It’s not your body…

As is the case with all liberals/Leftists, your false attachment to Conservatism notwithstanding, you fail at the argument because of how intensely vapid your thought process is.

The sheer complexity of a single cell in a living being, human and otherwise, is vastly more complex than the average city, much more so than your incredibly stupid and ignorant comparison of an unmixed cake batter.

When we consider the whole being, the unborn baby in this instance, it is laughable that you think your argument has a scintilla of merit. And I bet you were really proud that you came up with that.

"As is the case with all liberals/Leftists"

Hasty generalization fallacy

"you fail at the argument because of how intensely vapid your thought process is"

Ad hominem fallacy

"When we consider the whole being, the unborn baby in this instance"

That's the point. It's not "an unborn baby" at the moment of conception

You talk about “complexity.” That’s the point. A cake is much more complex than the ingredients it is made out of. And so is a fetus. What is a fetus made out of? An egg, a sperm, and the fuel of the mother’s blood over a period of approximately 40 weeks, nurtured inside of the womb.

Everyone knows you can’t quit baking at the mixing phase, call it a day, and turn it in as a cake. Nor can you mix the ingredients and give up before you pour it into the pan. Nor can you pour it into the pan and neglect to put it in the oven. Nor can you neglect to take it out of the oven. We intuitively grasp all of this.

And, as you say, a real person is infinitely more complex. I agree!

Put simply, it takes *work* to turn a fetus into an infant. Important work, highly personal work. Work that the government has no business mandating anyone perform. There’s even a word for the last crucial part of that journey: “labor.”

(Side-note: The critical, intense, and sometimes dangerous birthing process has of course been completely written out of the equation of creating human life by “pro-lifers,” reduced to less than a footnote. Under the cake analogy, that’s like saying taking the cake out of the oven is totally irrelevant.)

And what is forced labor? It’s slavery.

That said, we recognize that a cake that is 5 minutes from being pulled out of the oven is “more of a cake” than the unmixed egg and flour that it started as. It has a stronger claim to being called a cake, by that point, regardless of the baker’s feelings on the matter. And that’s fine. That idea supports a ban on 3rd trimester, and so-called “partial birth abortions,” which states have *always* had the ability to ban, even under Roe v. Wade.

But by banning abortion from the moment of conception, under all circumstances, which is what most “pro-lifers” want these days, the state turns women into literal slaves. It keeps them trapped in the kitchen for 40 weeks, and indeed, for 18 years after that, if they’re unwilling to give up for adoption what the state forced them to bear.

That viewpoint can only result from seeing women as birthing and nursing centers, primarily, and not as fully-fledged citizens with their own legitimate dreams and aspirations.

"That viewpoint can only result from seeing women as birthing and nursing centers, primarily, and not as fully-fledged citizens with their own legitimate dreams and aspirations."

This is an interesting illustration of where the real dilemma lies- That the importance of motherhood, and making sound moral choices, can never be overestimated.

No one is holding such a low regard for women- that is a red herring, and I am not sure that you threw that out there intentionally. I suspect you are blinded by your own foolishness to even think such a thing.

The only thing that matters is whether or not there is a human being growing inside its mother. There is nothing to refute that from the moment of conception, this is the case, so it is murder. If one can reason that that life can be snuffed out because of reasons, then why stop there? My neighbor is inconveniencing me for reasons- why can I not murder him?

So, here is where your analogy of the cake falls in on itself- you fail to take into account the incredible complexity of what has already happened at the moment of conception. At the moment the egg accepts that one particular sperm, all the DNA information is present, the result of which is a unique human being. That this unique human requires the aid and assistance of its mother may be inconvenient, but this does not negate that this is a unique human being, with its own DNA, often a different blood type, and 50% of the time a different gender. And here's a shocker- your DNA is still in the process of working out its programming- this does not stop at the moment of birth.

It is never ok to murder another human being based on the stage of development it is in, else there is no rational reason to put any restrictions on murder at all.

btw- Dehumanizing another human being down to the level of cake batter is an exceptionally deficient mental characteristic on your part. You might call that ad hominem, but it is simply a conclusion drawn from your own logic.

Indeed, you would have been right at home with the Supreme Court when they ruled that human beings could be held as property, not unlike how your cake is your own property to do with as you please. Don't like the color of the cake when you see it cooking? Just toss it in the garbage.

Don't like the religion of a certain people, say, their Jewish religion? Why, just turn up that gas and cook 'em well done!

