There are two Americas...

Abortion is murder...

If a pregnant woman is killed — it’s murder of a woman & her child.
By the way — I know you'll say it’s not a baby. Well, what is it? It can’t be a duck, cow, otter, bird — so tell me what is it? It can be nothing else from the minute it’s conceived — no excuse can change that fact!

Ah, so it's other people's wish that determines a right to life? Okay, let me ask you something. Suppose a pregnant woman decides to keep the baby. She gives birth and the baby grows to the age of two. Should she be able to kill it?

And, what is a zygote, embryo, or fetus? Hint- a human in a certain stage of their life. What is fetus latin for? Little one.

No, but HOMO SAPIENS is.

Baby is a very vague term. But yes, one minute after conception it is a human being, and deserves a right to life.

That's what I said- why do you think that the woman should get the right to kill said baby?

Or perhaps the location of the child? Outside the womb, it's wrong, but inside, perfectly okay! That's arbitrary... Now are there any other locations that people inside them should be deemed undeserving of the right to life, or just the unborn in the womb?

Me and many others. The more specific term would be zygote, and yes, they too, are deserving of the right to life.

Legally no person can be forced to use their organs too support another human
You cannot be forced to donate blood
You cannot be forced to donate a kidney
You cannot be forced to donate 9 months of your life in lower health.
These things require consent, and the consent can be taken at any time. Even if the other person will die.

I'll ask you a question. Should a man, who engaged in sexual intercourse and created a new life, be responsible for using his body to work and earn money to care for said child?

Only if the other partner didn’t consent to having s*x without protection.

Even if he "doesn't want to be a father"?

So the man shouldn't have any legal responsibility for his children? And that everything should be left to the mother?

Well that's very sexist of you...

The mother doesn’t have to care for the kid either, morally they should, but they can put the kid in the childcare system.

"morally he does but the law shouldn’t require it."

So he could let that child starve and die, and the law shouldn't prohibit that?

Once again, that's not what I'm asking.

Should said man have to use his body to work and earn money to pay for his children, even if he "doesn't want to be a father" anymore?

Try reading the answer again

Only if the other partner didn’t consent to having s*x without protection.

As in if both partners consented to having a child then he doesn’t have to care for it if he doesn’t want it, morally he does but the law shouldn’t require it.

If it was not consensual, then he should help pay for the babies care. When you break the law you forfeit some of your rights.

That's not what I asked.
Please try again.

You know, instead of killing it?

Okay!
Then why can't a mother put her unborn child in the child care system after it's born?

Because there are nine months where the mother would be pregnant, and then the mother would have to give birth. In those nine months the baby would be using the mother’s organs to survive, no human can use another human’s body to survive without consent.

And that's where that father question comes in. He is required to use his body to work and earn money to pay for the baby, so the mother should be required to do the same. I know you tried to dodge the question, but logically this is a very good comparison to make.

Try reading the answer again

Only if the other partner didn’t consent to having s*x without protection.

As in if both partners consented to having a child then he doesn’t have to care for it if he doesn’t want it, morally he does but the law shouldn’t require it.

If it was not consensual, then he should help pay for the babies care. When you break the law you forfeit some of your rights

You try reading MY answer again. You seem to be having trouble understanding it.

Your logical loopholes are annoying. You can't pick and choose. You're dodging the question.

My point, if you can try to understand, is that people DO have to use their bodies to care for others, and that we should expect pregnant mothers to do the same.

Of course, you'll just fall back on your one sentence argument that has already been addressed and just copy and paste that over and over and not actually respond.

So we should require blood donations and liver transplants?

Working to care for others and using organs to care for others are two different things.

Even if you give a newly fertilized egg full rights the mother could still abort it, because it is using her organs to survive.

Well if that's your position, I'll ask you a question: how did the unborn child get there in the first place?

99% of the time, it is because the woman engaged in sexual intercourse with a man, thus creating a helpless human being within her. In contrast to forced organ donation or blood draw, where a part of your body intended solely for you is taken to save someone whose predicament you presumably did not bring about, the uterus is intended for the unborn child, and the parents (BOTH of them) are the very reason for the babies' existence. They have a responsibility to care for the child whom their act put in the womb. In other words, they had sexual intercourse, a baby was made, and thus is their responsibility. Whether they "want to be parents" or not.

Deflection, and yes it is.

I asked WHY.

Of course not. BUT I know where you're going with this. And no, a woman does not have the right to kill a baby just because it is inside of her body. Let me explain: the kidney is an organ designed to filter blood and produce urine. Fairly simple. The uterus, however, is designed to nurture an unborn child. It's naturally ordered to do so. Unlike your kidney example, where I fall to save someone, abortion involves separation a healthy child from what he needs to live. Also, the person who is the forced donor presumably has nothing to do with the cause of the sick persons dilemma, and I'm assuming they are unrelated. But in the case of pregnancy, how did the unborn baby get there? Ninety-nine percent of the time, it is because the woman engaged in sexual intercourse, which has the effect of creating a dependent person in the womb. She should therefore be obligated to care for said child, since she was involved in his creation.

Like I said, baby is a very broad term. But yes, a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person.

Arguing in a circle.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument. Reread it.

Okay, I'll give you an example: imagine I have a machine that can create anything in the world. If I pull the lever to start it, there is a high chance the machine will dispense $10,000. But there is also a high chance it will put out a helpless infant. Would you be responsible for said infant since you are the reason it is there, even if you "don't want it"? I'll give you another example. A father must use his body to work and earn money to pay for commodities for the children he helped create. Why shouldn't the woman be expected to provide a safe environment for the baby to grow and develop in the form of her uterus?

Like I said, "wantedness" does not negate someone's right to life.

And in regards to your other comment:
Then don't kill the child. Put it up for adoption.

Okay...?

You're just rewording something about "a woman's choice"...

Kind of like your comments? ;)
But seriously... It's just an analogy. If you're referring to the $10,000 not having a counterpart, it's just there for illustrative purposes.

And there you go arguing in a circle. You've been just stating your position in one short sentence and providing no evidence or reasoning to back it up.

Biologically, it is clear that a fetus, zygote and embryo are a human being. If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. From conception, when sperm and egg unite, the embryo grows through cellular reproduction. If the unborn has human parents, it must be human. Human beings reproduce after their own kind. The fetus is not part of a human, but is, in fact, a complete human organism, different than the mother and father.

Legally no person can be forced to use their organs too support another human
You cannot be forced to donate blood
You cannot be forced to donate a kidney
You cannot be forced to donate 9 months of your life in lower health.
These things require consent, and the consent can be taken at any time. Even if the other person will die.

Abortion is murder.
Let me rephrase since you know you are wrong and resorting to a petty argument about semantics...
Biologically, it is clear that a human embryo is a human being.
If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. From conception, when sperm and egg unite, the embryo grows through cellular reproduction.

SMHID!!!!

Uhm the answer is right there in plain sight. (hint: it's the two qualities that you didn't care to mention.)

What sort of "infringement" are you referring to?

That's based on embryology.
When did I say that I support that?
There are many different reasons why people are fired, and many times it doesn't have to do with whatever they think about themselves. But as long as they don't forcing that on others, I don't support firing them. And in regards to Christian organizations, 1st Amendment.

Correction: don't start

I don't support that. There can be other circumstances. But a vast majority of those times you are referring to happened because of the owner's religious beliefs, which is where the First Amendment comes in.

I have not seen that happen, but I understand your point.

I noticed you went from "fire" to "refuse to hire" l. Isn't it the owner's choice who to hire? And actually, we've seen the opposite from, ironically, LEFTISTS. Take Kamala Harris, nominated simply because she was black. And I've seen companies refusing to even interview straight white males.

Really, it depends. If it's because of race, and only race, then no.

As long as they don't violate the company's policy, and don't do obviously bad things, then I don't think they should be fired.

1st off: it's God with a capital G
2nd off: The two qualities I was indicating are "family" and "community".
3rd off: you brought up "abortion" and "same-sex-marriage" so I was addressing those.
4rd off: those are detrimental to building a family and as a result perpetuating community.

1. why would someone refer to God as a "quality" (an atheist at that)?
2. for trivial reason. (hint hint: the birds and the bees)

sure...sure...it's just a teensy weensy bit unfavorable.

D'uh - don't twist my words.
I was bringing in beneficial and detrimental aspects.