Or maybe you could have a organization that educates folk about what vaccines are, instead of having Naz- I mean our brave soldiers going house to house injecting folk with stuff.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:02:43

A fetus turns into a body at the point in time which it can sustain life on its own. Prior to that, it is a parasite, feeding off another body without which it could not survive. Thus it only becomes a body around ~24 weeks (and that is being generous).

As for vaccines usage, simply check the news to see reports of measles and other deadly diseases returning. Note that most laws/rules governing their use are related to the attendance of public schools. Vaccines are not legally mandated anywhere. Instead, they are only required to attend public school. If you want to bypass vaccines then you are free to teach the child at home or pay for a private school that will accept them.

Your level of hypocrisy is most impressive though. You are against abortion because it negatively impacts another body but in favor or not mandating vaccines despite the fact that failing to do so also negatively impacts another body. Can't really rectify the two...

A fetus turns into a body at the point in time which it can sustain life on its own. Prior to that, it is a parasite, feeding off another body without which it could not survive. Thus it only becomes a body around ~24 weeks (and that is being generous).

By this logic, humans are never truly "bodies" since we're all "Parasites" feeding off of this planet; After all, if you drop one of us into space, we turn into human jerky.

Your level of hypocrisy is most impressive though. You are against abortion because it negatively impacts another body but in favor or not mandating vaccines despite the fact that failing to do so also negatively impacts another body. Can't really rectify the two...

I'm not so much against abortion because it harms the child, which Obviously it does. I'm more against the fact that it's a severe encroachment on the childs liberty to be killed while still in the womb.

The planet isn't a body, given that a body needs to be a living entity. Nice try though. Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything about it being a body. You're the one who insists that a baby only turns into a human when it can "sustain life on its own".

I simply pointed out that nobody is able to sustain themselves, but are rather reliant on a very controlled environment that exists here on earth; Not unlike the environment that young children need inside the womb in order to live.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:16:41

Vaccines are widely used, only a tiny minority of people choose not to use them.

Even if it was as you say (I don't think it is), one bad apple ruins the rest here very easily.

Unless you can show me a point at which it turns into a body, the only logical assumption is that it has always been a body.

Tell these apart. https://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

All of these are brainless cell agglomerations, but you want to shield them - no sorry, only valuable English life, not the lower Indians' lifes, you want to shield them but not the 10,000 million painfully dying and literally butchered each year, since they're not English? Don't ever call yourself for-life, you're undeniable for-choice, since you want to give folk choice to eat corpses, but not to eat some germkiller?

Or maybe you could have a organization that educates folk about what vaccines are

I can teach you in one sentence: vaccines is a kind of medic technology that stops illnesses in the future.

There's frankly not more to learn than that, unless you want to become a healer or pharmacist.

I already said I wasn't interested in discussing this with you again. Did you think I was lying?

I feel as If we've already come to relative understanding on the issue, as You're totally fine with the idea that children in the womb are indeed children (this is what annoys me the most about pro-choice folks).

Edited 5/13/2016 21:35:35

Vaccines are why I haven't died yet; let's keep them please.

I feel as If we've already come to relative understanding on the issue

I don't feel that - I see that you're just some supremacist who eats butchered corpses, but has the nerve to argue against abortion. And this is just what you say in answer to that - "not interested in discussing", just as much as politicians in America will chat all about Guantánamo Bay, close it or not? but speak not a word of black sites, and essentially are for them since they're not against.

You're totally fine with the idea that children in the womb are indeed children (this is what annoys me the most about pro-choice folks).

Well, it's not an idea, it's a truth, as it is also truth that they are human. But are they characteristically children or human? Anyhow, all I said was that it was more of a legitimate argument if you're vegetarian, but it's very hypocritic or racist if you're not.

Well, it's not an idea, it's a truth

^^There you go, this is our understanding.

I don't think you really understand the amount of people who simply refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, and argue that abortion is not immoral because unborn children are "not really human". You and I may disagree about the value of human life, but this is primarily a theological debate. As far as I'm concerned we're cool.

Edited 5/13/2016 22:21:32

Yes X I know that, but teaching dumb Christians about it would help.

There you go, this is our understanding.

It's not an understanding, just a truth...it's like saying we have an understanding that that water is H2O. And anyone who denies this, from a scientific and technic aspect, is just anti-truth, not having a "misunderstanding"...

I don't think you really understand the amount of people who simply refuse to acknowledge this basic fact,

...However. It is almost impossible to say that these womb dwellers are characteristically a fellow or child, which is what makes the difference in my thought. And these folk you speak of are probably saying that they are not characteristically human, but they probably agree that it's technically human.

You and I may disagree about the value of human life, but this is primarily a theological debate.

No, it isn't? It's philosophic, but anyhow - my point still stands, if you are against abortion, then it's just very hypocritic and disrespectful to be for slaughter.

teaching dumb Christians about it would help.

Ok, sure, put that in the public school curricula - problem answered.

And these folk you speak of are probably saying that they are not characteristically human, but they probably agree that it's technically human.

This isn't even the case though; You can check out some earlier posts in the thread to see richard to see Ox denying that they are biologically human:

A fetus is not a body.

A fetus turns into a body at the point in time which it can sustain life on its own. Prior to that, it is a parasite

_________________________________________

it's like saying we have an understanding that that water is H2O

You can bet that there will be someone denying it if it fits their agenda.

Edited 5/14/2016 02:57:55

You can check out some earlier posts in the thread to see richard to see Ox denying that they are biologically human:

They're not saying that it's not biologically human. To those who are though, that's pretty dumb. Birthing crocodiles or something instead, then?

Unless for some reason they're claiming that they are humans, just humans without bodies, then yes; They definitely are denying it.

Unless for some reason they're claiming that they are humans, just humans without bodies, then yes

I think body is kind of the wrong word to wield here, but there are humans without (characteristically human) bodies. Would you call a group of 48 cells a body?

I think body is kind of the wrong word to wield here, but there are humans without (characteristically human) bodies. Would you call a group of 48 cells a body?

"body" is the word that they used, and it is what they are denying a child in the womb is.

It doesn't really matter what sort of characteristics they have, It is just a body that is not fully developed yet. After all, a group of forty eight cells is indeed less than a group of around 37.2 trillion, but it's technically just the same thing; A group of cells.

Edited 5/14/2016 03:22:21

In which case going by your logic imperator, you can't afford to kill anything due to opposing abortion, but unicellular organisms(good luck survivng on Giant alagae), as all other organisms are made of groups of cells.

a group of forty eight cells is indeed less than a group of around 37.2 trillion, but it's technically just the same thing; A group of cells.

They're both a cell group, but are they both bodies? Wiktionary: "The physical structure of a human or animal seen as one single organism.". I guess. Whatever, I'll stop trying to shield them, I might be misrepresenting them.

In which case going by your logic imperator, you can't afford to kill anything due to opposing abortion, but unicellular organisms(good luck survivng on Giant alagae), as all other organisms are made of groups of cells.

I don't oppose any killing besides that of Humans. It's really that simple, as Juq put it i'm a "Nasty human supremacist".

I literally don't have to oppose killing plants, or animals, or anything else. I simply believe that humans are special, which is not an unreasonable belief by the way.

They're both a cell group, but are they both bodies? Wiktionary: "The physical structure of a human or animal seen as one single organism.". I guess. Whatever, I'll stop trying to shield them, I might be misrepresenting them.

Like I said, i'm just not really interested in debating the issue again with you. We already both know where the other stands, and honestly I'm pretty okay with you being pro-abortion as long as you acknowledge that it is human life that is being killed.

Edited 5/14/2016 03:34:58