how thick can you be? just because YOU define it like that, which again, you're free to do, does NOT mean societies (and their legal systems) have to agree with you. it doesn't NOT mean their weighing of interests and priorities, as well as limits of government intervention into citizens' private lives, have to come to the same dumb conclusion as you, don't be so arrogant.
we get it, you personally value the rights of zygotes more than the rights of women - and that's completely fine. everyone should be allowed to make themselves look like a narrow-minded, woman hating zealot. to each their own really.
the only thing i'd ask of you is to deal with it like a real american: bitch and moan about it, but don't try to impose sharia law on your fellow citizens...

It is not true.

I think zygotes' right to life trumps women's bodily autonomy. And it's not because I value zygotes more than I do women, but rather it's because right to life is more important than bodily autonomy.

If you kill somebody in response to them trying to kill you, that is not murder.

If you kill somebody who is brain dead and has zero chance of ever recovering, that is not murder.


It's not just a semantic difference that we are having. Murder carries a moral connotation that has to be included in the definition for it to be meaningful. Instead of "the intentional ending of a human life", a more useful definition is "the unjustified killing of a person". This takes care of both of the scenarios I outlined above.



Only people have rights. Are you saying a zygote is a person?

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 5 2022 10:25am

Maybe to you it isnt, but to a lot of people it is. I am sure you have heard of cases where people debate about whether to pull the plug on a comatose patient. The very fact such a debate exists proves that some people have huge moral qualms about killing brain-dead people.



That definition is more "useful" to you because it excludes the unborn from protection, which is what you want. I think my definition is better. You are free to disagree, just like how I disagree with yours.



That only people can have rights is something that can be changed. In other words, assuming we have the political will, zygotes can have rights too despite not being persons.

We can define murder however we want.

I define murder as "JessiWan posting on this forum".

I am now morally obligated to stop you from posting.



Your entire line of argument is just moral relativism. "People think its bad, and they think they have an obligation to stop it, therefore it's bad and they do".

Why are democrats such baby killers ?

You think by taking my argument to an absurd degree it will make it invalid. Sadly for you, no.

We can define it in a way that is reasonable and relevant. Something like, "murder is the intentional killing of a human life". Do you truly think people are so unreasonable as to define murder as me posting on a forum?


We don't merely think it's bad. We think it's murder, which we have proven using logic.

Do you have any problem with people wanting to stop murder?

This post was edited by JessiWan on May 5 2022 10:37am

Who determines what is reasonabler and relavent? I think your definition is not reasonable nor relavent.

In the end it doesn't matter if you think its murder. It matters if you can support why its bad. You're doing this weird thing where you say murder is bad, and this is murder, therefore this is bad. But it doesn't matter whether or not we call it murder. It matters if it's actually bad.

Go get him jessi, logic always trumps alcohol brain.

I think abortion is bad, because it amounts to murder.

Is there any reason why you think abortion is not murder? I get it, you think only persons can be murdered, a belief that is not backed by either the Constitution or any other authoritative document. I hope you realize this.