It seems like if they want to emphasize personal responsibility, they could stop trying to influence laws that prevent people from getting abortions or using contraception.

> stop trying to influence laws that prevent people from getting abortions

I'm not sure if I follow. That seems to me like having more empathy with irresponsible people, possibly at the cost of innocent fetuses.

While I won't try to argue with you because abortion is the thing we won't see eye to eye on, what bout the 'or' on contraception, or do you think that responsible people only think that sex is for making babies?

On another thought, you think the best thing to do is give people you judge as irresponsible a child? Also, doesn’t original sin mean the fetus not innocent? Is innocence really the important measure? Because lots of things are innocent we don’t care about.

> what bout the 'or' on contraception

I don't have any particular problems with contraception. Some right-wingers do, they should speak for themselves. (I'm also not against early-stage abortions)

> On another thought, you think the best thing to do is give people you judge as irresponsible a child?

It's not ideal, it's just better than normalizing taking innocent lives. Also, if someone really thinks they can't be a good parent, putting up the baby for adoption is always an option.

> Also, doesn’t original sin mean the fetus not innocent?(which of course doesn't really apply since it's not a person)

I'm not religious, so I don't really think about the issue in terms of sins in the religious sense.

Saying "innocent fetus" is like calling a horse with a top hat a gentleman.

Yeah, because we all know if you wait a little bit, the horse will develop into a fully-fledged human beings.

That is kind of a weird argument and I assume you don't understand the antiabortion position. People who are opposed to abortion think it is murder. If somebody supports personal responsibility that doesn't mean they think we shouldn't have murder laws.

You may disagree with the idea it is murder, but if it is in fact murder than it is completely consistent to support laws against it.

>People who are opposed to abortion think it is murder.

And people who are opposed to physics believe Earth is flat. Both views are the same in terms of rationality.

Biologically life begins at conception [1] [2]. A human fetus has been conceived. Therefore a human fetus is a human life. Unjustly and deliberately killing a human is murder.

You may disagree with some of the premises but they follow one another and have decent reasons to believe them. That is hardly irrational.

Something to keep in mind. If you want to actually convince somebody in the future, saying their views are as irrational as believing the Earth is flat isn't the best way.

[1] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...

[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm...

This argument is based on a logical fallacy equating "human" with "person". It's yet another example of an attempt to derail the discussion.

>You may disagree with some of the premises but they follow one another

You can say the exact same thing about antivaxers.

>If you want to actually convince somebody in the future, saying their views are as irrational as believing the Earth is flat isn't the best way.

Honestly, I don't think I can convince a flat-earther or pro-lifer. This kind of brainwashing appears to be unfixable. What can be done is limiting the spread.

How do you even define "life" biologically? Two "living" things combine to form a fetus, and just a few months down the line none of the physical matter of those living things still comprises the growing fetus. The thing that is being terminated isn't a human, it's the potential of a human, which is also the thing that is flushed down the toilet when a used condom is disposed of.

Forced birthers are crazy, full stop. A fertilized egg is not a human any more than a sperm is a human.

If you don't understand the difference between sperm cells and a fertilized egg then you are just being obtuse.

Yesterday you've decided that hydatidiform mole is a human.

And here you're making the same mistake again: you're assuming that if someone disagrees with your ideas about biology it means they don't understand it. In reality the reverse is true - pro-life myths might make sense to a high schooler, but not to someone who actually understands the topic.

I already provided links showing biologists agree that life starts at conception. It is not my fault you disagree with biologists.

Yet you missed the obvious fact that science doesn't even have a good definition for life, in fact it's a hard problem in the philosophy of science. You could say that the replicating mass of cells will in the future become a human being and that is not true of a sperm (unless it later goes on to fertilize an egg), but a sperm is just as "alive" as a fertilized egg.

If you have some sperm cells laying around they won't grow into a human. If you have a fertilized egg it will (assuming the process completes normally).

Again, this doesn't matter to the discussion. Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body.

(Also, you're conflating 'being homo sapiens' with 'being a person'; you've already tried this method of derailing the discussion two days before.)

> Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body.

Of course it would. Should you be able to murder your kids in your house because "your house, your choice"?

>Of course it would.

Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child?

>Should you be able to murder your kids in your house

Completely different situation; we are talking about bodily autonomy, not “housing autonomy”.

>Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child?

I am not who you were responding to, but since we were talking previously I will remind you what I said before. You are not obligated to provide what people need above the basic necessities. Organ donations go beyond that.

Christians do give a lot to charity, but a lot of those are christian charities that give aid on the condition that you eat a heaping mouthful of bullshit. It's really just a feel good way for them to try and proselytize.

> give aid on the condition that you eat a heaping mouthful of bullshit

I don't have any stats on that, but it's contrary to my personal experience. When I was a student, there was this Pentecostal group which used to give free food to everyone every Thursday. It was quite unconditional, not even means tested.