But the babies regret being killed and not being able to have a normal chance at life.
It's not a lie- I've read several credible accounts like this over the years- I'm in the process of trying to track down further details on this.
How can a creature that doesn't know how to make 2+2 regret anything?
What I clearly meant is that this baby would have rather kept living, if they had the choice, compared to being killed. People who are pro choice are in favor of giving the mother the choice to either kill her baby or not; but then this takes away the choice for the baby to be able to continue to live.
There are many people that don't like living and would rather be aborted.
Some, it is about 1% of people worldwide who end up dying by suicide- that is 99% who don't. I do thiink it is better to give the baby a chance. The 1% typically have very bad luck in one way or another, often in more than one way. In my case it is difficult to imagine parents who were more cruel in their mental and emotional abuse. Physical abuse wouold have been better, at least someone could see the marks of the abuse.
No. No they do not. First of all, a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, etc. is NOT A BABY.
Anyone who has given any such account is BY DEFINITION not credible because this is physiologically not possible.
There are many women who have had "partial birth abortions", so it is likely that these cases happen in a case like this- where the babies head can come out before their life is ended. These are not lies at all, I have seen these stories in credible magazines, newspapers, etc over the years. Hopefully I can find some of these stories still.
It is simply untrue that "MANY" women have had "partial birth abortions." It was very rarely done, even before it was banned.
Following is a quote from "thelifeinstitute website", a pro-life website: "The foetal pain question is not central to the abortion debate. Whether the unborn child suffers pain during an abortion or not is secondary to the much bigger reality; the child is being killed. Quietly shooting someone in their sleep makes you no less guilty of murder than if you had stabbed them to death. Providing an unborn child with anesthesia so you can kill them "humanely" makes abortion no less heinous."
Also, in the rare instances that these were done, the fetus was delivered feet first. The babies head did not come out before their life was ended.
I'm not making stuff up- certain pro-life advocates have sai dthat this was their experience and motivated them to change their mind. BUt even if this is not true, the video link above has a lot of evidence that fetuses feel pain.
Doesn't matter . If 99 people want to go to the Disneyland and one person does not , that does not mean that 99 people can force him to go.
And the fact that they lied in service of their cause doesn't make you reconsider the truth of the rest of their claims? That seems quite odd to me. Also, I see you are now moving the goalposts, which is a popular technique for people who wield the fire hose of bullshit. Now I am putting YOU on ignore.
I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm providing evidence of the larger picture issue from another perspective. It is weak that you resort to swearing as a way to make your point rather than reasoned argument. When you try to use swearing and bullying to make your point that makes you look much weaker and it makes your case look much weaker than reasoned argument.
I imagine that anyone who is not you will see that I countered bullshit with factual information, which I do believe happens to fall within the definition of a "reasoned argument."
Do you know anything about biology? What about a zygote leaves even a shadow of doubt that it has consciousness? All I'm asking for is a shadow of a doubt, can you give that?
According to Mount Sinai hospital in new york:
That's not even the most important point, though- the following poi9nt is more important:
Central to the abortion to debate is not whether the fetus is killed, we know this. The debate is whether it is murder, since the fetus fundamentally lacks consciousness and therefore is not a person yet. I debate pro-abortionists who think the fetus isn't alive, and I debate anti-abortionists like you who think a fetus has consciousness.
Of course we do not know this for sure- all living things may on some level be aware that they are alive- there is no way you can be certain that a zygote is not experiencing something that feels like living.
I am sure that at some point long before birth a fetus has consciousness, but at what point I don't know for certain. Following is a link to a video showing a fetus doing jumping jacks in the womb, which must require consciousness (this is at a time of 5:20 in the video):
A computer is more likely conscious than a zygote. Is it wrong to use computers? At what point can we pronounce adults unconscious?
Abortion isn't anything like quietly shooting someone in their sleep. The difference is that a person can wake up. A zygote is not a person, because it can't wake up, because it fundamentally lacks consciousness. You have yet to offer any shadow of a doubt that a zygote is conscious, all you have done is appeal to your own ignorance.
A zygote may have some awareness that it is alive, but how would we know for sure one way or the other? There are definitely living things that respond to stimuli in their environment that do not have a central nervous system, so you can't go by that. There is no way to prove it either way. But it is true that a zygote is alive and growing rapidly- and that it will grow into a person if it is not killed.
You are so wrong- you're naughty and I don't like you.
We don't have to like each other, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. So far you still haven't answered:
Also this is you once again admitting that a fetus is not yet a person. So abortion is killing a life, but not murdering a person, hence it cannot be illegal. I know you're saying don't nitpick imprecise language, but like, do you really think it's an accident each time you say it? A fetus is not a stage of personhood, it's the development leading up to it. Same way childhood is not a stage of adulthood, it's the development leading up to it.
It's not absurd- a single celled organism may have some awareness of being alive. Response to stimuli is the only indication that a zygote could ever give that it does have consciousness- whether it does or not is uncertain. It's best to not give or ask for a definitive answer about something that we can't possibly known for certain. It's better to admit that some things are unknowable.
Do you think consciousness is supernatural or biological? Consciousness doesn't need to be tested by "indication," there first needs to be a biological possibility for it. Why can't you seem to answer my question of how we can reliably pronounce a person dead?
It doesn't seem relevant to me and I have no knowledge of this subject at all. I could make something up- we should pronounce a person dead when they stand up and shout at the top of their lungs- "I'm dead!" - that's how we will know.
Here's why it's crucially important: on what basis can you say a body is ever dead if you believe a zygote has capacity for consciousness? If you can't ever say a body is dead, how can we call anyone a murderer?
You can't know this- no one can. Lots of people say their version of religion is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't mean they are correct, espeecially since they contradict each other. Zygotes might have consciousness, and saying it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt means nothing.
Even if a body is dead a hundred years it could still come back to life, just fyi.
