Many things are living, Sappho. Plants are living. Tumors are not caused by copulation, would you agree? TWO LIVING PEOPLE procreate and it's a embryo/fetus/baby. Not a tumor, not a parasite...a living BABY.

A couple, married for 5 years decide to start a family. They perform the necessary act to bring this to pass. They are successful.

What are they expecting?
1. a fetus?
2. an embryo?
3. a parasite?
4. a baby?

Most people in that category will allow the pregnancy to advance until a baby is born.

This, then, is the difference. This couple recognize completely that they are expecting a baby.

However, those who don't want a baby insist that it isn't a baby. Why is that? Because as long as it isn't a baby (in their mind), they have done nothing wrong if they decide to kill it. This is called "searing the conscience" (telling it to shut up--they don't want to hear the truth, just like you don't want to hear it).

In both instances, the couples perform the act that eventually ends the same way IF the pregnancy is allowed to proceed. A baby is born.

This is why it is a baby in one case and not the other.

Part of the problem is the difference between your two approaches.
You talk about "facts". Approaching the issue with a perspective of logic. Evaluating the situation.

Jefferson approaches the situation from emotion. Notice how he asks about your "conscience". Frequently referring to "baby killer" and "murder".

You're not speaking the same "language"...

You really are stupid, aren't you?

FACT: The unborn baby is a HUMAN BEING.
FACT: Abortionists are murdering a HUMAN BEING.


Any way all you sick bastards with seared consciences try to spin it, the FACTS REMAIN: ABORTION IS MURDER.


So... spin your myths all you want. Jump through all the hoops you want. Come up with all the idiotic, circular explanations you can dream up. It doesn't change a thing. ABORTION IS MURDER.

What's wrong with adoption? Now that is pro-choice.

You are still not offering anything that composes a valid arguement.

I openly acknowledge that my opinion is just that. I do not try to make it into fact.

As you have no idea about my sensitivities or conscience, I will dismiss the rest of what you said. I tend to be very tender-hearted, but when I want to hear REASON, emotional reactions will not do.

Adoption?
ADOPTION?

Heck no! You just gotta murder those babies! They're not wanted! They're a "drain"! They're not humans!


Why would ANYBODY consider ANYTHING as stupid as ADOPTION?!?!?!?!

Never killed a baby in my life.

The article was not about cloning.

You want another article, I will give you one, but I expect that you are willing to back up your claim that the article is fraudulent?

You're wrong - yet again.

I'm simply telling you the same FACT repeatedly - and, quite frankly, your closed mind is rather a waste of time.

I want you to look at the pictures of the aborted babies - then tell me, with a straight face, that abortion is ANYTHING less then murder.

Instead, you're simply coming up with all manner of circular arguments to salve your seared conscience.


And quite frankly, I don't believe for a MINUTE that a "tender-hearted" person could simply advocate murder. It's philosophically impossible. It's like claiming that a rapist simply loves women so much he can't keep from having sex with them. Stupid and incongruous.

An embryo is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree.

My claim is that the article is completely and totally irrelevant.

You can clone a million mice. Shoot, you can even claim your turds are human.

Doesn't change a thing.


Abortion is murder. It kills unborn babies. Period. To say anything else is a bald-faced lie.