I am a parent, and no, you did not see a heartbeat at six weeks. You saw a programmed computerized response to electrical impulses emanating from the spot where a heart WILL develop. It's not a heart beat, but it doesn't matter, anyway. A heart is not what makes a person. If that's the case you should be opposed to heart transplants.
As do most people. Are you opposed to living wills, and people having the right to pull the plug on their brain dead spouses?
So can you dispute the link with any facts? Any data to support your claims? If you dont have it, just say so. Also, I never made the claim of what is a person. I only asked you what you thought. I have all along said they are alive. You can stop with fallacies. They drag the conversation down.
Exactly. So to say that its is inherently bad for a group of people, like Russia, to kill people isn't necessarily bad morally, because like Russia, you also agree with not all life is equal.
Is it REALLY a heartbeat at six weeks? No: https://www.livescience.com/65501-f...html?msclkid=dc74e907c01511ecbb52ba8ffc2a7ee0
All of that is true. I'm also in favor of capital punishment. At the same time, however, I also have the power of reason to see that Russia has no moral ground to be invading Ukraine, killing its citizens, and enslaving its children. Just because killing is sometimes justified doesn't mean all intentional death is.
Interesting. Your link says that at 6 weeks the heart is forming and "fluttering". Does anything else in the body of that tiny hummin flutter as well to produce "electrical impulses" by the ultrasound equipment? No, no it does not.
So again, what gives you moral authority for this claim? Can agree that we have you and Putin that agree some people are ok to kill?
The human offspring starts to develop at the moment of conception. So your notion that something magically transformative and depictive of a person somehow occurs with the appearance of electrical impulses is just emotional claptrap.
