Thread: Any lifer got the guts to debate me?

Originally Posted by Giftedone

First off .. there is no certainty that aborted would have been will be immoral and that ones that that were not aborted will be moral.

I don't want to get off on a tangent here but, a woman that uses abortion for contraception doesn't have the brains to figure out that procreational sex causes babies. Do we really need more of HER progeny? If she is willing to abort her offspring then there is less chance of her influencing them which is over all a good thing. The pro-aborters' heroine Margaret Sanger (queen of genocide) is laughing from her grave.

Even though there is no " developing human", because there is no human in the early stages of pregnancy ..

I don't know who you are quoting, it certainly isn't me. I am referring to a "developing human LIFE." There is a "developing human LIFE" from conception. Abortion KILLS that life.

I do admit that it is somewhat saddening that a potential human never got a chance.

Apparently not saddening enough to decry the killing of that "potential human."

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

We believe in the right to life for all innocent human beings living here.

Unless they are pregnant women.

That means women, men and it includes unborn innocent human lives. A woman's rights are important, yes. However, if she conceives, especially if it was her choice to do so, then there is more in the equation than just her rights.

There must never be. An embryo should never have more rights than a person.

At least that's how we see it and that's how we'd like it to be. We're hardly quashing on women's rights. We just don't feel that giving women the right to play God over innocent human life by destroying it after creating it is a reasonable right to recognize.

As it's inside her body, then it's only she that should have that right.
Women should never be treated as incubators against their will.

Originally Posted by diamond lil

Unless they are pregnant women.

Who here condoned the killing of pregnant women?

There must never be. An embryo should never have more rights than a person.

Please cite when in modern society an embryo has EVER had 'more rights' than a person.

As it's inside her body, then it's only she that should have that right.
Women should never be treated as incubators against their will.

SCOTUS' decision (ROE 1973) granted complete ownership of an embryo to the woman. There is no way a woman can ever be treated as an 'incubator'....However there are a lot of men that are being treated as 'walking wallets' with 0 'ownership.'

Due to 'Roe' it is now impossible for a man to trust a woman which is why I recommend men making and getting a COMMITMENT from the woman in the form a WRITTEN contract BEFORE plunging penis into vagina even WITH contraception as contraception fails 50% of the time. Marriage is the best option and possibly a 'pre-nup' as well. However, that still does not guarantee that she will not abort but it's better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Being pregnant also does not inevitably lead to babies. We do not have 100% pregnancy success rates. In fact, majority of fertilised eggs fail to become babies.

The whole potential thing is very subjective and thus irrelevant.

No it isn't. We can't control what nature decides to do. We CAN control what we do and don't do. and what we don't do is kill for no good reason.

Originally Posted by danboy9787

No it isn't. We can't control what nature decides to do. We CAN control what we do and don't do.

By the same logic we should ban contraception or refusing sex. It also non-naturally causes the potential human babies to not appear in the future, which would otherwise probably appear. It terminates the potential.

Potential is subjective and irrelevant, only actuality is important. Either something is worthy of protection at the moment, or it is not. I dont think embryo is worthy of the same protection as persons, even if embryos have a potential to turn into such protected person later. But they are not yet.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

By the same logic we should ban contraception or refusing sex. It also non-naturally causes the potential human babies to not appear in the future, which would otherwise probably appear. It terminates the potential.

Potential is subjective and irrelevant, only actuality is important. Either something is worthy of protection at the moment, or it is not. I dont think embryo is worthy of the same protection as persons, even if embryos have a potential to turn into such protected person later. But they are not yet.

No it doesn't. Sex cells are half-cells and are not in any way the same as a fetus. A sperm and an egg by themselves can never become anything naturally, all they are doing is putting up a wall.

Well then you are saying you are saying your mother had the right to wipe you from existence, yet you only exist to fight for that right because she didn't delete you!

Originally Posted by diamond lil

Unless they are pregnant women.

I missed that part in my argument, can you please quote the part in my argument in which I said "we believe in rights for all innocent human life except in the event that they are pregnant women?" Oh wait, no you can't... Because I didn't say that. Fantastic example of the strawman logical fallacy. If that post served none other practical purpose, at least some people might be able to learn what a "strawman" argument or fallacy is from it.

Originally Posted by diamond lil

There must never be. An embryo should never have more rights than a person.

I think RPA1 answered this portion pretty well. To elaborate though, we've never wanted an embryo to have "more" rights than a person. We've advocated for one right alone and that is the right to exist--ie the right to live.

Originally Posted by diamond lil

As it's inside her body, then it's only she that should have that right.

Women should never be treated as incubators against their will.

Again, RPA1 answered this pretty darn well. But I'll take it in a different direction as well. I would have to say that when a woman engages in unprotected sexual activity, she's allowing for the option that she will get pregnant. Seems to me that the act of sexual relations (most especially unprotected consensual sex) is pretty much her "willing" pregnancy. At that point, she's pretty much asking for it. I mean honestly... What generally tends to happen as a result of unprotected male to female sex? Oh that's right, I think we learned this one back in the fifth or sixth grade or so--pregnancy would be the answer. According to our terms and what we want, she's only being held accountable and responsible for her actions, unless of course rape is involved. That complicates things, but is an entirely different tangent of discussion. What we most despise as pro-life advocates is abortion as a replacement for birth control. That is disgusting. When a woman engages in sexual acts consensually, refuses to insist on her or her partner/s wearing protection, birth control pill, etc. conceives and then decides it should be her right to play God over the innocent life that she "mistakenly" had a hand in creating purely for the sake of her own selfish "convenience," we--the pro-life crowd--cannot abide by that.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Why don't you substitute the word……TERMINATE FOR KILL….that would be more realistic don't you think? Why don't pro-aborts use the term kill?

There is an existing person….a human being in the early stages of pregnancy.

The flaw in logic has to do in the minds of pro-aborts who condone killing human life.

Kill is fine too. After all every human cell is alive.

If we are talking about "a human" in relation to abortion the term terminate is more precise.

The zygote is in the act of creation. The DNA inside the zygote has the codes "create a human" turned on.

Every other cell has these codes of course but they are just not turned on in these other human cells.

The DNA in the zygote is in control and it is executing a the program coded within itself that carries out all aspects of the creation of a human.

Killing the zygote is terminating the process of human creation.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I mean this group can't even grasp what science defines as life. LMAO

Everyone who is born is immoral…because no one is perfect. We all think and have done immoral acts.

THERE IS MOST CERTAINLY A DEVELOPING HUMAN IN THE WOMB. This is a scientific fact…….it is not a rock…or a piece of paper….or a dog or cat….it is a HUMAN. It has human DNA.
How tender of you…..so saddened….that a potential human…..LOL

You don't even know what science says….about the life in the womb…..better go read up.

I do know what science says .. and in fact I am a research scientist who has way more biology behind me than the silly sources you read where Doctors .. who have almost no biology related to the issue of "what is human" display their ignorance of biology.

How about I put my science up against yours and lets see who knows their science and who does not.

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Unfortunately for your position, your argument is just completely off base and totally incorrect. No one here has said anything as extreme as "each human cell is innocent human life." That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. .

Calling a zygote "innocent human life" is the misrepresentation. My statement just points out the reality of that fact.

What is the significant difference between the zygote, and other human cells such that it gets the title "innocent human life" and the others do not ?


Good luck with this one. I feel a complete and utter crushing coming on.