Face it, liberals hate science because science is about truth.

Wrong again. As usual.

Abortion is murder and science proves it kills a human.

Genders cannot be changed. Science of dna proves that.

Murder is the wanton slaying of an individual. Not a legal definition. The standard definition. You've been taught this before. You know it's true. You still parrot the same lies.

Abortion is murder. Period. It results in the death of a human being. Science proves that.

Gender is Sex, not some mental construct as the nutcases want to claim. You're born male, you will remain male/he/him all your life. You're born female, you will remain female/she/her. Science proves that. No amount of plastic surgery or elaborate drag will change that fact.

End of discussion.

The taking of a life outside of self-defense is murder. Guess what those two laws are at odds with each other.

You're correct that it's not technically murder. It's still killing an innocent human being simply for convenience. Being legal doesn't make something moral, unless you think slavery and all other things that were once legal were moral. Abortion is immoral. It should be illegal to kill your own children.

Sex and gender are the same thing. The new meaning for gender that liberals use it for today is a completely made up nonsensical idea that some feeling in your head changes what you are. Are people a different race if they think so in their head? No. Should they be able to identify as a different age? No. Race, gender, age, etc. are all physical aspects that don't change based on how you feel.

"Also, some people aren't born XX or XY. So which gender are they?"

Glad you asked. The presence of a Y chromosome is what makes someone male, and the absence of it is what makes someone female. For example, a person with Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY) is a male because they have a Y chromosome even though they have some typically female physical characteristics (larger breasts, no voice drop during puberty, etc.) This information is all available in a basic biology course. I learned it at a public school freshman year of high school

"You're moving the goalposts. I didn't say he killed them because they were an inconvenience. I said he murdered and slaughtered them, which the Bible says he did."

Where did he kill unborn children?

"Not always, but even if they do, that's their reason and that's their business."

Killing another human being is not just their business. There's a reason murder is illegal. Anyone killing anyone else is other people's business. You killing someone you hate isn't just your business. The government has a right to get involved and put you in jail. (I'm not implying mothers who've had abortions should be put in jail just to be clear.)

"I mean newborns, infants. Not fetuses."

What's the difference? Other than you've simply chosen to dehumanize one. The science is clear that both are human. Neither really have any personality development. What makes one worth more than the other? You might look at a zygote and say, "well look how different it looks from a newborn." But think about it this way. Is there any significant noticeable difference between an unborn child day by day? No. If you look at a zygote one day and and then the next, it won't look much if any different. If you look at a fetus one day then the next, it will look about the same. If you look at a child the moment before they are born and the moment after, they'll look about the same. What moment is there that the child changes so significantly that you think it's worth nothing one moment and everything the next? The only reasonable and logical conclusion to draw is conception because one moment, there were two incomplete cells, and the next, there is one complete cell with a full set of chromosomes. That is when life and value begin.

"That's your belief"

What do you find moral about dehumanizing a being that is scientifically proven to be human?

"I was being hyperbolic, but I do hear many anti-abortion activists speak that way."

Ok. They probably meant it as in collectively, abortion was and is a worse genocide than the Holocaust, which is true. If they were comparing individuals to Hitler, that's wrong.

"Do you agree that the God of the Bible committed slaughter/genocide/murder when he killed all those people in the Old Testament?"

Do you mean like the Egyptians? Because they brought that upon themselves when they were warned by Moses and ignored him. Was there a different example you were thinking of?

""Being legal doesn't make something moral"

That's true"

Abortion is an example of this.

"According to the Bible, slavery is moral"

Why do you always bring up the Bible? That's not what we're discussing. I'm asking you whether you think that being legal makes something okay. There is slavery in the Old Testament yes, but the presence of it in our holy book does not mean our religion teaches it. Here is what my religion teaches: CCC 2414: The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194

"According to you"

The tearing apart or chemical destruction of an innocent child for convenience is objectively immoral.

"It is. An embryo isn't a child."

An embryo IS a child. I already proved this. The definition of child is a human being under the age of puberty, and we agree that zygotes/fetuses/embryos are human (we just disagree as to whether or not they are a person.)

"No they aren't. One is physical, one is mental and emotional."

