10-09-2015, 03:46 PM
(10-09-2015, 10:07 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature. Why would they do that except in order to dehumanize the unborn child so as to make abortion seem less than what it is: murder.
As to your questions: a) it doesn't matter. It is a human being. Suppose you have a child that is born with no lungs and will never have anything beyond a 2-year old's brain activity. Obviously, this "mentally-challenged" baby on an iron lung is not going to have any semblance of a life, so, according to your logic, it's okayto kill it.
b) Yes, because it's a human being. Why is it that killing a human being is wrong EXCEPT when that being is in the womb? Why do I not have the right to keep people off my property even if that means killing all trespassers, but my wife has the right to kill our unborn child if she so desires (not that she ever would, mind you) because she just doesn't feel like having a kid right now? Answer: human life is more important than property, unless of course that life is still in the womb.
I said I haven't seen anybody claim a zygote isn't a living thing. Your response is to say "look harder", then talk about people calling the zygote a "bag of cells". Since cells are living things, it seems you're simply proving my point; though you littered your sentence with the typical pro-life rhetorical tricks by calling said zygote an "unborn child" and incorrectly using the word "murder".
As for the rest, until you prove that zygote=child/human being, everything you said is meaningless.
