Ok so who am I? "Genocide... genocide... religion is stupid... English major... Shakespeare... King James Bible... genocide....

:-)

@obi, because you are like a child with your arguments. You can't let shit go, even when you have no argument or when an argument has come to its logical conclusion. SC put a comment in context and you decided to revamp an argument that should have been over. Everyone thinks genocide is wrong, you and SC disagree on what genocide is, end of story. You both made your arguments and neither of you were swayed. You can't force someone into agreeing with you. And You certainly aren't going to change there opinion by rehashing old arguments.

Again, no one is making a sincere argument supporting genocide. You are ridiculous, not for your stance on genocide, but for your puerile behavior. "listen to me, I'm right and you're wrong, my morality and interpretation of the bible is far superior to yours, so you have to agre with me or I will keep telling you, you are wrong for the same reasons. I will also resort to annoying and patronizing tones to try to make you feel inferior."

And yes I am aware that I am being a bit patronizing. But being a hypocrite doesn't necessitate that I'm wrong.

"Is this REALLY a moral grey area for some here, to genocide/infanticide or not to genocide/infanticide? Everyone here just doesn't already know "Hey, that's wrong, period?" "

Apparently millions of Americans and Europeans think infanticide is a moral gray area. It's actually one of the rallying cries of the democratic party. Wrap it is morally ambiguous terms like "a woman's right to choose" or what have you, but the reality remains that each year hundreds of thousands of babies are killed before they even get the chance to draw their first breath. It's a multi-million dollar industry for crying out loud.

And just so you know, my wife is seven months pregnant. Every night I lie in bed with my hand on her tummy feeling the baby kick. We've got a name picked out, and little pink onesies, and blankies, and toys, and books.....so I'm having a hard time figuring out where the moral ambiguity about infanticide comes from.

Probably because a fetus that's 4-5 weeks old is cognitively (most importantly) and in virtually every way nothing like a fetus that's 28 weeks old. (Almost no one supports aborting the latter, in fact not even the Roe v. Wade decision does)

*Sigh*

@smcbride:

1. My "puerile behavior" on the matter was done, SC was childish enough to drag up the quote and revive the argument.

2. It's puerile to say "Genocide is genocide," or the way on which I argue that this is the case us puerile? Neither seem that puerile to me...

3. As for agreeing genocide is bad but not agreeing what it is...I have to reject that, the text supports it both being genocide and it being INTENDED as genocide...SC's "best" argument is that a stray Amalekite or a few pop up a while later, to which I have to answer "Well, yeah, there were still some 'stray Jews' left in Europe after the Holocaust...didn't mean the Holocaust never occurred." This is the very track that Holocaust Denial takes, after all, to try and find a way to say "See, they're alive, their WAS no great crime, it's all a Jewish lie," and that's wrong, and rightfully so (even a punishable offense in some countries, if I recall.)

What's more, looking at Bible websites...Jewish, Christian...they all ALSO seem to agree it was "genocide," while of course not using the word (since they think it was justified) but certainly agree that it was intended to kill them all and did kill all but the king/all but the king and a few straggling survivors...they of course just argue it was justified and that God said it so God saying it = OK and so on, Orthodox Rabbis asked even answering that yes, if found today, they WOULD urge people to kill every last Amalekite if it turned out they still existed among us...

The text clearly and strongly supports it being genocide, and definitely supports it being attempted as and meant as genocide, and advocates of those religions take it as being genocide just, "Justified Genocide" in this cause because it's "God" giving the extermination order, hence my feeling sick at that very notion, one here none of the theists, I notice, seem to share that feeling of sickness in that idea of God being just in ordering a mass execution of an entire people, men, women, the elderly, sick, infants, babies and all...

So I maintain that if you deny that this is even intended as genocide, both textually and in the words and actions of "God" and those doing the killing, you are not accepting genocide for what it is and are allowing it to be "justified" in a sense, since again, NO ONE would dare try and find such excuses or loopholes such as "Oh, not ALL of them were killed" to try and deny it being a genocide if this were a living race today...

No one in their right mind would see all a French attack that wipes out the South of England and systematically and deliberately kills millions of British men, women, elderly citizens, the sick, infants, and children alike--and have it all done at the end of a sword, as is the case here, so I'm not just saying civilians died in a war as collateral casualties, I'm saying the French have gone around with swords in hand and stabbed and sliced and killed said civilians with intent to kill and that they indeed do so--and say "Oh, well, you know, there are still, oh, a few hundred thousand or so living around Liverpool still"--my knowledge of the geographic location of English cities limited to what I remember from history and WebDip--"so you can't call it a genocide just because MILLIONS, or MOST English citizens in the South have been killed and killed systematically and with the intent to wipe out the race, it's just one area, after all, just an area with millions of men, women and children systematically and deliberately murdered due to their race in it, NOT the entire British Isles that just got wiped out, so it's just an attack, not GENOCIDE!"

No one would say that here. No one. I guarantee it.

So if SC lets that go...and that doesn't count as genocide...

Then our "disagreeing" on what genocide is, I'm afraid, is rather like having a super-bug infect the entire Atlantic Seaboard and wipe out the tens of millions that live along it, and have SC then say "That's not a PLAGUE...it's not widespread enough, now, if it was ALL of America infected, maybe, but come on, it's *just* the Atlantic Seaboard, New York, Boston, Philly, D.C., Miami, Charlotte, Atlanta...that's not enough to call it a PLAGUE that's hit, just a minor concentrated outbreak in a certain area is all, only a few tens of millions of people are dead, not EVERYONE...it's not a plague unless it's spread all across America, like the Bubonic Plague hit ALL of Europe, come on, Obi, you're just fear-mongering!"

@FlemGem:

I defer to PE's answer on that one...

With a catch, because I want to be clear on the main point here and not get sidetracked (we've already got genocide+God+infanticide, throw an abortion debate into the mix and we may just make WebDip explode.) ;)

I will say...

I DO agree with PE, that 4-5 weeks =/= a child yet because of a lack of cognitive function, and of course before that, that a mass of a just a few cells the first day or two after does not yet a child make, so I'd argue it's not infanticide with no infant yet, BUT...

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT...I draw attention to this, *BUT BUT BUT,* because I don't want to get sidetracked here...

I WILL say, JUST for the purposes of this debate, that if you consider life to begin at conception, that I can understand your taking it as "infanticide" and, as much as I would vehemently disagree with you there, I'd understand your not taking it as a moral grey area.

That I understand, of course, does not mean I AGREE with you--I don't, quite obviously, for PE's reason, for the reason on it not yet being an infant and thus not infanticide by just aborting at a few cells (once it has developed to a mature fetal age, then yes, I WOULD completely agree with you then, as would most pro-choice advocates, that abortion is at that point wrong) for the fact I think it immoral to force a mother to carry an unwanted child, and a host of other reasons, think that the situation can at all be made to be black and white like genocide...

Particularly when Jewish tradition OK's it in certain situations, ie, when the mother's life is in danger it's OK to abort...well, if we are to call abortion = infanticide, it should seem never OK, but I doubt anyone here would object to that tradition (and one held by the religious, no less, so this isn't just secularism here) that says mother's life > embryo's/fetus' potential life...

After all, if we said no to that, and said that even if it meant the mother would die, she HAD to keep and deliver the baby...well...

What's the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," and you've now killed the mother by forcing her to keep the child?
If you take the original Jewish form of it, "Thou shalt not murder," you could very well still charge someone with murdering a woman in such a case as this...

So, when it IS a fetal infant, FlemGem, I agree--it's wrong and it'd be infanticide.

But there are too many grey areas that DO exist (where and when does life begin, is it right to force someone to carry a child, what if the mother's life is at stake, etc.) to give an absolute with the abortion case...especially when again, even the religious find a situation (the later, mother-in-danger case) in which abortion is OK...

Whereas there are NO situations in which we'd ever say genocide is OK, and as it is a defined term legally and rather blatant, we CAN say that there is no such grey area with genocide--

We know what it is legally, we know what it consists of, what factors go into ruling something a genocide...

And those factors are present in the case of the Amalekites.

There IS no ambiguity, even to the extent as there is in the abortion case you posit.