Yes, your logic has been useful throughout human history at assuaging the consciences of many a murderer to justify the killing of a human being they perceived to be inconvenient.

Betty Crocker, you ain't!

I’m not dehumanizing anything because it’s not a human being. It’s a fetus. There are only two ways for it to become a human: Have a willing and eager mother, or have a mother enslaved by the state into giving birth.

Your analogy fails, but I’m glad to hear you are against genocide. It’s heartening, and indicates you are not far away from seeing woman as full citizens.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

fetus noun
fe·​tus | \ ˈfē-təs \
Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind

specifically : a developing ***human*** from usually two months after conception to birth

At what moment does it become a human being?

Under the law, it becomes a human being when it’s born. At that point, it gets its name, SSN, birth certificate, citizenship, and the full protections of the law. At that point, killing it is infanticide.

(Believe it or not, the Bible suggests that the soul enters the body upon first breath — which would be at birth. Another thing many modern Christians skip over.)

But as I said earlier, Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban 3rd trimester abortions in recognition that such fetuses are close enough to being born that they could receive legal protections anyway. Roe v. Wade has been relentlessly demonized, but it was a careful and well-chosen compromise.

"Under the law, it becomes a human being when it’s born. At that point, it gets its name, SSN, birth certificate, citizenship, and the full protections of the law. At that point, killing it is infanticide."

Quote me the law that says an unborn baby is not a human being.

True or False:

*It was once the law of the land that black people were subhuman and could be held as property.
*It was legal to capture runaway slaves, and illegal to help them.
*It was legal to round up Jews, and illegal to hide them.

"(Believe it or not, the Bible suggests that the soul enters the body upon first breath — which would be at birth. Another thing many modern Christians skip over.)"

The Bible suggests no such thing.

"But as I said earlier, Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban 3rd trimester abortions in recognition that such fetuses are close enough to being born that they could receive legal protections anyway. Roe v. Wade has been relentlessly demonized, but it was a careful and well-chosen compromise."

Obviously, a number of highly trained, professional Supreme Court Justices disagree with your assessment on this matter. I asked someone else to explain to me where the SC found justification for the murdering of the unborn. Do you know where they found it, since you consider it to have been a "careful and well-chosen compromise"?

This compromise you speak of, btw, is called murder.

I suppose the irony is lost in the fact that your claiming the fetus is not a human being is LITERALLY DEHUMANIZING IT.

No one is enslaving the mother. Here's an example of what that would look like though. Imagine the government wanted to boost their military population with super soldiers or something. They kidnapped women, raped and impregnated them, basically turned them into concubines and forced them to churn out baby after baby. THAT would be slavery.

Here's the reality of what actually happens though. The woman is not responsible. She has unprotected sex with a man. She does not even bother taking a birth control pill before or after the fact. She just hopes or assumes nothing will happen and there will be no consequences to her actions.

AGAIN, this is NOT SLAVERY. No one forced this mother to be a mother. She arrived in her position due to her own choices, and the consequences of those choices. But if the consequences of those choices means that now there is another human being developing in her womb, we should protect it.

Do you believe an embryo has more rights than a pregnant woman?

Do you believe infanticide is virtuous?

No, I don’t believe that the embryo has the right to intentionally terminate the life of an innocent human either.

“it’s not a human being” That is biologically false

If you are saying that it is OK to commit murder, regardless of the stage of development a person is in, then your argument might fly. Is that what you are saying?

"Put simply, it takes *work* to turn a fetus into an infant. Important work, highly personal work. Work that the government has no business mandating anyone perform. There’s even a word for the last crucial part of that journey: “labor.”"

And it takes work to parent that same child from birth to at least the age of 18. Using your incredibly perverse analogy, that not allowing a mother to murder her own child is "slavery" (wow), then forcing her to continue to parent that child against her will is likewise slavery.

Trying to make a moral argument that murder is OK based on the *whims* of the mother/parent is a losing one, but props for being "brave" enough to make the case anyway.

So, let's update your ridiculous argument, which you no doubt considered was a brilliant observation on your part:

"Put simply, it takes *work* to parent a [baby] into [a young adult]. Important work, highly personal work. Work that the government has no business mandating anyone perform. There’s even a word for the last crucial part of that journey: “labor.”"

Even Roe v. Wade allowed for partial-birth abortion bans, and infanticide has never been legal in our country. You’re swinging for the fences, piling strawman arguments on top of slippery-slope fallacies and it’s just a mess.

Women have the right to choose, up to a certain point in their pregnancy. After that, she can give the baby up for adoption, if that’s her choice.

