(No, there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist", nor do those that identify as 'pro-choice' advocate for the killing of children.)

Indeed they do, since that is what abortion is.

Abortion doesn't kill children. If you suggest that fetuses, embryos or even single-celled fertilized eggs are "children", then perhaps you could say that pro-choice "kills children" but then you are a corpse (you will be, someday) and the English language is dead because any word can mean anything. Tablet brick potato llama.

But, back to IVF, embryos ("living children"?!?!?!?!) are killed by the literal cartload and I hear no qualms about that...so I'm curious why they can't be used for stem cell research.

What is your definition of "child"?


Equating the beginning with the end is not logical.


Never said they couldn't, just said they aren't.

From birth to teenage.



Completely agree.



But you said that "killing children" should not be done for stem cell research.

Then your definition is lacking.

Definition: A son or daughter of any age.


Then why did you?


Have they implanted into a uterus? Once they have, then it is murder, not before.

Since nobody here shares my penchant for Catholic ideals, I am not using the "from conception" argument.

Fine. A son or daughter from birth.



If an embryo is a baby, then you are a corpse.



Yet, many are against it even when it has never implanted....and consider it abortion or "killing children" (using your very same argument).

Doesn't say anything about birth in the definition...


Not true. Bad analogies don't help you. Being illogical will help you even less.


And I just said that I was NOT using that argument specifically to avoid this sort of argument arising.

You asked me my definition.



This is YOUR logic, not mine. An embryo is no more a baby than you are a corpse. Please explain why it's different.



Yet, this is precisely the problem. Why is implantation the dividing line?

And your definition is incorrect.


Show me anywhere that I equate a living human to a dead human. You won't find it.


Because implantation means it is more likely than not going to (if not aborted) survive to an age of over 60 years.

You equated an embryo with a "child".



And eventually become a corpse. See? This is your logic, not mine.

But, if you really don't like this one, then a toddler is an adult and having sex with a toddler is the same as having sex with an adult.

Sound good?

Not the same thing as equating a living person with a dead body.


That is your lack of logic... It has nothing to do with me.


Equating 2 completely different stages of human development is not logical.

I completely agree.

Yet you're the only one who is doing so.

Not at all. I'm not the one saying that an embryo is a child. YOU ARE.

I'm not the only one saying an implanted embryo is a child, you on the other hand are the only one saying a living human being is really just a dead body.

And "living embryo = child" =/= "living human = dead body".

If you don't understand the analogy, just say so.

You stated that if x leads to y, then x = y. Did you or did you not state this?

I do indeed understand it, however it is using broken logic to come to that conclusion.


I did not.

Y=X
Y=Z
X=/=Z

These functions can exist together in real life, but not in basic algebra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... ion_debate

I just spared more pages of debate.
All of your positions are listed on that website.

So, you did not say the following: