So you disagree that killing a child (by definition) is wrong?
I see “unborn baby’ as a well just that ….a baby that is not yet born. Not sure how you get “not a baby”. If I say “Elderly man” would you also say he is not a man? Its simple the particular identifier of the particular time in the life of the man ..and the baby.
I did not put an ‘unreasonable limit” on the appropriate time to kill. The definition did. You wanted definitions and I hope you acknowledge that it is not me that is using a manufactured definition in this conversation. Per your request, I used the definition that indicates the particular transition from an “fetus” to what is clearly a child..per the definition. It was simple a basis to find agreement using the definition you created rather than my own manufactured terms.
I don’t think I can argue logic with you since we cant agree from the definitions as you requested that fetus (a) is distinctly a subset of Child (b). Its a pretty simple concept and if we cant get there……I am not rally sure how much more basic it can be presented.
Finally! We get to the real meat of the question. Your questions are all logical and reasonable questions. When are we humans or “a child”. It obviously is not at birth. It obviously is not before conception. Somewhere in between is the answer. I do not know the answer. Neither do you nor does a doctor. So we are left with knowing that at some point we are killing a child ….. a sort of “russian roulette” with a childs life. Is it 8 weeks or 7 weeks 6 days and 11 hours..and so on? The entire point is, saying a fetus is not a child at least at some point is simply ignorant and a self serving way to excuse behavior that if true would be pretty horrible. If we can agree that we are OK with killing a child, we can have a logical and reasonable discussion as to when and the value of the purpose served relative to other factors. It is not about a desire to control a woman’s body. Men are not interested in any part of the woman’s body other than the child within it. (for this discussion of course)
“Can we agree that forcing other human beings to do things that are detrimental to their physical and mental well-being based on questionable science and someone else’s religion is wrong?” ABSOLUTELY! We have agreement. However with abortion the “c” variable is ..another being ..a child. Society generally desires to afford protections to the helpless among us. Would you support a man freely choosing to handcuff himself to another man and then demand that the other mans arm be cut off to free himself…since its quite inconvenient and detrimental to normal life? Is society afforded the right to protect the man threatened with losing a limb due to the decisions of another person?
Again back to definitions. What views are diametrically opposed to avoiding the killing of children? We end up back where we should be to discuss this….”I want to be able to kill children because…….” Maybe there is a good reason. We can at least start the conversation honestly.
So your final view is that killing kids is ok. Can we agree to at least allow abortion to age 23 years old? Also I am a little confused by the starving thing…do you eat children?