Your preferred system, bans from the moment of conception, will result in a lot of human misery — mothers who can’t financially provide for their kids or who are emotionally wrecked for the rest of their lives because they were forced to give birth to a child they had to give up for adoption. And we’re not even talking the kid side of the equation yet. All forced-birthers should be forced to pay an extra tax to provide for the lives they’re forcing into existence. To put their money where their mouth is.

"You’re swinging for the fences, piling strawman arguments on top of slippery-slope fallacies and it’s just a mess."

That is just ad hominem based on your opinion, largely determined by the fact that you cannot defend your point of view. Ironically, in this quote of yours, you are using a slippery-slope fallacy:

"Your preferred system, bans from the moment of conception, will result in a lot of human misery — mothers who can’t financially provide for their kids or who are emotionally wrecked for the rest of their lives because they were forced to give birth to a child they had to give up for adoption. And we’re not even talking the kid side of the equation yet. All forced-birthers should be forced to pay an extra tax to provide for the lives they’re forcing into existence. To put their money where their mouth is."

So, what I hear you saying is that the baby *might* end up living a hard life, so we should kill it. Rather than deal with the issues that *might* cause this misery, you instead would choose murder. How do you know for certain that the child and its mother will be miserable? Of course, you don't.

Is it necessary to be rich in order to lead a happy life?
Is it necessary to attend the finest university in order to lead a happy life?
Is it necessary to wear fancy clothes in order to lead a happy life?

You would kill the sufferer rather than find ways to lessen the suffering. Your whole argument is a mess.

You keep using that word “murder,” but it’s not. Murder is taking a human life. It’s not an independent human yet if it can’t at least survive outside the womb, which would be the 3rd trimester. And it’s not a full person until it’s born.

"independent human yet if it can’t at least survive outside the womb"

So, at what age is it an independent human? I know of no 3 year old that can survive independently on its own.

btw- If it is not a human life, then what form of life is it?

We’re talking “can breathe” type survival, not “can draft, proofread and submit his/her own resume on Monster.com” type survival. A lot of folks never reach that point.

"We’re talking “can breathe” type survival, not “can draft, proofread and submit his/her own resume on Monster.com” type survival. A lot of folks never reach that point."

Still, going back to your absurd slavery comment, that 3-year-old requires a LOT of work, *labor*, if you will. Another word which would suffice would be "slavery".

You, of course, may choose to abort the conversation at any point, but I would like for you to respond to this:

"Under the law, it becomes a human being when it’s born. At that point, it gets its name, SSN, birth certificate, citizenship, and the full protections of the law. At that point, killing it is infanticide."

Quote me the law that says an unborn baby is not a human being.

True or False:

*It was once the law of the land that black people were subhuman and could be held as property.
*It was legal to capture runaway slaves, and illegal to help them.
*It was legal to round up Jews, and illegal to hide them.

"(Believe it or not, the Bible suggests that the soul enters the body upon first breath — which would be at birth. Another thing many modern Christians skip over.)"

The Bible suggests no such thing.

"But as I said earlier, Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban 3rd trimester abortions in recognition that such fetuses are close enough to being born that they could receive legal protections anyway. Roe v. Wade has been relentlessly demonized, but it was a careful and well-chosen compromise."

Obviously, a number of highly trained, professional Supreme Court Justices disagree with your assessment on this matter. I asked someone else to explain to me where the SC found justification for the murdering of the unborn. Do you know where they found it, since you consider it to have been a "careful and well-chosen compromise"?

This compromise you speak of, btw, is called murder.

You think personhood begins at conception, which means you think Plan B is murder. You think it’s murder despite the fact there’s literally no way of knowing if the womb even has a fetus. Your positions are Catholic Church-approved but scientifically unworkable. Case closed.

With all this “murder” talk around women’s wombs, I am very curious to see what happens to incarceration rates in red states. Will they skyrocket, or will prosecutors all just collectively agree to quietly not enforce pseudoreligious edicts that are patent nonsense?

"You think personhood begins at conception, which means you think Plan B is murder. You think it’s murder despite the fact there’s literally no way of knowing if the womb even has a fetus. Your positions are Catholic Church-approved but scientifically unworkable. Case closed."

I am force to conclude, by your reluctance to answer a number of my questions, that you realize that you have lost this debate.

The answer you have avoided concerning the murdered 25 years old is that it is morally wrong, though self-defense would be justification.

This is the second time you have made some vague reference to science not being able to support a claim. In what way can science make a moral judgment that the boyfriend was morally wrong to kill his ex-girlfriend?

