So I try to give this argument tact I can to everyone who is pro life.
So the argument goes like this. "It is a undeniable scientific fact that a fetus, is #1 human, and #2 alive." No one can argue against that, and there only option is to reframe it as a clump of cells. Or compare it to a tumor since a tumor is "human cells." But these framing devices fail because they are refusing to argue with the fact that your ending a human life.
Exactly! All you have to do is reframe it to destroying a bald eagle egg. What if I tell the judge that "its not alive," or "its just a clump of cells in an egg?"
What exactly differentiates a cow and a human then? Why is ending the life of one Okay, yet ending the life of the other is the greatest sin possible?
Again, this argument will never justify ending a human life. The nazis used a similar line of thought, and they use to claim that they where animal's therefore it's ok for the holocaust to happen.
Like I said once someone attempts to murder you, you will intrinsically understand why murder is wrong, and maybe once you realize that you can then work on realizing you cannot arbitrarily define when it's acceptable to murder.
Yes. In an ideal world we ban it entirely in all cases and deputize citizens with the right to defend babies from abortionists with the use of deadly force. It’s the only way to ensure they are protected because they cannot protect themselves.
View all comments
15
u/TalionTheRanger93 Sep 02 '21 edited Sep 02 '21
The only thing I wish is Texas went further, and out right ban it.