I posted a technical definition with no adjustments based on a google search cut and paste.
TX Kevin

You jumped right from definitions to “killing is wrong” again, and then tried to put a completely unreasonable limit on it. While a child can be both a baby and a child, I do not believe that fetus and child are truly compatible in this sense. And while the definition you site includes the term baby, it is using it as a qualifier — an “unborn baby” as in “not yet a baby” — a “to be baby” or maybe even “baby coming soon, watch this space” if it’s a wanted pregnancy. You’re using “a = subset(b)” and “b = (x-c)” to mean “a=c”. Your logic sucks on a very basic level.

You’ve also flipped the definition in there somewhere. Or are you perfectly okay with the killing of fetuses as long as you can’t tell they’re human yet? Can I pull out sonograms and make you find the human? Warning: I’ll probably cheat. (Are we still human with tails? How about conjoined twins? What about non-standard genetics? I’d say yes, but would you recognize us as human in utero?) I’ll also point out that my argument is that while medical science fails on the whole “remove and allow life to continue” argument, you’ve got nothing on your side but a vendetta against failure to birthcontrol.

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? Can we agree that not all humans have the same religious or moral definitions of wrong, and that some definitions are diametrically opposed?

We absolutely cannot agree that killing is wrong, of human fetuses or otherwise. If it’s not your body, it’s not in any way your business. If you want to give up killing, I’ll just remind you that you do you, but starvation is a very painful way to die.

Like what you read? Give Kel a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.