It cannot.

But science can confirm that this fetus is a human life.

As for the Catholic "church", you could not have picked an organization more opposed to what I believe. Nice try.

Ah, so you’re not Catholic, you’re just regurgitating the Catholic taking points of the 70’s that were then repurposed for general evangelical usage in the 80’s.

No, you’re the one who keeps trying to shift the grounds of the debate by talking about the hypothetical killings of 25-year-olds and 3-year-olds. I have no problem with classifying those as murder — assuming no self-defense excuses, etc.

I have little patience for such hypos as they distract from the very real and unique problems of pregnancy that aren’t covered in your simplistic scenarios. My cake baking analogy above is way more on-point as a framework for thinking about this than anything you’ve brought up.

I’m not the one here trying to change the law. You may be rejoicing at Roe v. Wade’s demise but all sorts of chaos will be unleashed by denying women the right to choose. It’s not workable to ban abortion from the moment of conception. It just isn’t. Red states will find that out soon enough.

Best-case scenario, they formally ban abortion and simply look the other way as it continues.

Worst-case? Thousands of women and doctors will be thrown in jail, hundreds of mothers will die from preventable causes, many more will be shunted into lives they didn’t plan, thousands of kids will be born into desperate financial circumstances or given up for adoption, perhaps never to be adopted — *and* abortion will keep happening, because you will never stop it.

"Worst-case? Thousands of women and doctors will be thrown in jail, hundreds of mothers will die from preventable causes, many more will be shunted into lives they didn’t plan, thousands of kids will be born into desperate financial circumstances or given up for adoption, perhaps never to be adopted — *and* abortion will keep happening, because you will never stop it."

How many murders went unsolved last year?
How many are already in prisons, having been caught and prosecuted for murder?

That the consequences of committing murder are difficult, no one can deny, but the consequences are far worse to look the other way. The dire predictions you are making, even though you don't like to deal in hypotheticals, should they happen will be the result of looking the other way on murder for decades.

This does not mean that it shouldn't be done.

Criminals will continue to break the law, but when a society decides to stop promoting evil as being good, the attitudes of people will change.

Just as when many mothers who plan on getting an abortion are first shown an ultrasound of their baby, *choose* to carry the baby to term, giving abortion the stigma it deserves will prevent women from even considering it.

There will always be criminals. This does not mean there should not be laws.

You’ll have a whole lot more “unsolved murders” per year when you regard something like Plan B as murder. You’ll be diverting law enforcement resources toward harassing women who had miscarriages rather than actual criminals.

Red states will compete amongst themselves in a race to the bottom to see who can be “toughest” on “protecting life.” Women’s rights will bleed away as surely as they do under the Taliban. Because once the notion that women are equal is rejected, there’s no logical stopping point. Women will continue to be controlled “for their benefit” until they have nothing left.

The most amazing thing about all of your arguments? Not once have you acknowledged that all of this would be a nonissue, would people choose to not be ignorant fools running around like dogs in heat.

How ignorant you all must be that you cannot avoid getting/getting someone pregnant. At the tune of over a million dead babies every year.

Whatever you have to say, what you suggest we continue to do has been a complete and total failure.

But this is what you get when you reject God.

You want to force a million women per year to give birth against their wishes. Okay. Like I said, let’s see how this goes in red states and compare notes in a few years.

"You want to force a million women per year to give birth against their wishes."

No, I didn't. I want a million+ women a year to keep their damn legs together if they aren't smart enough to use basic birth control.

No, I didn't. I want the murder of a human being to be illegal in ALL instances.

Who ties your shoes for you?

There are those few instances where the mom cannot carry the child anymore and if they continue both the baby and the mom will die but that's like 0.001% of the time

And again I ask you: At what point does a fetus become a human being?

As I said, birth.

"As I said, birth."

This is your opinion. While you can live with it, the millions of babies being murder cannot.

What mystical properties do you believe a woman's va**na to possess that magically turns a fetus into a human being?

They’re not “babies.” It’s not “murder.” It’s aborting a fetus, which is more like an appendage of the mother’s womb.

Birth is indeed mystical. Cultures around the world have treated it that way. Regardless, it is an important process scientifically, you can’t just skip over it. Birth is when the fetus is physically detached from the mother. It’s as sensible a place as any to define the moment of personhood, which is exactly why our law does so.

Defining personhood at conception is unworkable. Namely because there is no way of knowing when that is.

"There are all sorts of situations in which right-wingers glory over the killing of others, so you’ll have to be more clear."

