Quote (ofthevoid @ Jul 29 2020 01:43pm)

Conception in the natural biological environment =/= artificial conception that needs current scientific advancements to keep it alive.

Interfering with the first to end the conception is wrong. Having the latter fail because the environment is not as friendly as an uterus is a natural consequence.

Logical comparisons hinge on equivalences which the two are not making your 'logic' bunk.

It's like comparing putting the pillow over someones head when they are in the hospital unconscious and will most likely survive a car accident and letting a person die naturally because they're a vegetable but have a tiny chance of recovering due to scientific discovery.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 29 2020 01:35pm)

yeah, what? I have no idea what you mean.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 29 2020 01:51pm)

honestly im just bored of the topic. u seem to be in "its logical, but no on actually thinks like that or applies it logically" territory, which i agree with.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 29 2020 02:58pm)

Yeah, and that reveals their thought process isn't about the sanctity of life and life beginning at conception.

Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 29 2020 03:31pm)

Why do you think pro-lifers aren't against in-vitro? That is the default Catholic position.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 29 2020 01:32pm)

wrong, the default is missionary with the lights off.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 29 2020 03:32pm)

wrong, the default is missionary with the lights off.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 29 2020 03:32pm)

wrong, the default is missionary with the lights off.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 29 2020 02:47pm)

I specifically said I'm talking about people who believe life begins at conception. Your criticism assumes I want my argument to apply to people who believe life begins at viability. I don't. I'm specifically talking about the "life begins at conception" people.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Jul 29 2020 04:00pm)

The lifespan of the average fetus is 70 something odd years. You are murdering 70 years of a person's life.