I don't think we've agreed, or have reached any consensus, that either consciousness or sentience is any suitable standard by which to measure life. What is your basis for believing that this is best?
I've made multiple posts on the subject and don't think it is necessary to just repeat them all when they're no more than a few days. If you have another metric that only applies to human beings and nothing else, share it.
This is pointless deflection. If you don't want to get into it, then don't. No need to act like I'm belittling you for defending and championing my view.
I'm condescending, while simultaneously having absolutely no idea on this topic because I haven't reproduced, myself. Got it.
You previously seemed to indicate viability was not an important characteristic when considering the ethics of abortion.
Responses like these are utterly ridiculous -- especially when cast under the guise of Christian pretenses. And you wonder why people dislike Christianity.
He didn't comment on Christianity. Seemed more like a refutal of IP's claim that he had sufficient knowledge due to being around other people's babies.
No, I clearly deserve death. The Lord of the Bible can't stand the killing of children or the unborn. You know, if he didn't explicitly order it.
True, there was no direct reference to it, but Card's beliefs are well-documented. To deny that type of background doesn't at all influence one's opinion on the subject, then say one should suicide for not being "substantially moved" when at their child's ultrasound is laughably inconsistent with his religion's views. Considering the New Testament's dogmatic approach toward "loving thy neighbour" and such; well, I'm sure the picture's been painted enough.
Actually I usually don't wonder. But congrats on making your first coherent point on this board in almost two years. Way to go buddy!
He's just speaking as a guy who thinks it's laughable that someone who isn't a father thinks he knows what it's like to see the heartbeat on the ultrasound for the first time.