sapphi_snake said:
It is very very inconsistant. Saying that killin people is wrong, but then going on yourself to kill people (allegedly to stop people being killes), in itself proves hypocrisy. A person who calls himself "pro-life" should theoretically value life and try to protect it, and absolutely detest the ideea of killing someone.
And an unborn child isn't a person. Only people who are born are persons. What's your view on this matter? |
People who are pro life are against killing babies. That has nothing to do with killing baby killers... right before they are going to kill more babies.
Ok, lets look at your stance though... and show where real inconsistancy is. According to you, an unborn child isn't a person... therefore it's ok to abort a baby up to...and including right before birth.
Even though there is absolutely no difference in an unborn "thing" 5 minutes before it's born, and 5 minutes after it's born, outside of location.
As for me? A fetus becomes a child as soon as it develops brainwaves. It's what we use to decide when to end a human life so it makes sense that this would be what we would use to suggest ones start.
This is usually between weeks 10-12.
Outside of the conception arguement, it's really the only consistant arguement out there. It's not like it's something science will ever be able to definitivly prove anyway though.