(And a final word on the abortion case, FlemGem--I would ask you to consider that those of us that are, like myself, pro-choice are not advocating abortion so much as saying it should be a legal option for the mother, much like I do not advocate smoking, but I would say that smoking should be legal...moreover, I'd further point out that most people do not WANT to abort potential children, at all, but rather simply cannot live, economically or otherwise, carrying it for 9 months or cannot live carrying a product rape/incest, and that forcing a woman to carry a child is, well, understandably quite an invasion of both her privacy and rights, ESPECIALLY if it's a male/male court ordering a woman to carry a child...far too often the abortion debate is limited to just those of us with Y chromosomes trying to decide whether or not it's "OK" for those with XX's to do something that is, by all natural rights, their decision to make and one they are best equipped to understand and make in their own turn, so you'll notice, FlemGem, that it is not "pro-abortion" that is the platform, but "pro-CHOICE," just to have that freedom there and the right to choose there and NOT be forced to carry a potential child and lose a job and thus one's livelihood and means of support as a result, or carry the product of rape or incest, or keep one at the risk of the life of the mother, a case of abortion even the religious agree is largely acceptable, so 1. The platform isn't quite what you think it is, FlemGem, and 2. It's FAR more complicated than you make it to be...whereas, again, genocide has a legal definition and is rather blatant, we're not splitting hairs or trimesters with genocide, when 6 million are systematically murdered, it's not a question of what ratio or percentage were killed or how many overall and how and so on, it's genocide, full stop. Abortion does not have that clarity, even by the standards of the religious.)

Obi,

I let the amalakite argument go a while ago. I didn;t want to discuss it in this thread. What i didn't let go is you telling me THAT I AM INSULTING MY MURDERED GREAT GRANDPARENTS, for a disagreement over an interpretation.

YOU started that argument all over again

YOU dragged up the same arguments

When I tried to show I wasn't making the arguments you attributed to me...

YOU continued to PRETEND that I somehow support Genocide when obviously I do not

And to Cap it all off not one fucking apology that you threw my MURDERED GREAT GRANDPARENTS in my face for something that should ALWAYS have been an INTELLECTUAL AND ABSTRACT DISCUSSION.

I am sorry that you can never understand historical context, it doesn't mean I support Genocide, nor have I ever. I avoided attacking those assertions because they are so fucking ludicrous that I felt I didn't need to, but since you insist on bringing it up over and over. You somehow call me a bigot (???) for bringing historical context into a war that happened 3000 years ago in the fucking bronze age.

If you don't want to seriously deal with my arguments go the fuck ahead. If you don't want to consider the other side fine. But to conclude that I support Genocide, delight in the killing of babies and have the gaul to say that my dead family would be ashamed of me shows what you are,

A Moron,
An Arrogant Prick
Completely out of touch with reality.

"Do you believe a Holocaust victim, or any genocide victim, would NOT say it's wrong?"

I am 100% positive that there were thousands and likely millions of Jews who went to their death thinking that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what the Jews did to the Amalakites. They also would have thought what the Jews did to the Amalakites, in the context of Amalakite crimes and an ongoing war was NOTHING like what was happening to them.

I DO NOT WANT TO ARGUE WHETHER THIS IS CORRECT OR NOT

I am saying it is what they believed as Jews, if you have a problem with it, have a problem.

Here is a citation of a contemporary Jew comparing the Nazis to Amalek

http://books.google.com/books?id=fNYqavdZ0YcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Amalek+Holocaust&source=bl&ots=gmLNh3mcIX&sig=CXaeUMfdHwmDk8k0833XVDSpS-4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=73F2UPCFIaKDiwL6toDABA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=Amalek%20Holocaust&f=false

Your falsely assume that Holocaust survivors thought like you and therefore that they would have condemned what the jews did to the amaleks. But they don't think like you. Most of them were Jewish in the old European style, thy studied the bible constantly, they trusted in god. In the jewish mind Holocaust resulted in a failure to finish the job against Amalak, or pure evil, not from some generalized aspect of human behavior that according to you manifested itself in the torah.

"I let the amalakite argument go a while ago. I didn;t want to discuss it in this thread. What i didn't let go is you telling me THAT I AM INSULTING MY MURDERED GREAT GRANDPARENTS, for a disagreement over an interpretation."

YOU quoted the argument
YOU restarted it
It was NOT going on until you brought that quote back up
And YES...

If your interpretation is that somehow putting all the Amalekites to the sword and intending to do so isn't genocide, then I stand by my charge of your being an apologist for genocide, which I maintain is an insult to the memory of any and all genocide victims, REGARDLESS of their personal beliefs.

