Yeah, the Jews were innocent, and so is the baby which you are about to tear apart. This, as I said, is all grounded in embryology. So no, it is not an opinion, I am citing fact.
Okay, but guess what? Ages birth-seven or eight (years old), cannot survive outside the womb. The youngest can't even lift it's own head, and the oldest (7/8 years old) don't have a proper understanding of money in order to keep itself alive.
We cannot kill it, since it cannot survive outside of the womb.
You did not address my statement. First, I said:
"you an dI were still human beings at 10 years old, 5 years old, 1 year old, 2 months old"
THEN YOU SAID:
"I agree"
THEN I SAID:
"If you agree, how can you support killing the baby, if that is the same you inside and outside of the womb"
And then you dissed my question. Not only did you diss it, but you used a euphemism. "Terminate the pregnancy." Terminate what? What is a pregnancy?
No, you made the end result of the distinction, you infact, have avoided the distinction, which is why we are here in the first place. There is no meaningful, value-giving difference between the toddler and the baby inside.
No, but it is actually needing the physical attention, as well as the physical sustenance from its mother. The only difference is the umbilical cord. In this case, the baby is getting nearly the same nutrients, but from the nipple. The umbilical cord, nipple, umbilical cord, nipple. Who cares? Why does the place that the baby is getting sustenance from determine its value?
No, they are not THE SAME, but being THE SAME and having VALUE is NOT EQUIVALENT.
You and I are not the same, we cannot rightfully kill each other.