As I keep saying, because no one thinks human life is precious. Anyone saying such a thing is lying. Including you. What part of that simple and direct answer is too complicated for you to grasp? Would it help if I use smaller words, or typed more slowly? Given how you ran, that's my cue to keep asking you the same questions that sent you fleeing. I know you'll just run again, because running is what your type does best, but I do kind of enjoy making you run away in front of everyone. You, WPA1, use your money on petty luxuries when that cash could be saving human lives. How do you justify doing that, when you claim that that human life is the most precious thing in creation? I mean, that would make it more precious than your cash, but you won't part with your cash to save human life. Why don't you just tell the truth? You think human life is the most precious thing in the universe, but only so long as someone else has to pay to save it. Should you have to pay, you instantly flipflop and consider human life to be worthless trash.
WPA1, I've been no more insulting than you've been. You appear to be looking for an excuse to run. Let's try those questions again. You, WPA1, use your money on petty luxuries when that money could save human lives. How do you justify doing that, when you claim that that human life is the most precious thing in creation? You say human life is more precious than your cash, yet you won't part with your cash to save human life. How do you square your reluctance to part with your cash to save human life with your claim that human life is the most precious thing in creation? Here's a way for you to save some precious, precious human life. Find a woman getting an abortion, and pay her to give birth instead. For enough cash, she would. If human life is priceless that shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
Why should he, he isn't the one who got her pregnant. One should be responsible for ones own consequences. Pregnancy is the consequences of unprotected sex. Abortion is murder and not an acceptable method to escape the consequences or your responsibilities.
Exactly right, so back off and leave women to deal with their own consequences according to their own consciences. That's what you'll need to prove.
So your entire argument is based on your inability to distinguish between a noun and an adjective. The technical name for it is "equivocation fallacy". Let me spell it out for you. A fetus is human (adjective). A fetus is not a human (noun). The terms person, human being and a human (noun) are basically equivalent. And specks don't qualify. Never have. Speck and person, two different things. My cat, who has a brain the size of a walnut, understands the difference between specks and people. If you don't understand the difference, then either your mental capacity is less than that of my cat, or you're kind of crazy.
Typical liberal bull(*)(*)(*)(*) playing wordsmith. Fetus's are human and therefore deserve to be protected.
According to you. Who gets to play God and draw the line between human life and non-human life. I say no-one, a fetus is human period.
In your view maybe but even your God has other ideas - have you any idea how many conceptions fail to survive to viability?
Sorry but should that not be "why do PEOPLE have unprotected sex" Because men ARE involved - it is not all done with a turkey baster and a specimen
You say noone gets to draw the line (which would imply no law regarding abortions), yet you want to play god and draw the line yourself, at conception. Hypocrite much?
That is illogical....You extoll the virtues of a woman's 'choice' when it comes to abortion, completely throwing men 'under the bus' yet when it comes to the sex act that CAUSES pregnancy all of the sudden women are 'shrinking violets' and cannot seem to muster the ability to say 'no' and to NOT get pregnant. If women keep blaming everyone else for their pregnancies, pretty soon even 'turkey basters' will be held responsible and there will be a ban on their production...
You are aware that women can't get pregnant on their own? Even if they use a turkey baster, they need a man to provide the semen.
We are still debating abortion so it is a fetus and it is ok to KILL it till viability. At viability. I am sure he has his reasons, whatever they may be and that your mom accepts it at face value. Yes she can. In such a case that is what I would claim...
The onus to prove or support something is on those who affirm said thing. This was asked of you before, but all you managed was evasion. Care to try it again with rational arguments? And for the record, NOT all human life lack being precious or significant. Just ask the government who is on the A list in case of a cataclysm. BS. Of course it is moral. when was the last time you did something because it was inconvenient to you? I can't think of a single reason why it is. Has it occurred to you that more humans have been killed by other humans than all other caused combined? So much for precious outside religious dogma and hypocrisy.
But life is sacred and as such what difference does it make? It should be saved no matter what, unless hypocrisy is at play. But by YOUR standards? except when it is not. Actually it is not, it is the termination of pregnancy. Who made you the decider of what is and is not acceptable?
No, still is not and you may want to look up what murder is before making the same uninformed assertion again. What does that mean? Ah so you too are here only to pontificate, judge and make unsupported assertions. what happened, rational thinking was too much trouble?
Why do you need to bring God into this? You lack the ability to make arguments outside your religious dogma? You are deluding yourself if you think that your uninformed assertion is convincing.
