I Guarantee It

Yup.

Yeah, both...

Yes, good idea. Let's (literally) shred small children with eyes, ears, minds, and souls.

The soul that makes you you.

Does an unborn baby have a body and mind?

You don't know if he has a mind? "At 5-6 weeks the first electrical brain activity occurs." They have a brain from the start, so you can't really say they don't have minds. And you're kinda beating around the bush, but of course unborn babies have bodies.
Btw, do you believe in magic?

So you believe it's a baby before it's born? Gotta be one or t'other.

Up a gum tree? ;)

At some point in the future murder may become legal (as crazy as it sounds). That doesn't mean it's right though.

So what you're saying is you have no idea when it's a baby, so you can't justify killing it. So when does it "magically" ;) become a baby?

I think you do believe in magic because, just seconds before a baby is born, he is not a person, not even a human. He doesn't have a mind, doesn't have the right to live, and has no future. But, as soon as he is born *poof* he's magically all those things. Its about as logical as me walking through a door and *poof* I'm a frog

I'm glad (and grateful) my parents believed I had a mind, a future, a soul, and cared about me. I would never have been born. And how much more normal would the world have been? A lot.

Sooooooo you're saying it is a baby before it's born?

You didn't say those things directly, but you kinda implied them. You're pulling back into defense mode buddy. ;)

Since you don't know, you can't justify abortion. Basically what you're saying now is maybe it's okay.

So you do agree that it's bad that people kill unborn babies? Also to a certain point?

I covered my bases

That would be what I would call really late-term. I still think there is hope for you :)

lol

...and by children you mean only the ones that YOU have subjectively and arbitrarily deemed are entitled to civil rights?

Your 4/5ths of an opinion is duly noted.

Sorry, you don't get to re-qualify the question so it that fits into your narrow view. The answer is well in the millions.

I'm calling a fetus a child because in this context the difference is not relevant.

You are making a distinction between the two that is both arbitrary and subjective. Pro-abortion advocates cannot even decide among themselves precisely when one becomes the other, because it is purely arbitrary.

I didn't say "people" can't decide, I said "pro-abortion activists" can't decide. Pro Life activists pretty much all agree with one another.

There's a difference between a five year-old and a twenty year old too, not sure how that is relevant.

I keep pointing this out, and you keep failing to comprehend what I'm saying. You keep making distinctions between human developmental stages, and I keep saying that one stage is as good as another, and if it's okay to abort before the first trimester, then it should be just as okay to abort before the second birthday. The difference between those two points are equally random and equally valid.

Unborn, 6 months, five years, twelve years, it's all the same thing. It's an irrelevant distinction, because it's subjective and arbitrary. More human, less human. More developed, less developed, older, younger, none of that matters because "A" will always lead to "B", which will always lead to "C", and so on, and so on.

You can put the age of demarcation prior to which it is fine to euthanize but not after, wherever you wish and it will be equally valid. It's a made up number, randomly selected, a dart thrown at a timeline by a person wearing a blindfold.

We're both spinning our wheels and getting no place. I hope someone reads this conversation we're having here and gets some enlightenment out of it, because you and I are going nowhere with this conversation.

I love ya brother, but the amount of time I have allotted for banging my head against a wall has been used up.