Prestor John
Well-Known Member
That is debatable.She can have a conscience and still abort.
Vague criticisms again.That she disagrees with your biased, and rather uninformed opinion, does not make her without a conscience.
Biology, logic and morality are not on your side here.
If the law disagrees with both logic and science, then the law is in the wrong.She is not killing a baby. That is illegal.
Also, are you assuming that everything "legal" is beyond reproach? Something being "legal" cannot be unconscionable?
How gracious and dishonest of you.But yes, you are right that if she does have the child she can put it up for adoption. Congratulations! You finally got one minor point right.
By biologists right? Or some other field of science that can make that determination?No, no "whoa" needed. A fetus is not a child. That is clearly defined.
According to the same governing body that put people in chains after labeling them "less than human"?You may choose to call one that but you would be in error.
Are you going to defend that too?
It's only loaded to you and others who are trying to justify their political agenda and the killing of unborn babies.As in your use of loaded questions by misusing the word "baby" you use loaded terminology.
Reasonable people, who look to logic and science to determine physical reality, see nothing wrong with the question.
So, are you saying that you can prove that a unborn baby is not human?And once again you end your argument with an equivocation fallacy.
According to your agenda, not fact.The word "human" has more than one definition and you are trying to use one definition of the word to support your argument for another usage of the term.
No, you don't understand that the law cannot make that determination.You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human".