jimmyjack quoted: "WHY SHOULD ANYONE? The biological FACT of the matter is that unborn humans are animals, just like flies and mosquitos and rats are animals. Why don't you speak for THEM? Well, to insist that human animals must have a spokesperson merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part."
--and wrote: "I'm merely highlighting a contradiction in the law that says that we should not kill people."
INAPPLICABLE. No unborn human qualifies for "person" status, EXCEPT through prejudice and/or hypocrisy. See the challenge in my signature area? THINK about it. On what grounds could an Artificial Intelligence be called a person and not "just a machine"? It would have to exhibit certain mental abilities that NO typical animal can match, wouldn't it?. Well, NO unborn human has those mental abilities, either! So, by not qualifying as people, the law against killing people would make it murder to unplug that Artificial Intelligence, but not murder to abort unborn human ANIMALS.
jimmyjack also wrote: "Besides, adult humans are animals too, think about it."
Oh, I agree completely, BUT ADULT HUMANS (most of them) ARE MORE THAN ONLY ANIMALS. They DO have the mental abilities that distinguish them as persons.
jimmyjack also wrote: "Shall we kill those in comas for convenience? They cannot speak for themselves either, is it prejudicial not to kill them?"
Humans in comas have NOT **LOST** their mental abilities. Those abilities are merely inactive while the comas persist. However, humans with sufficiently significant brain damage (the "brain dead" on life support) HAVE **LOST** their mental abilities. They no longer qualify as persons, and are mere animal bodies ONLY. Do you understand the distinction now?
Before moving to the next thing you wrote, I need to address one particular STUPIDITY that you are implying.
THE LACK OF A RIGHT-TO-LIFE IS ***NOT*** THE SAME THING AS AN AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALTY. Your average anthill does not have right-to-life, AND we do not typically go out of our way to stomp the average anthill. See? SO, a severely retarded adult human is one with no more mental abilities than an ordinary animal, and hence does not qualify for person status and need not be granted right-to-life. However, the presence of that human may be WANTED. If those who do the wanting also are willing to do the supporting, there is no problem. Remember that PETS are only animals, not persons, and so they do not have right-to-life either. But they are often wanted, an so are not usually killed arbitrarily. The unborn humans who are aborted are all UNwanted animals. The wanted ones are born and raised, usually to "person" status.
jimmyjack quoted: "TRUE. On the other hand, ALL ordinary animals are unable to compromise. That's why we who ARE able to compromise limit our compromises with each other, and do not include animals."
--and wrote: "So you want to kill new born children too? Wake up fool!"
As just explained above, I am not the one spouting idiotic stupidities.
jimmyjack quoted: "The biological FACT of the matter is that the unborn human animal uncompromisingly takes whatever it wants from the body of its host, exactly like any other animal parasite on Earth."
--and wrote: "Did it uncompromisingly take life too? or was it forced to live? -Then don’t force it to die either."
BAD LOGIC. Some parasites DO take the lives of their hosts, and some don't. It is well-documented that unborn humans sometimes are indeed parasites of the deadly variety. But that aspect of parasitism is not as relevant as the fact of the parasitism. If a parasite latches onto YOU, do you let it or resist it? MOST humans would resist it, even knowing that unlatching it would be the death of it. But then, all known parasites are mindless animals, stimulus/response bio-machines. Their deaths are basically insignificant. NEXT, Life is something that "just happens". Evolutionists are still studying the details, but they are confident their basic facts of the matter are accurate. AND DEATH CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, TOO. As an analogy, consider a lightning strike. It may hit rocks or sandy soil, and nothing much happens afterward. Or it may hit vegetation and start fire. Was this fire "forced" or did it "just happen"? Certainly the lightning, the cause of the fire, "just happened", so full consideration of the cause-and-effect chain-of-events should lead us to say that the fire "just happened", also, even if only indirectly. So, we have this fire, a pseudo-living thing, doing what all fires do, trying to consume everything it can get at. Nature has been dealing with fires for more than half-a-billion years, and some trees NEED fire in order to reproduce successfully. Then humans came along and arbitrarily, subjectively, used their mental abilities to decide that some fires were good and desirable, and some fires were bad and undesirable. Making decisions is just one of those things that persons DO. WHO ARE YOU TO INTERFERE in the choices of others, regarding parasitic life-forms they might consider undesirable?
jimmyjack also wrote: "{ordinary parasites} were not put there deliberately, the unborn was, learn the vital difference."
IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE to claim that every unborn human exists deliberately. There is actually good logic to support the opposite claim, that NO unborn human EVER existed deliberately (except maybe Jesus). Are you not aware that roughly 1/7 of all human couples are infertile? ALL THEIR REPRODUCTION-DELIBERATIONS AMOUNT TO NOTHING. Which fundamentally means that human fertility is **NOT** directly subject to human Will/deliberateness. NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY is in charge of whether or not unborn humans exist, just like Natural Mindless Physics is in charge of whether or not lightning starts a fire.
jimmyjack quoted: "BLATHER. First, the word "baby" does not apply. Did you ever hear the dictum, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched?"
--and wrote: "The human egg was not hatched, but at conception it was, no points for you there."
I was analogizing hatching with birthing. If normal birth occurs (and I'll throw in Cesarean sections just so we don't argue about it), then you have a baby. Before then, all you have is a likely possibility of a baby. Which you shouldn't count because it might be stillborn. And FYI, fertilized human eggs DO hatch days AFTER conception; see this link:
http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm The hatching process sometimes splits the emerging bunch-of-stem-cells, leading to twins.
jimmyjack quoted: "what do you call them before they hatch? NOT chickens! Why should that dictum be unapplicable to humans, especially when 40% OR MORE of all fertilized human eggs NATURALLY either fail to implant in a womb, or miscarry sometime after implanting?"
--and wrote: "Those that die through a miscarriage, do so naturally, just as old people usually do, but deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable. I don’t see why you have a problem with that, nor can I understand how you fail to see the huge difference."
I see your delusion perfectly. You somehow think that human actions are not Natural, even though humans, like beavers, are products of Nature. Beaver dams are Natural but human dams aren't? MORE idiotic stupidity. A human shooing a fly is as Natural as a horse swishing its tail for the same purpose. A farmer butchering a hog is as Natural as a pod of killer whales feasting on a blue. Therefore your statement, "deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable" IS PURE PREJUDICE. Not to mention you are saying that if a terrorist shoots at you, you are not allowed to shoot back. Terrorists are those who, to paraphrase an idiom, "live by the gun", and hence are Traditionally allowed to "die by the gun". WHOSE gun shouldn't matter. The problem with your statement is that it is UNSUPPORTED AND NOT PRECISE. What you SHOULD have written is something like, "persons should generally not kill other persons, because they are thereby generally inviting their own deaths (although exceptions do happen)". In this way we can hope to avert an interstellar war with nohumans who we might happen to look ugly (and who probably in turn would think we look ugly). Persons can UNDERSTAND things like The Golden Rule. Unborn humans, however, understand absolutely nothing. That is why they are not persons and that is why they need not be included in guidelines for persons.
{continued next message}