Raider5678

I do not advocate the sanctity of all life. Question answered. But I do advocate the sanctity of life that will become conscious. Which, go figure, includes fetuses and babies. Now answer my questions.

I don't judge you. You said it yourself. You said it yourself DrP. A baby isn't conscious, and neither is a fetus. You do not hesitate to kill a fetus simply because it isn't conscious, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware? You can't advocate for one with out doing the same for the other unless you would want to be a hypocrite. I am not avoiding any question that I am aware of, if I am I'm sorry but I'll need you to restate it because I can't find it. I've removed myself entirely from this emotionally, so yes, I did mean that.

Shame on them indeed. But their still wrong regardless of what you believe.

I doubt you would hesitate to murder a baby either. And I answered your questions. The point where it becomes set in motion is where contraceptives and morning after pills will no longer do anything.

1. I draw the line at the point where the egg is inevitably set to the point where nothing will stop it from becoming a baby besides killing the baby when it gets old enough. 2. Again, if she doesn't want the child, she can give it away. 3. That's against christian values, as I'm sure you know. If the hate group claim's their christian then its most definitely not christian. For example, when Jesus saved the woman from being executed for adultery. Don't pick a random group and label them a christian. Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize you were born with eggs as well as testicles. Because that's the only logical conclusion I can come up with where as soon as your sperm became sexually mature it conceived a child.

1. Potential life isn't life until its set into motion. 2. Again, not setting it into motion means its not life because it hasn't been put into motion. 3. No, it does not apply to a coma victim.

To prevent the suffering of one you would end the life of another. Your choice.

A coma victim is a coma victim. A fetus is a fetus. My ethical stance does not suggest that a coma victim be woken up to suffer, but a fetus that is inevitably going to wake up no matter what we do short of killing it is. If you can't care for a child you can give it away if you want, if not that it will at least grow up. You would suggest that anyone with suicidal thoughts should and could be allowed to commit suicide based upon the fact that they are suffering inside. Yet, you don't. Attempting to apply an ethical stance for one subject to another opens a large realm of possibilities that not only contradict each other, but are also actively agreed upon. There's too many variables to simply change the subject and apply my ethical stance or yours to it.

And where would you draw the line?

You don't honestly think I'm arguing the fact that babies can't vote do you? I'm arguing the ethical dilemma of killing them therefore preventing them from one day voting.

Just to start out, if like other threads your simply going start calling the opposition stupid, retarded, and other assortment of words, I would ask of you to not. Anyways, incubators for the state is your honest view on this subject?

Ok then, I will try this.

No offense, but then you should also realize there's a difference between a seed and a fetus. And that since its a constant process, said fetus will become a person given some time. Just like a baby becomes a child, a child becomes an adult. By the same logic, that a fetus should not be treated as a fully grown person, neither should a baby. Lets see. Using modern day knowledge we know that a fetus will eventually become a baby given time and the fact that nothing goes wrong(I know. Ancient superstition, but its what I learned.) Where do you draw the line? I think a good way to look at it was to assume you were forced to have an abortion. Against your will entirely and completely. If a fetus isn't a person, then it can't be considered murder now could it? Your child is dead, sure, but it wasn't a person so who cares?

Using your logic whenever people decide they don't like their kid anymore. "Welp, he disobeyed me. Better kill him. Its the plight of a young mother." And what exactly are they thinking then? Please, enlighten me.

Like the a 3 month old isn't a person because it can't think with advanced logic argument? A fetus, will inevitably become a person if nothing happens to it. So by aborting a fetus, you aborted a baby. By aborting a baby you aborted a child. By aborting a child you killed an adult. Killing an adult is murder. How is killing a fetus not? I did make a thread about this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100526-is-abortion-ethical/

I was more going along the path of, inevitably there would have been an extremely helpful person in those 58 million. At least one. And regardless of the depths of being born into a bad family, you can give the child up if you didn't want it. At least it will live, and have a chance.

To an extent, math is fueled by logic. The laws of nature fueled by math. And reality is fueled by the laws of nature. Reality is simply reality. So, I guess it could be depending how you look at it.

Fair enough. A Legal Execution of an innocent person.

58 million deaths(I'll call them deaths, you can call them what ever you like), out of 58 million, don't you think they could have contributed to society? What if Jonas Stalk had been aborted? Abraham Lincoln? Elon Musk? If it was inevitable they were going to die, then abortion is simply preventing health problems to the mother. Other then that its ending the life of someone who never had a chance. This is a first world country. Impoverished environments here are often nothing compared to other countries. I hate to be mean, but if your just going to kill it, why would you get pregnant in the first place? I would disagree. I'm not saying its wrong to abort a quite literally dying baby anyways to prevent health problems, I'm saying its wrong to abort a child who is inevitably going to be born and eventually become an adult. Whether poor or rich, its still a person.

Legal Murder.

I'm interested in how you guys see this. Personally I think its wrong(go figure) and I can't understand how people feel it is right, ethical, or why it should even be legal.

Technically it is the death penalty without trial, but yeah. It is irrelevant.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, that makes sense now. That's why they determined that innocents could be executed without trial, evidence, or even an accusation, millions of them.... 58 million of them actually. But if their guilty then that's completely wrong to execute them without first giving them lots of tries to prove their innocent, and much much more. Yep. Nothing wrong there. Don't get me wrong, I believe people on death row should be given the opportunity to prove their innocence, but I still believe in the death penalty.

"What propaganda?" Gee, let me think. Using "data" collected by Nazis, the KKK, and other known racist groups, yet claiming them as valid. Whether they are valid or not is a simple argument. Racial Bias interferes with the true collection of data. I would also like to point out in the majority of your data that you point out there is experimental bias because the whites are taken from a first world country sample population, while the blacks are taken from a third world country sample. You can't honestly say there is no difference between those. There is. Environment effects how you develop.

Pretty much what delta said. You should see the NRA news letter. Its horrifying.