Note before leaving...

A human being is the offspring of human beings.
Let's see what you'll try to make of that.

The only argument against abortion is that it is murder. It is killing a human.

To me this is not a human therefore not murder. Not only that but it is dependant on living inside a host. If the host is someone's body it should obviously be their personal morality and freewill over their own body that trumps everything else.



In this case my or your opinion is meaningless. Only the host's opinion matters. That is why no one group of people can ever decide over another on this topic. And that is why roe vs. wade has been challenged so many times and been upheld every time (thank godness).

Was it a human egg and a human sperm that created you or what?

What are you getting at?

I will bet that what alias is getting at is that both logic and science tell us that the the offspring created by two humans is human.

It is not canine; it is not equine.
It is certainly human -

Yet you say that to you "this is not a human".
In other words,
your need to trivialize the killing of a developing unborn child is so urgent, that you are prepared to ignore both logic and science in order to reassure yourself that "it's not a human".

You keep resurrecting your straw man "murder" argument, although I have repeatedly told you I do not call abortion murder.
But,
I notice you haven't been able to deny what I DID say: that abortion is killing.

First of all, a mother is not a "host" to her unborn child. Hosts have parasites. Parasites are ALWAYS members of a different species than their hosts.

Host is just one more word used in efforts to portray the prenate as something other than a human being in its earliest stages of life.
The same stages of life you went through and everyone else did.
IF
it is a matter of a person's freewill and 'personal morality' whether another human being gets to live or die, then what stops you from setting your sites next on inconvenient people like for instance persons that need caretaking for example?
You know,
one of the more eloquent advocates of elective abortion - Peter Singer - advocates for a right of parents to kill their child up to the first three months (I might be fuzzy on the time period - might be two months, or eight months, or something like that...but anyway it illustrates the point).

Once again, 'host' is terminology proper only to a parasitic relationship. I think the pro abortion opinion-makers have done a disservice to their following by choosing such a technically incorrect term. It demonstrates an inclination to mislead: hosts are never of the same species as their parasites.

Well, that isn't quite the case. People in this country have not been allowed to determine this issue; it was taken out of their hands by the most historically sloppy SCOTUS decision ever written.

Can you tell me about these 'many' times Roe has been challenged? Because I am only familiar with one or two of them. Casey v. Pennsylvania, for instance, did uphold Roe but altered the criteria somewhat.
In short,
there have been major restrictions on Roe by the states since 1973, and it is only a matter of time imo until Roe is overturned.

Correct. If you can reduce human beings to parasites and bugs, then you can justify murder of an innocent human being. No matter what you call a human being in each stage of development, it is still murder to deliberately end the person's life.

I wouldn't be against the killing of an adult human if they required a host to survive within. I wouldn't consider it murder if it had to reside inside another born human to survive. That is an internal choice of the host and people have every right to do whatever they want with their bodies.


Sure it is killing, but I don't find it immoral and I don't find it to be murder. Do you consider food animals to be murdered?


This came up during John Roberts supreme court confirmation.



Specter deployed a huge chart – but with print a bit too small for TV purposes – which lists cases in which the court upheld Roe.

So "upheld" as opposed to "challenged". Sorry.

Next you guys are going to tell me that this is a frog, not a tadpole:

It's a tadpole and a frog. It's a baby frog. Is a human teenager any less human than a human fetus? If a human fetus is less human than a human teenager, please provide some scientific evidence. Thanks.

The human fetus can't survive without a host, the human teenager can.