You clearly disagree.
You are clearly angry with that charge.
That's fine, you have that right.
That's my honest charge and honest opinion of you and your views based on your statements.

You can still hate that and curse me, but it is what it is.

"Your falsely assume that Holocaust survivors thought like you"

Point to a Holocaust survivor who would advocate genocide for anyone.

I am NOT saying that they would have condemned what the Israelites did to the Amalekites...it's in the Jewish holy books, after all...

I'm saying no survivor of that despicable ordeal would THEN go on to say "I think that genocide is warranted," rather like the rape victim who stands up and says "I would not wish this on ANYONE ELSE EVER."

And, again, you are the one that said it was genocide. I, and those like me, including these victims you readily acknowledge believe the same thing, do not think it is genocide. Yet according to you, I somehow support Genocide although I have never admitted that, and have stated repeatedly that it was not Genocide as we know it. But despite that, again, you insist I support Genocide, the murder of babies, the killing of my own great grandparents

Then by that logic you believe that similarly minded Holocaust victims and survivors support genocide too.

"And, again, you are the one that said it was genocide."

Based on the facts of the text, yes.

"I, and those like me, including these victims you readily acknowledge believe the same thing, do not think it is genocide."

That you and they didn't "think" it was genocide doesn't stop it from being so...I might think the Mets will win the pennant, doesn't mean that's the truth of the case (believe me.)

"Yet according to you, I somehow support Genocide although I have never admitted that"

If you allow this, and the facts of the text make this genocide, you would allow/support genocide insofar as it is presented here, in fact, your saying it's NOT genocide is indicative of just that...after all, Hitler never called it a genocide (not a good marketing term for an idea, as it were) but that doesn't mean it wasn't genocide...

Just because you do not call it genocide doesn't mean it wasn't; as such, as you support it and deny that it was genocide, you are condoning this genocide and re-interpreting the textual facts of the case to support your view, the same way someone trying to justify genocide generally tries to re-write history to support/justify their crime.

"and have stated repeatedly that it was not Genocide as we know it."

If every man, woman, child and baby killed in a concentrated effort towards extermination due to their ethno-religious affiliation isn't genocide as we know it...what is, hm?

"But despite that, again, you insist I support Genocide, the murder of babies, the killing of my own great grandparents"

NOT your own great grandparents, but that you support the idea of genocide as long as it's repackaged in a palatable enough form for you, as is the case apparently with 1 Samuel, as that seems palatable enough for you that you'll condone it, even though the same sort of concentrated effort to kill your great-grandparents was undertaken by incredibly-wicked people.

I'm not saying you support the murder of your great-grandparents, but rather that you should be ashamed of condoning any genocide in any form, no matter WHAT you call it...

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet...

Genocide, by any other name, is just as wicked, no matter WHAT you call it.

"Then by that logic you believe that similarly minded Holocaust victims and survivors support genocide too."

1. Again, I would posit that, somehow, most people put through that living hell of genocide would drop their advocating for it...

They may still believe in God and most Jewish precepts (though there is an undeniably-sharp rise in Jewish atheism following WWII) but that story?

I maintain that if you asked most Holocaust survivors what they felt about that story AFTER their ordeal, they'd reject it, as anyone who'd been through that despicable crime would...

Who COULD support putting all men, women, and children to the sword after seeing millions of fellow men, women, and children put into gas chambers and ovens?

I don't support genocide, I fight the possibility of it occurring again. By claiming that the bronze age is different from modern day and therefore, not applicable, I am not apologizing for genocide. I believe that morality is not universal and know that Bronze age wars were fought much differently and with a different world view from today. Again that does not make me support genocide in any 'packaging.' I believe that claiming that this argument makes me an enabler of genocide is a callous and an all around disgusting statement.

And what you said about me, and your attempt to use holocaust victims, which include my ancestors, against me is wrong. I am tired of your games and am aware that the unfair and inflammatory statements about me will continue no matter what I say. Above all I know I will not receive an apology for the most absurd of your statements regarding holocaust victims.

I am dropping the argument for these reasons.

If anyone else thinks Obi stepped over the line here please say so.

How magnanimous to drop the argument you yourself raised.

Truly YOU are the one taking the high road, starting an argument, yes......

Because a thread I started on something completely different clearly needed you dragging this up again to spin the same yarn and then oh-so-graciously bow out of the mess you yourself made and the thread you trolled.



