anti-abortion folks still get abortions

Did you think it through before you wrote it, RR? Think about it for a second. If everyone stops having sex for a century, that means that the youngest humans alive at the end of the century will be 99 years, 3 months old (the people who were concieved on the last night people could have sex).99 year-old people can't reproduce. If everyone stopped having sex for a century, the human race would be extinct a decade after that century was over.

I have said that, actually. Of course I didn't say that in my post, however. What does that make you, RR?You claim I "took you out of context", but there's not all that much context in a three-line post. My guess is that you said something stupid, got caught doing it, and now you're whining about "context" to cover your ass.

How so? Even people who've lost "the will to live" don't immediately drop dead. Clearly physical growth is completely unrelated to any "will to survive."

No, I'm not. There's no context where your statement is correct. You're still wrong. Physically, there's no such thing as will. Objectively, consciousness is required to have will. Will is not physical, it's mental. To suggest that a fetus continuing to grow constitutes the presence of a "will to survive" is beyiond idiotic, for the reason I mentioned earlier (physical life processes have continue in the absence of a will to survive) and because a fetus doesn't have the requisite mental equipment to even have a will.Don't accuse me of taking your garbage "out of context." If there was a context where your statement expressed something true, I would have addressed it in that context.

So is a fetus.

No, they can't. It takes a mind to have a will. There's no context where your statement was remotely correct, RR. Let it go. No, they don't. Neither a will to survive, nor any other will. No more than water has a "will to run downhill."

...what? What would have the same name as what?The problem with your baseless accusations of "taking things out of context" is that your posts rarely have any context that would shed light on their meaning. I would reccommend you attempt to write and reason with a greater emphasis on clarity.

No brain.Does water have a will because it always moves to the lowest avaliable place?

I have literally no idea what you're getting at, or how this constitutes support for your position.Like I said, try writing with a greater emphasis on being clear.

I still don't understand the relevance of the question. Are you trying to say that one bacteria had a will to survive that the other didn't?If I pour water on a fire, is the fire extinguished because it lacks a "will to burn"? Or is it better to say that it is extinguished because of a lack of oxygen and heat?

Since when is it a "saying"? And what do you claim it describes? Oh? "That's how things are?" I certainly can't challenge that ironclad reasoning. Oh, wait.RR, this is just nonsense. What you're writing is nonsense. It's you who's abandoned the context of the discussion, because none of this has anything to do with the topic. "It's a saying"? It's no "saying" I've ever heard. Irrelevant. Few living things have "will", either. I'm trying to show you that you're applying the concept of "will" to things that can't possibly have it, and your reasoning would apply will to a lot more things that could be said to have a will of some sort.I mean, "will to burn" is just a saying, right? "Medical complications" being defined as something that prevents the baby from being born? You should know better than to ask if a tautology is true. By definition, it's both true and meaningless. Only the first one. And yes, sperm are not intelligent life. You had to be told that? I don't know how you have any standing to say this after this last series of completely nonsensical posts.

So, what you're saying is, you don't see a fundamental difference between this:And these?

Well, the line seems pretty clear to me - one of those organisms is a being entirely capable of autonomous body function, and the other one is entirely dependant on another human being for functions as simple as digestion and respiration.One of those beings was allowed the use of a uterus for gestation with the expressed permission of the uterus's owner; the other may not have recieved that permission.Anyway I think you'll find that in my example, the lines are fairly clear, so I'd still like RR to answer.

Ah, well, there is actually a considerable fundamental difference - the two bottom pictures are fetal Rattus norvegicus, the common laboratory rat, as opposed to the juvenile Homo sapiens represented in my topmost picture. Two different species. I'd say that's a pretty fundamental difference.Which really gets to the heart of the thing. You're trying to ascribe full humanity, full independance, and a considerably greater degree of body autonomy than you would grant to its female host to beings that so fundamentally lack any recognizable humanity that you couldn't even tell them apart, at that stage, from lab rats regularly vivisected for the most trivial of scientific or educational purposes.By failing to recognize humanity, or the lack of it, you've amply demonstrated the gaping hole in the middle of the pro-life position. Fetuses aren't people. You demonstrated that yourself, just now, when you couldn't tell the difference between a human fetus and a rat fetus. They don't have a claim on life. They certainly don't have a claim on a woman's organs. They're disposable non-entities who inhabit a woman's uterus soley at her discretion.

Yes I do, but apparently you don't. See? Completely not what I was saying.What I said, if you'll go back and actually read, was that because you can't tell the difference between the fetus of a rat and the fetus of a human, you've got no basis whatsoever to conclude that a human fetus is a full-fledged person with the right to leech sustenance off a woman's body.Murder is never ok. But it isn't murder to kill a Rattus norwegicus because it isn't a person. Neither is it murder to kill a human fetus because, as you just proved, it isn't a person.It's really quite simple, RR. Sure. Just, not a life that was a person.