Because those are 2 completely different situations. One is a tragic story where you're almost forced to kill your child and I'm not even sure how women who go through that have the strength to deal with it. The other is pretty God damn evil. >Wereas you don't care if she dies since she's seeking to kill the baby via drinking it and possibly herself to death. Pretty fucking heartless if you ask me. I'm sorry if I can't shed a tear for somebody willing to kill their own child. I like how you can call me heartless while at the same time defending the killing of unborn children. Gotta love the unearned moral high ground, eh? I'm out.

These are more pragmatic questions and not moral questions and probably better answered by somebody who is more well-versed in law but they seem interesting so I'll give them a shot anyway. >So if the mind and thoughts of a person are the desire and removal of a fetus is that not a way the body can manifest that desire and need? Does it need to be an autoimmune response? Bioligically, yes. The body needs to biologically reject the parasite. Just because my sister disliked her mole and wanted it removed doesn't mean it's a parasite. >What if the mother threatens suicide with a gun if she doesn't get an abortion who's life is more valuable? Who is she threatening? If she's threatening a doctor to perform an abortion or else she'll kill herself, then I wouldn't know what to do with the doctor and that's a question for a lawyer or a judge whether it's manslaughter, etc. After the operation is performed, she should go to jail though. > So the mother can drink the baby to death, and there's nothing you or anyone can do to stop that, glad you're okay driving people to poison themselves for something they don't want. Why should I have sympathy for somebody trying to murder an unborn child because it's inconvenient? > Also there are tons of times when a mother's life is in danger or the babies itself because of nature should we not murder the fetus when the mother's life's on danger? I would make an exception to if the mother's life is in peril because it's no good if both of them die (could also be considered as an act of self-defense). Tons is kind of a stretch. [In 1987-88](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/2411798t2.pdf), 2.8% of abortions were due to risk of maternal health. Kind of a dated study, but I'd be surprised if that number has gone up in the past 30 years with the advancement of modern medicine and should keep going down. > An organism that lives and gets it's nutrients from a host, no where does it state anything about being from a different species or similar species. [You googled instead of going to the website](https://gyazo.com/7673ebb335b13fa7e5fe14155a3c095c)

From dictionary.com: "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." AFAIK, a fetus is of the same species as a person. Not only that, but parasites tend to be harmful to the host or the host's body tries to eradicate the parasite and there is a negative relationship between the parasite and the host. There's a reason why biologists differentiate between parasites and fetuses. >Anytime something is made illegal prohibition causes people to do it anyway in a non professional manner. And? I have no sympathy for somebody trying to murder someone and not being able to do it professionally. >Like you said your rights end where my nose begins. The baby also has rights, was my point of bringing that up. At this point we're just repeating the same arguments with different dressing to each other (it's just her body vs no it's a person) so I don't think there's anymore we can discuss.

As the saying goes, you're freedom to throw your fist ends at my nose. Lets say I think stealing is not immoral, that doesn't mean stealing should be legalized. And calling an unborn person a parasite just to win an internet argument seems a little extreme to me. And nice moral relativism at the end there, by the way. Perhaps we should scrap all laws? You dont happen to be an ancap or an amcom perchance?

>My argument for that it's not murder is that it stems from a moral issue, hence my line after that statement which you neglected. But you didn't actually provide an argument, there's no need to be so hostile. Getting back to the original discussion for a second, the role of government is to protect people's basic natural rights and IF abortion is murder then clearly government intervention is necessary. This is not an example of the GOP's hypocrisy (although there are countless other examples). >For some people life beings at sperm and egg others think not, that's a personal ideal, what science says on the matter is irrelevant because an 'expert' can be found to rally for any side of an argument. And I thought conservatives were anti-science :> I jest. I actually agree with you here since, in the end science doesn't matter when it comes to morality. >Like you said some people BELIVE it's murder well some people believe in Thor should we tailor out society to those on the fringes? And why not err on the side of not murdering a human being? I'm not even going to respond to the Thor strawman. >Though shall not kill is fucking retarded to claim when this country wages a major war every 10 years. You can't pick and choose where to apply the tenants of Christ if that's something you believe and follow. I'm not sure who you're mad atbut I agree, which is why I mentioned that in my post above. Not just waging a war every 10 years but you guys have been at war for every single day of Obama's presidency and a majority of Bush's, too. >Also if we live in a democracy where the majority rules then how did Trump get elected with less overall votes, it's not so cut and dry. Just to nitpick on tip of your nitpick, Clinton didn't get a majority either. Its not a direct democracy but its still a democracy.

> You can't have small government and have q government that tells you what you can do to your own body Not if you believe that is a human being and not just another body part. > sure take the argument of murder What? You can't just say, "sure it might be murder but whatever", you actually have to use arguments that show it isn't murder. >but guess what not everyone feels that way or has that view Welcome to democracy where all you need is a majority and you can pass whatever you like. Being pro-life is not really a Christian tenant like Jesus is our Lord and Savior but logically stems from "Thou shalt not kill" which I'm sure you support. Edit: I'm not a Conservative or a Republican (or an American for that matter) but what would show Republican hypocrisy in terms of not being a small government party is how much they've expanded spying on citizens (e.g. the PATRIOT Act) and the military. They'll instantly respond with but Democrats did the same thing, which they did but the Democrats don't hide the fact that they're a big government party.

>There also for fucking over the poor and small government when it benefits them but simultaneously for the government being able to tell you that you can't have an abortion, talk about mixed messages. They also believe the government being able to tell you that you can't kill somebody. They're not ancaps for Christ's sake and if you believe abortion is murder (I'm not arguing for or against here) then it's quite logical it should be illegal like all other forms of murder. Arguing that Republicans are for big gubmint because of abortions is silly.