Ad hominem, and definitely "swinging for the fences".

You're done here. I wonder if you realize this yet . . .

"They’re not “babies.” It’s not “murder.” It’s aborting a fetus, which is more like an appendage of the mother’s womb."

Now that right thar is some real science, let me tell you! I have been debating a moron.

" It’s as sensible a place as any to define the moment of personhood, which is exactly why our law does so."

Obviously, you are making this up as you go, given that this is not the definition you gave only moments ago.

"Defining personhood at conception is unworkable. Namely because there is no way of knowing when that is."

Let me tell you a little story: A couple of redneck MAGA radicals were hunting for deer. They decided to separate to follow two likely trails the deer were using. Bubba-Jobob hears some rustling in the bushes ahead of him.

Should he shoot to kill, knowing that this might be his only chance to bag dinner, or should he wait until he is certain it isn't his friend, Billy-Joewecky?

The confusion is all yours, and this because you have rejected the God Who created you. As a result, YOU are the one who is all over the board here, because you cannot define when it is ok to kill someone, and even when someone is, someone.

Regardless of your religious feelings on the matter, you can’t define personhood at conception. Science won’t allow it. There is literally no way to do it, since it takes time for the hormones that trigger pregnancy tests.

Keep trying, it’s amusing, and the one silver lining of Roe v. Wade’s demise is that scientifically illiterate 69-year-old Republican legislators in red states will be tearing each other apart figuring this stuff out.

A person buys a gun, and uses it to shoot his 25-year-old ex-girlfriend.

Morally right, or morally wrong?

It depends, did he fear for his life?

"Facts matter, I won’t answer incomplete hypotheticals."

Your entire premise on why abortion is acceptable is based on nothing more.

"It depends, did he fear for his life?"

Given the nature of our discussion, how is that not 100% self-evident?

There are all sorts of situations in which right-wingers glory over the killing of others, so you’ll have to be more clear.

A lot of y’all failed to recognize this as murder. Indeed, celebrated it. It was murder. If you think this kind of policing is okay, you aren’t pro-life.

Facts matter, I won’t answer incomplete hypotheticals.

Point by point- what are your answers? You made a number of idiotic claims, likely claims you have never really investigated yourself, but have merely accepted from someone else as making sense. This would make for a great parrot, but I have a feeling that you are seriously lacking in the feathers department.

"Under the law, it becomes a human being when it’s born. At that point, it gets its name, SSN, birth certificate, citizenship, and the full protections of the law. At that point, killing it is infanticide."

Quote me the law that says an unborn baby is not a human being.

True or False:

*It was once the law of the land that black people were subhuman and could be held as property.
*It was legal to capture runaway slaves, and illegal to help them.
*It was legal to round up Jews, and illegal to hide them.

"(Believe it or not, the Bible suggests that the soul enters the body upon first breath — which would be at birth. Another thing many modern Christians skip over.)"

The Bible suggests no such thing.

"But as I said earlier, Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban 3rd trimester abortions in recognition that such fetuses are close enough to being born that they could receive legal protections anyway. Roe v. Wade has been relentlessly demonized, but it was a careful and well-chosen compromise."

Obviously, a number of highly trained, professional Supreme Court Justices disagree with your assessment on this matter. I asked someone else to explain to me where the SC found justification for the murdering of the unborn. Do you know where they found it, since you consider it to have been a "careful and well-chosen compromise"?

Re: the breath/soul nexus.

I have patience for Christians who don’t know science. I don’t have patience for Christians who don’t know the Bible. Y’all base your identity around a book you haven’t read? I don’t get it.

Good day, this has been a huge waste of my time, hope you learned something

Job 34

Whose spirit is God gathering?

God holds all things together by His will. If He were to remove it, the universe would collapse. That is all this passage is telling us. Man has his own spirit.

At what point does God give this breath and spirit? This is not explained, so indeed, it is time to look to the passages that show where God considers life to begin.

Psalm 139

As to my point about God's breath meaning more than what that copy/paste has to say (you do do an excellent copy/paste, btw), there is this. Scripture further explains Scripture. You err, because you do not know the Scriptures.

vv.7-8
Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

But now we get to the heart of the matter:
vv.13-16
For You formed my inward parts;
You knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are Your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the Earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
In Your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

"Of course you were going to try the Adam/first man is unique bit, but as I said, it’s elsewhere in the Bible."

First, you should avoid using the KJV, because it is essentially in a language you do not understand.
Second, neither passage is referring to the formation of a baby in the womb, nor its birth.

