its still a human life.




youre still confusing not doing with action. theyre not the same.

It's not "a human life" until it has a consciousness and is a person. Until then it's just "human life", same as your organs or a tumor. When a hyatidiform mole is identified they don't say "well, it doesn't have a brain but it's still human life!". They get rid of it and nobody says a thing, and they do that because it doesn't have a brain.

Inaction is action. We are all somewhat culpable for bad things happening when we can reasonably prevent them. However, that doesn't mean we're equally responsible. A billionaire that can lift entire countries out of poverty is much more responsible than somebody who's still paying off their student loans, or is scraping by and can barely save. When you choose not to do something that is an action, because you are doing something else, morally.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 31 2021 01:01am

This is the type of hamster-wheel excuses spinning inside the brain that I'd expect from a woman with a broken childhood.

Not an argument

"Inaction is action"

It sounds like a dumb bitch trying to explain why the baby is black.

again youre comparing a viable human life to nonviable cells. theres a huge difference there. if you cant see that, then...


the key there is "when we can reasonably prevent them". most people are not in the position to supply insulin to everyone. you could argue that billionaires ARE, but 1: most of us arent billionaires so its a moot point and 2: even in their case, it could be argued that if giving away all or most of their money to provide insulin for everyone would have a negative effect on them, then theyre not obligated to do it. for example, if you see someone being attacked in the street, it is morally (and sometimes legally) reprehensible not to help them. but if youre afraid to intervene because youre afraid for your own safety, then thats different, theres no obligation.

Which is just the potential life argument, which is a very bad argument.

in your opinion since you dont value life. imo, its not potential life, it IS life. its not the same as your life, but its still life. just as someone in a coma or even brain-dead but on life support doesnt have the same life as your life, but its still life and immoral to end it. its not a cyst, its not acne, its not a pizza, its a HUMAN LIFE. to even try to compare it to those other things is absurd and shows a lack of empathy and value of human life.

stop saying that, it's silly. it's like a flat-earther saying "you don't value evidence". not agreeing on the same definition of human life is entirely different from not valuing it. you're just being emotional because you deluded yourself into thinking your morals and beliefs are superior. newsflash: they aren't.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 31 2021 10:42am

no potential life get into moral sexuality issues and other strange conversations.
If you maturate onto your sock, you are destroying potential life?
Should it be policed as the Catholic church wanted it to be.