Literally The Current Year And We're Still Having Abortion Debates (On Boyah)

[Kalahari Inkantation]

i know the feeling

[YPrrrr]

Yes, we only deal in cold, clinical facts here like that a zygote (an organism) is the equivalent of a hair follicle (a gland) oh my lord lol.

Since you like quoting US law so much:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". So even the US government recognizes fetuses as humans. Which would mean a human killing them would be... *drumroll* homicide.

You cannot necessarily admit an 8 month old fetus is a human? I mean come on that's ridiculous. It's not an irrelevant point unless your point about surviving outside the womb is irrelevant. Which, admittedly it is and that's the point thank you.

Yes Tec will scour the internet for random irrelevancies that have nothing to do with my point but won't look back 2 pages for a link   https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

[Travis]

yes that is exactly what i said

that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for

but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)

i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant

[strongbad]

i am pro abortion

[don't let's]

yes that is exactly what i said

that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for

but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)

i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant

using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?

[Travis]

yes that is exactly what i said

that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for

but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)

i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant

using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?

because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound

[YPrrrr]

yes that is exactly what i said

that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for

but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)

i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant

using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?

because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound

Sentience isn't require of something to kill it though.

All I'm saying is A. it is a living individual organism (as one can tell by its genome) B. It is human (as one can tell by its DNA) C. Homicide is the killing of a human by another human

So therefore, by definition, it is homicide. Which as I've said before, can be legal. Any aversion to the term is merely caused by the emotional impact of the word. You can feel that an abortion, as homicide, is reasonable for the reasons you provided and should be one of the legal versions of homicide - justifiable homicide.

[don't let's]

yes that is exactly what i said

that's still a lot longer than a zygote would survive for

but it's ultimately a meaningless distinction and does nothing to back up your point. It's a bad argument and I don't know why boyagers keep using it. (Part of the problem is that it's too broad)

i mean, do you want to elaborate a bit on why it's bad? a zygote cannot breathe, eat, drink, move, think etc. that seems like a pretty huge distinction between that and an infant

using survivability outside of the womb is a bad argument. Partly because its too broad and leaves itself open to including other things, such as infants as I indicated in my first post. And secondly, why do you accept survivability outside the womb as a good metric to use, and why do you think it's a good argument?

because if it literally doesn't even have the faculties to survive outside of the womb if it even wanted to then i wouldn't consider it a sentient being that can be a victim of homicide, like i said in my first post. that's literally all i'm saying. i'm not sure why you keep saying it's such a bad argument when it's scientifically sound

please reread my first post and this time see that I wasn't arguing anything with the homicide angle.

And now I wonder what you were arguing with me for anyway.

[wawi]

if a fetus was found on mars it would be considered life
checkmate scum

[Kalahari Inkantation]

it would be considered evidence of life

[Kalahari Inkantation]

well actually it would really depend on whether it was discovered biologically alive or biologically dead

[Kalahari Inkantation]

in any case, irrelevant point

[wawi]

i know i just needed to post. i really didnt read this thread

[don't let's]

Mars disaster

[YPrrrr]

Wawi mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids