Pro-choice liberals will deny #2

>Anyone doubting whether or not life begins at conception need not worry any further - it does.
No.
Life began once, ~4 billion years ago. Everything after that is a continuation of that chain.

>In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species
>non-mutual
Considering that humans wouldn't exist without babies, and babies are created by humans, I'd say there's mutual benefit.
>implying that skepticism of the logical consistency of arguments made by a subset of pro-abortion individuals is equivalent to moral opposition to abortion
>Claiming that killing conscious entities is necessarily wrong while simultaneously excluding humans from said category
>implying that killing a sleeping entity is always morally acceptable
>implying that a fetus in the womb is not a conscious entity simply because you cannot query its state of consciousness
>implying you cannot query its state of consciousness
>confusing its with it's

>pro-choice liberals
>Oops, I meant my ass
gtfo /pol/itard

To anyone who has given some thought to issue of what gives human life value, I recommend that you take this quiz and think about the results (and share them, if you like): philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

boards.Veeky Forums.org/pol/

Liberals deny theory

I'm a pro-choice liberal, and I don't doubt that life begins around conception or implantation or whatever.

Your mistake is assuming that a technical definition of life has any relevance to a question about whether a specific form of killing should be legal. No one doubts that enemy combatants and violent assailants are human organisms, and yet killing them is deemed acceptable.

It's only legal to kill enemy combatants and violent assailants because they actively threaten the lives of other combatants and law-abiding citizens, respectively.

A fetus is not an enemy combatant nor a violent assailant. Comparing them is meaningless. If you believe that a fetus is alive, it's either a part of a person or is its own person. Given that a fetus has its own DNA there is reason to consider a fetus as an individual, and on those grounds it should be illegal to kill it; it's a person. A really tiny amorphous person, but a person nonetheless.

>does this mean you should never abort any fetus
That's a philosophical question I'm not prepared to answer. I'm not weighing in on the ethics of euthanasia or eugenics or "I got raped by my dad and you can't make me carry this to term you bastards". I'm also not a lawyer. I simply find the notion of killing people without justification distasteful.

you seem to be lost, redditor.

>A really tiny amorphous person
That has no fucking brain.

what about pro choice liberals who are totally comfortable killing unborn babies? It is legal with abortion.

stop pushing your religious values onto the secular government. You're just as bad as the Muslims.

So is it alright to kill people who are in comas then? Where do you draw the line?

Of course people in coma get unplugged. It's up to the family to decide.

>parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species
sure, but non-mutual doesn't mean "consciously consent", it means that one benefits and the other doesn't

the only arguable benefit for the host organism (the mother) is that the baby passes on the parent's genome, but that's not a direct benefit to the host itself

so whether or not it's actually symbiotic is eh at best

>Notebook is 1 or more sheets of paper
>is 1 sheet of paper a notebook?
you just said it was

What about a person who is in coma but has a good chance to recover within about a year?

>but that's not a direct benefit to the host itself
It's only like, the whole point of life. If you're going to argue that reproduction is not beneficial because it doesn't pay off immediately, I don't know what to tell you.

The whole debate around abortion is pretty stupid. I think it's perfectly fine in the event of a medical emergency or a rape or something like that but "now's not a good time for me" is pretty fucking stupid imo.

When people start having sex they know the risks, what's wrong with expecting people to take some responsibility for their actions?

I'm pretty liberal on most issues but really disagree with the "my body my choice" people here.

So essentially you want to punish people for having sex.
I knew that this is what it boiled down to with most pro lifers. Lol.

there are guide lines about that, after 6 month from ischemic accident or 12 months from a trauma (lets say car accident) the chances of waking up are so slim that are neglectable
of course you can pop up some anedoctal case that woke up after 20 years but that doesnt really change it
anyway the family can do what they want in this regard so it's more about belief than science