Yeah, I already said why: because it violated their terms of service. More specifically, 'racist stereotypes'-which is a joke because all the data in that meme can be verified. It's factual. Sure, the urinating part is a metaphor, but what Democrats are doing to the Black race is far worse than urinating on them. They're facilitating genocide against the Black race.
1. On Consciousness & Value: You’re just restating your priors, not answering my refutation. The fact that an unborn human doesn't yet have active memories or a formed personality in no way diminishes their intrinsic worth-unless you hold a deficient worldview that reduces human value strictly to current functional output. You're begging the question by assuming personality defines value to prove a fetus has no value.
2. On Language: Nobody mentioned "linguistic history"-I’m talking about words as they function today. Defining "fetus" as a stage of human development (like "adolescent" or "senior") is standard modern biology. If you want to throw out how language currently categorizes reality, that’s your problem to solve, not mine.
3. On Cancer vs. A Fetus: Comparing a human child to skin cancer is a massive false equivalence. A cancer cell is a part of a body that destroys life. A fetus is a whole, distinct human organism growing as it's designed to.
4. On Scripture & Truth: Pointing out that "diverse interpretations" exist isn't an argument. There are infinite wrong answers to 2 + 2, but only one correct answer.
Genesis 2:7 is the special creation of Adam from dust, not biological reproduction.
Exodus 21:22–25 in the original Hebrew text actually applies "life for life" if the child dies prematurely.
Your position relies on circular reasoning, false equivalences, and moving goalposts. Logic requires objective truth, and without a God of "oughts" as a foundation, your framework just reduces human rights to arbitrary preference.
Claiming that sleep is merely an 'altered state of consciousness' changes absolutely nothing about the reality of the scenario. As far as this discussion is concerned regarding self-awareness and self-defense against a lethal threat, consciousness is functionally absent-you cannot sense an attacker coming, nor can you defend yourself.
In terms of vulnerability and active self-awareness against an incoming attack, a sleeping person and an unborn baby are in the exact same position. Hiding behind the claim of an 'altered state' doesn't change the fact that your logic still justifies killing someone in their sleep simply because they aren't actively aware enough to stop you.
Furthermore, your argument fails on every other front:
1. The 'Fetus' Semantic Fallacy: 'Fetus' is Latin for 'offspring' or 'young one.' It describes a stage of development (like 'adolescent' or 'senior'), not a species. It tells us how old a human is, not what a human is.
2. Scientific Reality: Conception creates a distinct, living human organism with unique DNA. Growth is continuous; passing through the birth canal is just a change of location, not a change of species or moral worth.
3. Biblical Truth: Human value isn't earned by cognitive performance. God created humans in His image (Genisis 1:27), and He knows and owns the unborn child from conception (Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5). Scripture uses the exact same word (brephos) for a baby in the womb as a baby in the manger (Luke 1:41, 2:12).
Calling the sleep analogy 'trash' isn't a counter-argument. You can dismiss it all day, but until you can construct a sound logical syllogism showing how a sleeping person has enough consciousness to sense an incoming attack and defend themselves, your objection remains completely empty.
