Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

But what the aborter wants is precisely to cut off a person from existing...nothing less. And every aborter knows exactly that fact.

They not only know it, it is the very reason for doing it. What do you think is wrong with preventing a person from existing?

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

[Harbal]

But what the aborter wants is precisely to cut off a person from existing...nothing less. And every aborter knows exactly that fact.

They not only know it, it is the very reason for doing it. What do you think is wrong with preventing a person from existing?

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

[Immanuel Can]

They not only know it, it is the very reason for doing it. What do you think is wrong with preventing a person from existing?

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

[Gary Childress]

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is it OK to abort a zygote or blastocyst if a person doesn't want to carry through with their pregnancy?

[Gary Childress]

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is a fetus a person or is it an "inevitable" person?

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is it OK to abort a zygote or blastocyst if a person doesn't want to carry through with their pregnancy?

You're missing the point: it's a person that the aborter is trying to kill. She doesn't even care about a zygote. That tells you she knows exactly what she's really doing.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is a fetus a person or is it an "inevitable" person?

No difference. It's only a matter of time, not a change of identity.

[Gary Childress]

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is a fetus a person or is it an "inevitable" person?

No difference. It's only a matter of time, not a change of identity.

So do a zygote and blastocyst count as persons also?

[Alexiev]

You mean, "...you are a biologist."

But the pregnant woman already knows it's a baby she's trying to prevent...not merely a couple of cells. If it would stay a couple of cells, she wouldn't even care. That's pretty obvious.

What a crock! The pregnant woman knows it is a fetus, not a "baby" That's why she is contemplating an abortion, not infanticide.

She knows it will be a person, in every sense that word can have. And at all costs, she's ready to make sure that person never gets the "choices" or privileges or chance at a life that she's had. She does not fear two cells: she fears the existence of the person.

And you know it, too.

Since you think lying is always evil (because Satan is the father of lies) perhaps, for the sake of your own soul, you should stop lying. There are different words for humans in different stages of development. Calling a fetus a "baby" is clearly an intentional lie. Why niot call it an "adult", or an "old codger"? Those tetms would be equally incorrect, but perhaps wouldn't serve your propaganda purposes.

Have fun contorting with Satan, though. He'll be glad to see you.

[Gary Childress]

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?" Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Is it OK to abort a zygote or blastocyst if a person doesn't want to carry through with their pregnancy?

You're missing the point: it's a person that the aborter is trying to kill. She doesn't even care about a zygote. That tells you she knows exactly what she's really doing.

I might be missing the point. Are you suggesting that an abortion amounts to some kind of premeditated murder of a future to be person on the part of a pregnant woman?

[henry quirk]

I have a question...

At what point during pregnancy does the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb become a person?

[Harbal]

"Prevent"? No, "cut off." Kill. Murder. Exterminate. Mutilate. Dismember. That's the truth.

Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?

The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?"

That might be somebody's question, but it wasn't mine. My question was, "what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?" And please note that the term "cutting off" was yours. When I said "foetus", I meant foetus, which is the proper term. It is highly unlikely that a foetus in the early stages of development is able to experience pain, or distress of any kind, so that is not a plausible argument against termination. If your argument is that it is wrong to terminate, or "cut off", the potential to develop into a fully formed human being and live a life as such, I am asking why it is wrong?

Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off.

Yes, that is correct, but, again, I ask what is it about that situation that is wrong?

[Harbal]

I have a question...

At what point during pregnancy does the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb become a person?

That is entirely dependant upon who is answering the question. The stage of development at which personhood is attained is arbitrary. You might say personhood begins at conception, and someone else might say it starts at birth; it is basically a matter of opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Is a fetus a person or is it an "inevitable" person?

No difference. It's only a matter of time, not a change of identity.

So do a zygote and blastocyst count as persons also?

An unfertilized egg has no potential of becoming a person. It lacks the catalyst. It will never become a person, left to itself. It takes a deliberate choice to turn an egg into a child.

[Immanuel Can]

I have a question...

At what point during pregnancy does the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb become a person?

That is entirely dependant upon who is answering the question.

You can be certain that's not true. Whatever the answer may be, it's not "whatever you think it is." Logically, there has to be a point at which a person is constituted, even if it were to be the case that nobody knows exactly when it is.