It's not about whether it's alive or not. Ant ant is alive (and is literally thousands of times the size of a new fetus) ... but I step on them without remorse all the time.

It's about whether it's a living organism. Until it can survive outside the mother, a fetus is not.

A baby cannot survive outside the mother either. It will lay there and die.

what is the difference between alive, and a living organism?

A todler cannot survive outside the mother man thats why we have udders. Please stop ignoring me and address why you think we have breasts for only what, fun?

your definition just does not hold up against scrutiny. And its based off perceptions, like your perception of what can fend for itself.

What can you say about how a fertalized egg is that it has the exact same dna sequence it would have when it died of old age and it is completely unique to that sperm and that egg.

What right does an individual have that you grant more valuble if it can walk, or talk, or hunt on its own? Why does a toddlers life matter more than a fertalized egg, when really the only difference is anthropomorphism, (that would be inevitable anyway, if you didnt destroy the fertilized egg)?

Why does a person not lose its right to live when it enters a comatose state? Because eventually it might survive?

I have to add this is literally the conversation I would have with my grandma and parents when they tried to lecture me about how real god was and how sin was real and I was just like, look your arguments about what you SEE and what you THINK just do not hold up, this shit is not real!!!!

what even is alive libs?

well, let's think about what a life is, and think about what alive is and then think about what a human life is.

What's the difference?

- A plant is alive, cells are alive, virus's are alive, so being 'alive' is no right to life.

- fending for yourself, outside of the womb, an animal can do that, and they have no right to life anymore than a virus does, so that doesnt hold up.

- being an individual. A person that can speak for themself, and give their own reason for why they have a right to live, that is a person. That's what gives you a right to life.

But if that is a person, then you have to be able to speak and rationalize to argue that, so that means that anything under like the age of 5 doesnt have a right to life.

No, you have to consider, the right to live in society is an individual, and if an individual cant defend themselves (child, coma etc) we have to define what an individual is for them, and the only way you can do that, is by looking at their DNA and the DNA from fertiliziation until death, through comatose, and lost limbs, or being forced to live in an iron lung, through all of that your DNA does not change.

So once taht DNA sequence is created, I argue that that individual exists, and if you destroy it, you are destroying the individual, and if an individual is what we define as a life, then you are comitting an act of murder.

I jsut dont think that you can say that fending for yourself compares to this argument.

To be fair we do have conditions where a right ot life is voided, crime, war, etc, but is that really something we should be shooting for as the correct way to do things? or can we do better than that?

That's my argument against abortion.

Paste eating ghouls trying to justify murder in the womb

then become anti-capitalist, that's the way to do better than that

Not really. Non-capitalists haven't done any better lol.