If sex and gender aren't the same thing, why are they both divided up into male and female? How many genders do you think there are? And if it's more than two, what is the name and defining characteristics for each other one?

"Not that it changes who someone is, that it defines who they are."

Male or female is part of what you are. Just as age and race are what you are. If gender defines who you are (as opposed to what you are), does that mean race defines who you are as well? Sounds a little racist to me

"Skin color and age don't have a mental or emotional aspect like gender does."

Really? People don't mature mentally as they age? They feel the same emotions their whole lives because age doesn't have an emotional aspect?

"So someone with a Y chromosome who develops a total lack of masculine characteristics during development is still a male, despite having a completely female body?"

With Klinefelter's, I'm pretty sure they still have a male reproductive system

No abortion IS technically murder. It's legalized, but murder nevertheless. Legality has no relevance.

Murder is the "wanton slaying of a human being". Abortion is a wanton slaying. Abortion is murder.

And you've cherry picked a single definition to suit your patently false argument. You've ignored all other definitions which have been repeatedly been shown to you which proves abortion IS murder with no debate.

Yes, I can read of course, I'm not a liberal. But I don't see your posts because you never post anything of value, just the same phony arguments over and over in spite of reality. So you've blocked by me.

"Murder: to slaughter wantonly : slay" -- Not a localized definition as you like to deflect. Abortion is wanton slaughter. Abortion is murder. Case Closed.

I'm totally with you that abortion is evil and should be made illegal, but Octavia is technically correct on this small point because legality is part of the definition of murder.

Liberals like to play word games like this, so instead of debating technical stuff like what the exact definition of one word is, just move on to a different word. Move on to killing or genocide. They can't deny that abortion fits those definitions. Abortion is the genocide of unwanted, innocent children, and therefore it is evil. Don't let them shift the argument from whether or not abortion is evil to what the technical definition of murder is. Since they know we're right on the big points that actually matter, all they can do is pick on the small technical parts of what we say.

Nice meme though

"Giving specific definitions of words is not playing word games, it's being accurate."

The argument is whether or not abortion is wrong. The word game is that you're bringing up a technical definition when we both know that small detail isn't the real discussion.

"That sounds really dishonest, like if you aren't winning the argument, just make it about something else."

The only part of the argument we would not be winning is the technical deflection about definitions. By moving to a different word, we show that the point of this whole argument isn't defining abortion by one specific word, but rather demonstrating it is evil by showing other words it fits the definition of. It's not making it about something else. It's bringing the main point back into focus after someone deflected to a technical point that doesn't matter.

"Abortion isn't genocide, because genocide involves the killing of people. Embryos aren't people or children."

You're impossible. You got your definition of murder from Google, and you think it's correct. My definition of child is from Google too. A child is a human under the age of puberty, therefore an embryo is a child. It's not that hard to understand.

"Also, saying genocide is evil is a bad idea on your part, because that means the genocides commanded by God in the Bible would also be evil."

Who did God command Christians to genocide? We're not the Jews of the Old Testament.

"No, I don't believe you're right"

Then why do you deflect to technical points like the definitions of words? Why don't you just admit that you think killing children is okay because they can't say no? The true argument of abortion is whether or not it's okay to kill your own children. Liberals know deep down how evil it is, so they make up ridiculous arguments like "it's my body" or "it's not a child" or "it's just a clump of cells" to distract from the true argument. Science says it's not your body, and it is a child. Those are non-negotiable unless you want to deny science. As to a "clump of cells," I guess you're technically correct, but if unborn humans are just a clump of cells, then so are humans who are born.

"Why do you keep saying he/she/it? I'm a guy, and I've never said otherwise"

It's never come up in a conversation between you and I before and I didn't know.

"And if you're saying that abortion is slaughter and murder, then that means that you admit that your God is a murderer who commits slaughter, right?"

Where do you think my God killed unborn children because they were an inconvenience to Him?

"If you think that somebody taking the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy is the same as your God drowning actual babies and toddlers in a flood, then you have your priorities screwed up. People like you will bend over backwards to defend little kids getting slaughtered by the Israelites or your God, but if somebody takes a pill a couple days after they have sex, you think they're worse than Hitler."

