just in harsher words. Just to squash an argument that you mentioned offhand, You say that "A baby is a baby and a foetus is a foetus. " The fetus is obviously not a baby. The definition of baby is different among many people and "baby" is a loose term. However, All available science proves that the fetus is indeed human life. Given that it is human life, The moral value of the fetus is no different than the moral value of the baby. So that argument is out of the way. You interpret my view as: "I will kill what I like and who I like, When I like, As long as it suits me to do so. But abortion is always unacceptable because that suits me too. But actually. Killing pregnant women as a consequence of the U. S lead war on terror is acceptable, Because that also suits me too. " You clearly haven't understood my response. The vegetarian/vegan question was answered, But since you weren't able to understand it I will put it in simpler terms. It is the law of nature that humans are omnivores, Meaning that they eat plants AND animals. Humans are at the top of the food chain. This means we eat animals below us on the food chain, And many of the animals we eat also eat animals. Are those animals all heartless and cruel? No! And let me provide you with a CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS. Humans are the top of the influence pyramid, Which means that it is a law of nature for humans to shape their environment and for animals, Their environment shapes them. It's a law of nature. Also these beliefs are founded on religious grounds, But we'll stay away from there for now. Also, Your response hasn't acknowledged that the purpose we have for killing animals is a FAR greater cause than the cause we have for killing human life. You say that humans don't NEED to kill animals to eat, But science shows that it's actually not healthy to be vegan, Because the human body needs meat to achieve maximum performance. Abortion is never a necessity, Unless the physical safety of the mother is at risk. I am a reasonable person to deny her that choice because she has no choice to take the life of another human. (Yes, It is a human. ) Another misunderstanding of my argument that you included in your response was that I am FOR the killing of innocent civilians due to the war on terror. First of all, EVEN IF I WAS for the killing of innocent people due to the war on terror, Which I am not, It does nothing to neutralize the fact that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a human life, Which science proves. You are trying to steer the conversation away from the topic, But nothing you say can correctly prove that the fetus is not human life. Whether I am vegan or not does not matter at all. Whether I am for the war on terror does not matter at all. Nothing provided in an argument in either of these topics can justify abortion in the case of no physical risk of the mother. I specifically made a statement contrary to what you said, But since you didn't see it I'll say it again. I think it's horrible that innocent people are being killed each week due to the war on terror. Just to mention another thing, It's not the US army massacring civilians on a day-to-day basis. It's the terrorists who are killing probably about 95% of the civilians being killed. That fact alone should show you how important it is to completely obliterate these terrorists groups and make sure they stay down. THEY are the ones doing most of the innocent civilian killing. I support the war on terror simple because I think we need to do everything in our power to stop these terrorists from killing even more innocent civilians. Murder is not murder when it suit me. YOU are the one who thinks that if a human is in another human and can't feel things as well, It has less moral value than a human outside another human who can feel things. This is stupid. According to your standard, I should just be able to kill someone in a coma. I agree with the judicial definition of murder, That murder is, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. " I agree with this definition and given that a fetus is a living human being, Abortion fits this definition like a glove. Stop being a hypocrite. Accusing ME of using emotional arguments when you have ZERO facts on your side, Accusing ME of having a double standard on murder when clearly I don't, Accusing ME of having no regard to life! I encourage you to vote con on this issue. And pro, Please read this response at least three times to make sure you have no more misunderstandings of basic science and logic. Back to you: