Abortion

Is he trying to compare a zygote to a sperm cell?

Pro life while also being pro death penalty is strange, just saying. Same goes for the other way round obviously.

Innocent babies and ruthless killers are so very different.

They were born as innocent babies too. Giving someone the taste of their own medicine in full consciousness is bad practice in general imho. Doesn't mean ruthless killers shouldn't be punished. Just lock them up. Forever. That's that.

So, taxpayers should support such people all the days of their lives, feed them, clothe them, take care of their health... They can get book and movie deals and even claim to find Jesus while there in prison. It just isn't that simple.

Meanwhile, collagen and stem cells may be harvested from fetal tissues, probably contributing some to the rising cost of healthcare.

We live in such weird times, folks.

We are naive indeed if we think that big corporations or big healthcare really have our good in mind. The COVID madness showed me otherwise.

I agree that prisons are too luxurious currently. But I'd rather go for less luxury than straight up killing them. What if the killer in question has got supporters? If the leader's dead, someone else will take on their part, and the problem remains. Of course, same goes for imprisonment, but the problem isn't solved either way.
I guess we'd rather go back to topic though, so I'll say that I'm one of those who can't really say if he's pro life or pro choice. I guess deciding on a case-by-case base is best here. Or, thinking about having kids before it's too late.

All I'll say is: executed killers don't kill again, regardless of how many supporters they may or may not have. If I went out and killed someone for any other reason than selfdefense, you bet your ass I'd be advocating for my own execution. Hell I'd be turning myself into the cops and being all like, "Yeah so uh. I just did this thing, and I would prefer it if you fine folks would subject me to the death penalty if I'm found guilty." But I'm probably the odd guy out.

Also, before anyone starts asking any questions about whether I have thoughts of suicide or selfharm, no. I don't.

That argument collapses very quickly:
If you are against gunrights, for example, I could apply the same principle here. If you take away the guns of the people, criminals will still have guns. Isn't it better, therefore, to leave the guns to the people so they can defend them self on an equal level?

-- (hozosch):
I agree that prisons are too luxurious currently. But I'd rather go for less luxury than straight up killing them. What if the killer in question has got supporters? If the leader's dead, someone else will take on their part, and the problem remains. Of course, same goes for inprisonment, but the problem isn't solved either way.
I guess we'd rather go back to topic though, so I'll say that I'm one of those who can't really say if he's pro life or pro choice. I guess deciding on a case-by-case base is best here. Or, thinking about having kids before it's too late.
--

The point in taking away guns from the people is reducing the risk of some rando taking a gun and shooting someone because they think it's fun. In the US, shooting alarms are a normal part of everyday life. That's not how peace works.
Anyway, different topic I guess. I think I'd better stop responding from now on.

What I wanted to say but didn't find the right words + off topic. But yes, this.

Why are you letting us know now that you better stop responding? Seriously why is the left so afraid of debates?

Ok so. Should we all make it up to taxis and Wamo's to drive us because some crazy ideot one day might as well just take you inside his car and crash it?

You would, hopefully, say no to that one.
But then, why should we make a life depend on an unresponsive girl who felt like having sex without wanting the consiquences, some call it burden, when it's a blessing of God to have children, not everyone has that chance
Double standards much?

I don't get the impression that the guy is afraid of debate, he's engaged with me without incident.

-- (marchoffmann):
Why are you letting us know now that you better stop responding? Seriously why is the left so afraid of debates?

--

Comparing cars to weapons, wow! Weapons are *always* there to kill. Cars aren't necessarily if you use them right.
And as for abortion, like I said, it's really hard for me that one. I pointed out tendencies, but I don't know.

Well, weapons and cars can have the same danger. In norway people use weapons to hunt for example, and that a lot. Same for cars.

If you thro yourself in front of a car, or a gun, same impact. You not gonna end up well.
And if someone shoots you, the same person could be a driver going insane and wanting to get you. The theory already is more than compareable

Yes, but my point is that weapons either kill or lay around. Cars can be used in a harmless way, weapons can't. Hunting is also killing btw.

I think a better formulation of this point is that the only function and purpose of a weapon is to inflict damage. I'd be cautius to say killing because the damage inflicted does not necessarily have to be fatal.

same like nifes for example, should we take those away because they're used to kill people even though they have legitimate purposes?