Obviously, continuing to point out facts to you is a waste of time. It’s clear that you don’t accept the concept that human rights belong to human beings. I’m done here.

I repeat, it’s not lesser murder to kill a less advanced human being, just harder to show, as you have just proved in spades.

So you consider women who use IUDs to be murderers?

the safest place on earth: a mother’s womb.

Are you kidding? Safe? Do you know how many pregnancies are miscarried? Often without the woman ever realizing they were pregnant at all? But I guess when that happens, it was all part of some bigger plan or something.

Why are you so hardened that you insist on erring on the side of destruction rather than the side of caution?

Well, I don’t insist on anything. I have never had an abortion. I just leave possible the option for others to do so.

If you are trying to get me to say that a zygote is a human life you will not succeed.

And that is precisely why pro-lifers don’t tend to focus less on less obvious instances of abortion. It is far easier to show that the unborn are human when some hard-hearted cretin is causing a beating heart and brainwaves to stop so he can suck body parts, complete with fingers and toes out of what should be the safest place on earth: a mother’s womb.

I repeat, it’s not lesser murder to kill a less advanced human being, just harder to show, as you have just proved in spades.

What I don’t get is why you are so dead set on holding on to your Sorites Paradox, nailing jello to a wall, definition of “person” come hell or high water in spite of the solid scientific evidence that they are human (not fish, fowl, or plant) from the very moment of conception. Why are you so hardened that you insist on erring on the side of destruction rather than the side of caution?

Is it morally okay to kill a human for any reason other than as a just punishment for a crime?

Sure. Self defense is one. In war is another. If you are trying to get me to say that a zygote is a human life you will not succeed. I do not believe that. But you clearly do, so will you kindly respond to my question.

So killing a zygote is the moral equivalent of killing a baby already born?

My answer should be obvious.

So killing a zygote is the moral equivalent of killing a baby already born?

If so, I still do not understand why the pro life movement does not fight just as vehemently against the morning after pill and IUDs. Why are there no protests with people holding pictures of aborted single cell organisms outside of pharmacies that dispense these products?

My answer should be obvious.

Only a fool would ignore the most obvious and urgent problems to chase after details which can easily be cleaned up once the primary problem has been solved.

Why is the murder of a one day old fetus (which apparently constitutes only a fly or a less broken bridge) more urgent than the abortion of a 12 week old fetus (the rushing lion or a bridge on the verge of collapse)? Why is any distinction being made by the pro-life group at all?

I repeat: Do you understand the argument that a human is a human is a human, no matter what level of maturity it is at? Do you understand the concept of inherent human rights?

I understand completely, but what we are debating here is exactly when or how a zygote develops into a fetus and then into a human. You can’t really argue about your question above until we resolve that fundamental definitional issue.

Besides, once abortion is outlawed, then it becomes possible to deal with other abortifactants by simply showing that they cause abortions. Trying to argue as you suggest would be like trying to swat a fly while ignoring the lion rushing at you. Only a fool would ignore the most obvious and urgent problems to chase after details which can easily be cleaned up once the primary problem has been solved.

I repeat: Do you understand the argument that a human is a human is a human, no matter what level of maturity it is at? Do you understand the concept of inherent human rights?