Should I waste my time proving you wrong, again? Say yes, and I will- the answer is immediately obvious to someone who has read those verses many times.

" here are more Bible verses making the obvious yet poetic nexus between breath and life."

And just in case you want to argue with my explanation, you ironically touched on it yourself. Scripture, like all written material, must be interpreted in context, and considering the manner and style in which it was written. Among those styles we find poetry, parables, historic narrative, law, etc.

Poetic comparisons are just that- comparisons, which are intended to communicate a deeper truth.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

Now, I understand that you do not agree that the Bible is the Word of God, or that God even exists, but you decided to go there.

Given that God has created mankind in His image, on what premise would you discard the earliest formation of a new human, who is created in His image?

That doesn’t establish that “life begins at conception.” You’re throwing spaghetti at the wall.

I can hardly wait until you decide to use the passages that deal with the incidental laws God have to Israel . . .

How was Adam "born" again?
Who was Adam's mother?
Was Adam carried the full nine months, or was he born prematurely?
Did Adam have a belly button?

Do you see the incredibly obvious difference between the creation, from scratch as it were, of the first human being, and that of all that follow?

Now, show me where this was repeated ANYWHERE else in all of Scripture.

Of course you were going to try the Adam/first man is unique bit, but as I said, it’s elsewhere in the Bible.

I'll proceed anyway, in case someone else is interested.

Psalm 33:6 (seriously?)
By the Word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and by the breath of His mouth all their host.
---

You don't have to be a Bible scholar to figure this one out. Whoever you did that copy/paste from is a fool, and you are a thoughtless fool for buying it without thinking.

" . . . the heavens were made . . . What or who is the "their" referring to? It is referring to the heavens. The immediate context of this passage is taking the reader through how God created and manages His physical creation. The "host" He is referring to here would be the stars, and by inference, the planets.

Are you saying that the stars are alive?

As to the Ezekiel passage, I know of no one, or any reason, to take that literally, especially when we look at verse 11, that was "conveniently" left out:

v.11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole House of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’

Whether or not this literally happened, or more likely happened in a vision, is inconsequential. This was another unique event intended to represent and communicate a greater truth.

Oops.

You picked the wrong Christian to have a debate over what the Bible says, or does not say.

Oops, here are more Bible verses making the obvious yet poetic nexus between breath and life.

If you have a verse stating life begins at conception, now would be the time for it

btw- This is your side of the aisle- pure, unadulterated crazy.

And before you think they do not represent you, I have watched as the debate between us progressed how your style went from reasonably worded and structured, to haphazard, slightly maniacal, and more filled with simple insults and ad hominem.

Even the way you conjecture what will happen next belies an underlying psychosis that aligns with what your side is doing in these video captures.

Nice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chyEm9lw-Gc

p.s. "I have patience for Christians who don’t know science. I don’t have patience for Christians who don’t know the Bible. Y’all base your identity around a book you haven’t read? I don’t get it."

You forgot a bunch of the other points this came from. You got this one way wrong, I cannot wait to see how you handle the rest.

As I said, that’s biologically false

I want to understand your point- are you saying it is less emotionally harmful for a mother to murder her child than to give it to someone to love via adoption?

Not everyone sees it your way. Many women would rather take a pill two weeks after missing a period and have a heavy flow, basically, rather than undergo 40 weeks of pregnancy followed by giving up the child for adoption.

Or, they could simply take Plan B the morning after. Because under your theory, even Plan B is murder. When the woman doesn’t even know if she’s pregnant yet and has no way of knowing. It’s nonsense.

No one is in a better position than the woman to decide.

"You’re the only one here who struggles to see the difference between a 2-minute old fusion of egg and sperm that no one knows exists and a 3-year-old."

I am not the one that is confused. And most abortions do not occur in the first number of weeks.

Kill the new life in the womb- dead person.
Kill the 3-year-old- dead person.

Many people take your perversion of morality further, and would disagree with not being able to murder a 3rd trimester baby. Your definitions are transitory, because they are based on anything but science.

"No one is in a better position than the woman to decide."

So, if this woman wants to drown her 3-year-old (toddlers are troublesome), why not let her? She is in a better position to decide than you are.

I’ve never suggested killing an infant, you’re the only one who keeps bringing that up.

You’re the only one here who struggles to see the difference between a 2-minute old fusion of egg and sperm that no one knows exists and a 3-year-old.

Hey what a coincidence. Both that "cake" and your personality are disgusting.

Nothing like some made-up pejorative