[hypertele-Xii]

So no thing that isn't a person (yet) can be vulnerable?

Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?

Perhaps the baby is extra vulnerable exactly because it isn't a person yet capable of defending itself. It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.

[Timon3]

> Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?

Definitely not in the same way a human can! Or would you leave a person to bleed out after a car crash so you don't damage the tree more?

> It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.

If we agree that the unborn fetus isn't yet a person, why are you talking about murder? Seems like it's all good to me.

[hypertele-Xii]

If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?

We don't agree that an unborn fetus isn't yet a person. I was deconstructing your logic. I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse. Sometimes I even think about the hypothetical potential of a person and what they'd want me to do, such that they could one day exist and tell me.

My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs. I concede that it's an opinion counter to the current laws, and thus technically incorrect. Still gonna call it that though.

[Timon3]

> If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?

I would treat an animal I hit with my car very differently from a human, since I'd call an ambulance for a human, but would bring the animal into an animal clinic myself. Would you not call an ambulance for a human, or would you call an ambulance for an animal? Which one is it?

> I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse.

Are you trying to do anything about IVF clinics? If I were to follow your standards, that would be way worse for me, since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.

> My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs.

Could you try to refrain from doing so for our conversation? I'm going to take what you write literally since I assume you're writing in good faith, so misrepresenting your own positions is just going to hurt the discussion.

[hypertele-Xii]

> [...] since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.

True, but at least they do so unintentionally and in the pursuit of creating life. It's still kinda bad, especially if the woman needs IVF because she put off her motherly duties for so long she can't concieve naturally.

A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience. In my opinion that should be criminal negligence, so I call it murder. That's not a misrepresentation of my position, that's what I actually believe. I know current laws disagree. That doesn't affect my position. Laws have been so very very wrong before, too.

So we agree that things that aren't persons can be vulnerable, but we disagree on the degree of vulnerability. Is my understanding correct that in your opinion a human being with a functioning brain is by definition more vulnerable than any other kind of life? So you equate vulnerability with degree of consciousness, presumably due to its ability to comprehend pain and injustice?

[Timon3]

> True, but at least they do so unintentionally and in the pursuit of creating life.

That's not true, they do so fully intentionally. That's what should make it way worse than abortion: they create babies just to kill them! Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life? Or could it be that you dislike abortion for other reasons than you previously stated?

> A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience.

And a woman getting IVF is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own family wishes. Imagine if every family sacrificed dozens of children to receive their newborn. Why are you not fighting against this monstrous horror?

[hypertele-Xii]

> That's not true, they do so fully intentionally. [...] Why are you not fighting against this monstrous horror?

Nobody goes to an IVF clinic intent to kill babies. Everyone goes to an abortion clinic explicitly to kill babies. IVF could be attempted one life at a time. What you're describing is a cost-cutting measure, a technical implementation detail of the clinic, and who said I'm not fighting against it?

> Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life?

Killing in the pursuit of life is less worse than killing in the pursuit of death.