Alright, "Fart_Smeller68" – let's logically examine your arguments, and discuss some highly disturbing moral implications it brings about. Number 1:
How is it separate if it still lives in and feeds off the birthing person?
First off, I'd like to share something exciting about the English language with you – the great ancient word "mother." It's actually been used for (get this!) thousands of years to describe women, who give birth to babies, because women are the only people who give birth to babies. It's your lucky day – instead of humiliatingRead more yourself, looking like a moronic halfwit indoctrinated with Marxist BS, you can actually talk like a human being just by submitting the word mother for the dystopian term "birthing person". A quick fix like that will significantly increase your credibility, and, most excitingly of all, give to others the impression, which everyone should want to give, that you have an IQ reading. Just by following this bit of friendly advice, you'll instantly look ten thousand times less stupid! Hope this information helps you in life :)
Now that we've got the pleasantries aside, let's dissect your actual argument, which is essentially that the human being in question is not a human being if it cannot survive without his/her mother. (I know, I know, you said "birthing person" but I'm in a generous mood, and for the sake of argument, I'll gladly overlook that term and try to forget you ever said it.) That may not be what you explicitly stated, but that is a necessary assumption to make your argument remotely logical (and if it's not remotely logical, well, my work here is done.) But let's look at how absurd that is. If it's alright to slaughter another human being, in cold blood, because he is dependent upon another human being for his existence, that brings up incredibly disturbing moral implications. By the same logic (and any logic you use, you have got to use consistently) people who are in hospital beds, with pacemakers, or life support, or ventilators, or any type of outside interference that is preserving their lives, are fair game to be gunned down by some wicked murderer for the heck of it. Now let's look at your second argument:
plus, there's no brain, nothing going on with a fetus.
So your argument, again, has not been fully stated – because its ridiculousness and absurdity would be instantly evident if you had directly stated it. That leaves me with no other option, as a rational debater, than to fill in the missing premises of your argument myself, revealing the position you've truly taken (if you're logically consistent, and if you're not, you're automatically wrong) – people who do not have brain activity going on are not people at all. By that logic, horrible, horrible implication are created for the Born as well as the Unborn – for example, if your position were true, people with Alzheimer's, dementia, or people with severe mental health issues, or people who are unconscious or in a comma, are fair game to be gunned down by a murderer for the heck of it.
That pretty much destroys your entire argument. But if you want to come back for more of this pleasant discussion, I'll be happy to close the remaining loop holes and finish turning your political world upside down. Until next-time, Fart_Smeller!
– Patriot #1776
