Just a question for supporters of baby-murder

No, just saying people should consider the risks before intercourse. I was 34 before getting married and having intercourse. I never wanted to chance a pregnancy or disease. So we did other things to satisfy each other. I know I am weird but I was terrified to have children before I found my soulmate which could have wrecked a new relationship. I dated ladies with kids and their ex's caused problems so I did not want that.

Yes. Supporters of baby-murder.

'Abortion is legal, which means it's not baby murder'

So since abortion is legal in some areas, it is not baby murder. Slavery is still legal in North Korea, so by your logic, slavery is fine.

'Also, an embryo is not a baby.'

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because a human is in a different stage of life does not mean that it should not have the right to live. An embryo is different to a baby, yes, but a child is not a baby, and a teenager is not a child. Why should babies who live in the womb not have the right to live? It is a human being, just at a different stage in life.

'0 for 2. Try again.'

Yeah, no. Just no.

'That's correct'

But what about the areas where abortion is illegal?

'You're confusing legal with moral. Even if slavery is legal in North Korea, that doesn't mean it's moral. That just means it's legal there. Just like in the Bible. Slavery was legal in ancient Israel, but it was immoral. And your god never once prohibited slavery outright.'

I am not the one who is confused. You are saying that since abortion is legal in some areas, it is not baby murder, but since slavery is legal in North Korea, it is perfectly fine. Also, why is slavery more moral than abortion when both are legal in some areas and illegal in others. And he is not 'my God'. He is our God.

'That's your opinion. Some people agree with you, and some people don't.

It is not opinion, it is fact. It is alive.

'An embryo can't feel pain and isn't viable outside the womb. A baby, child and teenager can feel pain and can survive outside the womb.'

A baby, child and some teenagers cannot reproduce, but adults can. Should that mean that they deserve different rights?

'A stage where it can't survive outside the womb, can't feel pain, and isn't even close to fully developed. That makes a huge difference.'

You admitted that it cannot 'survive', and to survive, the being in question must have been alive in the first place. So you admit that they are alive. Also, babies cannot survive without constant care, so should it be legal to murder a baby that has exited the womb?

His arguments led him in a crazy chase.

'If you read my comment, I said literally the exact opposite. I said "even if slavery is legal in North Korea, that doesn't mean it's moral."'

I did read your comment. And even if abortion is legal in some areas, that doesn't mean it's moral, either.

'Slavery is less moral than abortion because it hurts a person. An actual person.'

Other way round. Abortion is less moral than slavery because not only does it hurt a person - it kills a person. And a foetus is an actual person. A foetus is as much of a person as you or me. It is just at a different stage in life.

'But thank you for not disputing the fact that according to the Bible, he's okay with slavery.'

Slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or race. In Biblical times, slavery was based more on economics, and it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In the New Testament, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

'You're moving the goalposts. I never said anything at all about being able to reproduce.'

You know I am just giving examples and scenarios, right? By your logic, the life of a human being should be decided by whether they live in the womb or not. So why can't it be decided by whether or not one can reproduce? The rights a human is granted should not be decided by where they live, whether or not they can survive in certain areas, or their ability to reproduce. It should be decided by whether they are alive or not. And a growing embryo and foetus is always alive.

'I never said an embryo or fetus wasn't alive.

So if it is alive, why should it not have the right to live?

'I'm not talking about constant care. I'm talking about the ability to live without needing to be attached to another person 24/7 for basic survival.'

That is constant care, though.

do you ever read the shit you type? god the stupidity

lol

Nope, not worth my time. Nuff said.

You are. Nuff said. You lost.

i'll just let you write more comments. everything you say is the dumbest shit on this site

Lol. Nothing will get through that thick skull of yours. Not worth my time. But you got p0wn3d really hard here again.

Wait wait wait wait
So abortion isn't murder but you if i killed a pregnant woman i should be charged with double homicide

Killing your slave in the Antebellum south wasn't murder, it was just "disposing of your property." Coming onto someone *else's* plantation & killing *their* slave was illegal, tho.

What kind of weak-willed slave mentality (in the Nietzschean sence) person gets their morality informed by what is currently legal & what isn't?

So if I go to an Islamist country that's operating under Sharia law, it's ok to kill a gay person, "b/c it's legal there?"

You do know that pedos who go to SE Asia to f**k kids b/c of the lower AoC there still get thrown into prison when they come back to the States, right?

So you claim that it isn't fine to kill a gay person in a country under Sharia law, but it is fine to abort a baby in an area where abortion is legal.

Children aren't grown people, either.

You are aware that it isn't "murder" just because it's legal is a distinction without a difference. If they had said "supporters of baby killing" it would have still had the exact same moral undertones. And the question remains valid, why is the elective (by choice) killing of a baby at six months gestation murder in one circumstance, but not another?

And the person who killed her still made the choice to kill the baby. They both made a choice. Why is one choice to kill a baby at six months gestation a murder and another choice to kill it not?
The reason I clarified elective, was to differentiate it from medical necessity (which is technically self defense).

And a baby is not a phone. I have two children, they are both mine, I still can't kill em.

"A slave owner can *choose* to dispose of their living farm-equipment "property," that's not a crime.

Someone else coming onto their plantation & killing their slaves against their will is a crime."

Yeah, you're not exactly making yourself sound like the good guys here.

I defended slavery?

Sure doesn't sound like I am defending modern-day slavery, either.

lol

That was intelligent. And hilarious.

You're repeating yourself.

no u

What you're arguing is so incredibly stupid, I could literally post incoherent pictures of nonsense and bring up the intelligence of the conversation.

So I guess back in Nazi Germany when rounding up Jews and killing them was not only legal but state-mandated, it's not murder, not genocide, not even morally wrong... just legally it was what, pest extermination to you?

Murder is murder, you freaking moron. It's not called 'murder' simply because it's illegal. It's called murder because it is IMMORAL, and therefore, typically made illegal.

The only one confusing things is you, because you deliberately confound legality into your screwed up definition of murder.

Abortion is murdering babies - and therefore immoral - whether or not a cabal of corrupt, pedophiliac politicians gathered together to circle jerk and make it legal. When you're in Hell roasting, no one is going to care if your crimes were 'legal' at the time.

No. I'm done. This is why I don't even bother trying with you.

Here you go: imgflip.com/user-comments/Octavia_Melody

lol

What do you get out of arguing incessantly with strangers on the internet?

Why don't you get a life instead of advocating that mothers take the life of their unborn?

lol