But hey, just as long as you're the bigger man and make sure everyone validates you, right, SC?

I think introducing abortion into the discussion is entirely appropriate, and here's why: the very first step in genocide is to dehumanize the "enemy". You have to convince enough people that Jews, Tutsis, Hutus, Armenians, or whatever, are sub-human and therefore not protected by normal human considerations such as laws, mercy, justice, etc. "They" are less human than "us", therefore "we" can kill "them" without guilt.

Once you have de-humanized a class of what would normally, by common sense, be recognized as a human, a set of euphemisms must be established to emotionally distance the power class from the target class. "Work camp" instead of "slaughter house", "final solution" instead of "wholesale butchery".

These are exactly the techniques PE is using, though in all fairness he certainly did not invent the arguments or euphemisms. He is using scientific hair-splitting to de-humanize a certain class of humans along an arbitrary age-line. "They" are not "babies", they are "fetuses" - see the emotional distance? - and "they" are not "killed", "they" are "aborted". And of course it all goes on in nice sterile clinics, far from the public eye, far from where the vile images might make us puke up our breakfasts.

Of course we feel that there are moral ambiguities when we consider rape/incest cases, but that involves less than 2% of abortions which, in my mind, hardly justifies the abortion-on-demand doctrine which is, please admit, the position of most pro-choice proponents.

So, for all our civilization's moral advances in the genocide department (kind of, we're not following through very well on our "never again" promises), I'm personally not convinced we've advanced very far at all from the bronze age in other areas of morallity.

Plus two Flem for reminding us of what our minds really don't want to see. Santa, I am sorrowful that your great-grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust.

@Obi, This is in response to your response to me. You still can't drop it. That is the problem. (Stop telling me it was genocide. I don't care. i read nothing after that. Also, I am not in anyway justifying SC. I am simply telling you that you had me at the beginning of this thread. I was on your side.) I actually agree with you. the point is that arguing it is a waste of your time, you aren't changing his opinion. He is set in his ways. recounting your argument to me wastes my time as well. I read your previous posts. You think you have to win. And, you winning isn't based on whether or not you convinced your opponent to change their mind. So stop getting bated into the same dull argument. The worst part is that I don't think SC was trying to bate you at the start of this thread. I surely can't know his motives but it seemed to me he was putting something in context. The moral of the story is that you alienate the people who agree with you. I agree with a lot of what you say, but by the time you are done I am more frustrated with you then I am with the people I actually disagree with. I attribute this to your puerile behavior. You don't have to fix it for me, but I think it says a lot about your style that you are able to turn me against you when I agree with your stance.

For all that, though, FlemGem, you ignored something still--

The religious allow abortions under certain circumstances as is, ie, when the mother is in danger...

Why is that allowable if you view them both as equal people?
If you take the pro-choice view, surely the mother must take preference...
But if we take your view...
What justification do the religious have THEN in murdering the potential child for the mother?

I agree it's a difficult issue, and again, I'm not advocating abortion, just choice, the same way that I don't advocate smoking, just that we have the freedom to do so within limits, even though smoking will, of course, get you in the end in most cases.

And what of the cases where a woman is raped?
Are you really saying she should be FORCED to carry that baby?
I agree it's a difficult moral issue, but how is that, by any stretch, moral?
What business is it of a man what a woman does with her body?

Please answer. :)

(For completeness' sake, you say the first step to genocide is dehumanization, and I'd agree...but I would also cringe at defining human life as nothing more than a few stray cells...again, after a brain forms in a few weeks and it's able to feel pain and truly IS human, then I agree, it should not be aborted...but are you really saying that a woman should have to bear a rape baby--in the worst case--for 9 months, risk losing her job AND her livelihood AND perhaps not be able to support herself, when she can abort said pregnancy on Day 3, when there are just a few cells and no conscious entity? Again, how is forcing a woman to do that MORAL?)

I can tell you why, obi. The life of the mother is threatened and therefore self-defense takes precedence, sort of. The fact is, if the mother's life is at risk from the pregnancy, odds are the baby won't live either. So the lesser of the two evils is that the mother should abort the child and save at least one life. One livign and one dead is better than two dead.

"What business is it of a man what a woman does with her body?
"

Again that fallacious argument. It isn't the woman's body when the fetus reaches a certain point. 5 minutes before contractions start versus 5 minutes after it is born... Does something magical happen to make it a life worth our defense?