People take abortion pills out of selfishness. And what do you mean by actual babies? Unborn babies have just as much dignity. And where did you ever get the idea that I think people who have abortions are worse than Hitler? A single person having a single abortion is a grave immoral choice, but Hitler's choices were 11 million times worse. Now collectively, yes all the people who've had abortions in the US since it was legalized have killed far more people than Hitler, but as individuals they're not nearly as bad.

""Liberals like to play word games like this"

Giving specific definitions of words is not playing word games, it's being accurate."

Good... then you agree abortion is murder. Finally. Because it is by definition. legality is irrelevant.

Sorry, you're wrong as well as Octavia on this one. Not even "technically" correct. "legality" is not part of all definitions of murder.

You're right... liberals do like to play these word games like she/he/it's doing now. Don't fall into the same trap and behave like a liberal.

Octavia has argued and lost on this point MANY times. They know they're wrong. They know it's been factually and indisputably proven to them over and over. I have them blocked now, so I only see their comments when I choose too. Did this time and saw it was the same nonsensical "legality" twisting of reality.

Murder is defined as: " to slaughter wantonly : slay" Abortion is wanton slaughter of a baby. Abortion is "technically" murder. It's legally sanctioned murder. No debate.

"I didn't need to repeat it this time... he/she/it has had it shown to them before many times... with screenshots, urls, etc... They troll the site and attack memes with the same stupidity over and over... I'm not going to create the full explanation over and over."

Ah ok, makes sense. Just wasn't sure if you'd been over it before, but yeah Octavia does come around a lot and repeat the same stuff even though it gets disproved every single time.

"But I will say you claimed Merriam Webster didn't have it, but appears you didn't look either before attacking the conservative position. Perhaps actually check before you cite"

I checked the first 3 definitions, but I see it now. I agree with the conservative position on abortion and wasn't attacking it

Where did you get your definition of murder? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but if you can show where you got your evidence it strengthens your argument.

"You're right... liberals do like to play these word games like she/he/it's doing now. Don't fall into the same trap and behave like a liberal."

I know, which is why I suggested we go back to argument of morality rather than technical definitions.

"Octavia has argued and lost on this point MANY times."

Yep I know. I have proved to he/she/it that person and human are the same thing, and that unborn babies are by definition children. Every time this comes up, he/she/it goes right back and appears to have forgotten everything I have already proved.

Abortion is indeed wanton slaughter. Slaughter is a word that applies without debate. The difference between slaughter and murder is that murder does have a legal aspect, at least according to Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, etc. Isn't slaughter a bad enough word to prove that abortion is evil? Abortion doesn't need to be murder to be evil. Once we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will indeed be undeniably murder.

"Where did you get your definition of murder?"
" at least according to Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, etc."

m-w.com definition of murder is what I used. ONE definition contains "legal"... the second definition is as I quoted. " to slaughter wantonly : slay"...

So "abortion is murder" is a 100% factual statement and there is no need to cow to liberal objections to the contrary. It's immoral. It's murder. It's (sadly) legal.

"m-w.com definition of murder is what I used. ONE definition contains "legal"... the second definition is as I quoted. " to slaughter wantonly : slay"..."

Okay well why didn't you say that originally when Octavia gave his/hers/its source?

"So "abortion is murder" is a 100% factual statement and there is no need to cow to liberal objections to the contrary. It's immoral. It's murder. It's (sadly) legal."

You are correct with that definition. I've never heard it before without a legal aspect, but if you explain which definition you're using and where you got it from when you make your initial argument, it makes your argument more solid right off the bat. I wasn't cowing to liberals but rather just using the definition I was familiar with. It's all well and good to say abortion is murder, but liberals can use various other dictionaries to counter that. You can't lose if you just argue that it's killing/slaughtering a human or that it's genocide from the start.

I didn't need to repeat it this time... he/she/it has had it shown to them before many times... with screenshots, urls, etc... They troll the site and attack memes with the same stupidity over and over... I'm not going to create the full explanation over and over.

But I will say you claimed Merriam Webster didn't have it, but appears you didn't look either before attacking the conservative position. Perhaps actually check before you cite :)