As far as rape and incest are concenred. Those two are more matters of practice than religion. Is it practical and moral to make a mother carry a baby to term when she did nothing to warrant becoming pregnant? We have to say "which is the lesser of the two evils". Most agree that forcing the mother to carry the baby is a greater evil than giving the baby into the arms of the universe. But there are some believers that we are born in sin and therefore any abortion condemns the baby to hell. They are the extremists, however, and not the practical and pragmatic.

But it is a falacious argument to say we are telling her what she can and can't do with her body. We only tell her what she can and can't do with the life of another. The real argument tends towards where in the pregnancy the "lump of flesh" ceases to be part of her body and becomes a life of it's own. there can be no doubt that "lump of flesh" has it's own unique DNA, so itsn't completely part of her body from the moment the baby is concieved, but when is it a life worthy of protection. That is the essence of the debate.

"These are exactly the techniques PE is using, though in all fairness he certainly did not invent the arguments or euphemisms. He is using scientific hair-splitting to de-humanize a certain class of humans along an arbitrary age-line. "They" are not "babies", they are "fetuses" - see the emotional distance? - and "they" are not "killed", "they" are "aborted". And of course it all goes on in nice sterile clinics, far from the public eye, far from where the vile images might make us puke up our breakfasts."

Slow your roll, bro, I'm stating what answer you might expect to get. I'm an evictionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

@Eden - I could actually get behind that. The woman has the right to kick the baby out but not to kill it in the process, especially if someone else is willing to raise the baby (and we all know the demand for newborn babies in the adoption "market"). It means no more quick abortions. No morning after pill, either. But it also means a procedure should be developed to extract the fetus in whole and trasplant to a surrogate when necessary. and taking the eviciton approach means that the child can continue to live there for a short time while a new home is found, just like an eviciton from a home (the courts usually give 30 days on apartment dwellers). I really do like that.

If all the pro-choicers mothers had just gotten the abortions they value so much, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Eden - I apologize if I mistook your meaning and jumped all over you. Never heard of an evictionist before.

Obi - our nation permits lawful homicide in certain cases, most of which we argue about, but for example: self defence, war, and capital punishment. All require some sort of due process - you can't just shoot someone for giving you a dirty look, they have to actually endanger your life. You can't just go to war and bomb people back to the stone age, you have to have a congressional declaration and a legitimate causus belli (sorry, I know I'm fantasizing on that one, but I think you'd agree it's a nice dream). You can't hang someone for shoplifting; the crime has to be heinous, the proof has to be incontrovertable, and the appeals process must be exhausted. I think we probably have common ground on the idea that these are good safeguards for innocent human life, and that the closer our society sticks to defending innocent life and upholding our highest ideals of due process, the more just and moral our society will be.

So, if you want to argue that in certain cases abortion should be legal - such as to save the life of the mother or rape/incest, fine and well. Make your case and describe how due process would work. But in those cases you're talking about less than 3% of abortions. What about the rest? Is "I knocked up my girlfriend and I don't want to take responsibility for being a dad right now cuz I want to party a lot and screw some other chicks too" a morally defensible cause for taking an innocent life? Because, let's be honest here, that's probably the number one reason for abortion - by far. And as such it's profoundly misogynistic, considering that the woman is going to bear the brunt of the physical and emotional trauma of the abortion (although the studies of the adverse mental-health effects of abortion on fathers is pretty devastating too).

Finally, in response to "but I would also cringe at defining human life as nothing more than a few stray cells":
There we go again with high-fallootin' scientific lingo arbitrarily used to dehumanize the "other". That you could say such a thing in an era when we know about DNA is simply astounding. I suggest that you go to the library and check out one of the dvd's they have for newly expectant parents and learn a little bit about how babies get made and develop in the womb.

Whoops, not quite done. Let's deal with these little snippets: "after a brain forms in a few weeks and it's able to feel pain and truly IS human" and "no conscious entity"

Here we have pain and consciousness used to define what truly IS human. Please defend these criteria, perhaps by answering these questions for a starter: How much pain does a human need to be able to feel in order to receive legal protection? How conscious does a human need to be in order to receive legal protection? Are there classes other than the unborn which you would label as sub-human on the grounds of their lack of consciousness and which you could thereby justify killing? Why or why not?