Thread: My argument against pro lifers

Originally Posted by Cady

"Human" doesn't equal "human being." A person's blood cell is human, but not a human being.

nobody said "blood" is a human being.

Blasphemer;1061361764]

"The same argumentation can be used to "prove" that killing animals, or any life is murder:the big problem with this discussion in america today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, an animal is a living being: He/she has blood, flesh, dna, which makes him or her a living being; not a stone, not a rock, not a dirt, but a living being. And when he or she is killed in a slaughterhouse and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a living being. That is science. That is fact."

You think animals are on the same level as animals? How many ants have you stepped on? Worms…have you crushed? Birds you have hit? Hamburgers you have eaten? Mosquitoes?

What you say is absurd. You should be in prison I would suppose. How many animals have you killed?


"What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the animal in the slaughterhouse is legally a person. Does anyone here know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and dna were alive too, scientifically they were living beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact."

We give our animals more rights than the life in the womb. People like you who believe animals lives are equal to that of a human being.Save the whales…the seals…the eagles….but kill the human in the womb, thats ok.

"Killing animals is the destruction of living beings. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What i am saying is science and is fact. The animal in the slaughterhouse, scientifically is a living being, and therefore killing him or her is murder."

ARe you a vegetarian? VEgan? Do you leash your pet? Use cages? Feed them on the ground? Do you treat them like human begins?

"And one other thing: It is also a fact that the dna of the animal is unique and different from the raiser's dna, which blows out of the water the argument that "i can do what i want with my cattle", because its not the raiser's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life."

What you are doing is looking like an idiot…for the position you take here. And for Christians, God gives men dominion over the animals.

Originally Posted by Cady

That is your burden to prove.

Abortion isn't murder unless you can prove an embryo/fetus is a human being. Simply stating it's a human being is begging the question, not matter how emotional your rhetoric.

Why is it always our burden to prove everything? I will tell you why….ya got nothing. There is no evidence to your position first of all because its immoral and you know it…but the sad thing is you don't care. You said yourself….strip the newborn child of its protection and personhood. I mean what kind of a person…..wants that? That speaks to your character and heart. You champion death and that is a fact.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Why is it always our burden to prove everything?

Because you are the one making the accusation of murder.

You said yourself….strip the newborn child of its protection and personhood.

You know that's a blatant lie and flame bait. I'm not biting.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Totally irrelevant - it doesn't WANT to stay alive, that is, it has no mental desire to stay alive - it doesn't event realize it exists. They only part of the fetus that "tries to stay alive" is its physical reactions.


Wrong. Only beings with self-awareness and consciousness actively want to stay alive, that is, have an interest in being alive. Incidentally, I dont know why, if your position is as you describe, you arent against also killing animals?

An infant knows when it's under duress and will cry out and struggle to escape. You don't have to be self-aware to have a survival instinct, and I think the same applies to late-term foetuses, which in my opinion deserve a shot at life if they're late enough in the term to be saved medically.

Originally Posted by Cady

Because you are the one making the accusation of murder.



You know that's a blatant lie and flame bait. I'm not biting.

You said this….

You were asked this question, “Would you oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status?”

YOU answered, “Obviously I would, but I don't see that as being likely to happen. Post 42# Thumbs up for infanticide.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

You said this….

You were asked this question, “Would you oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status?”

YOU answered, “Obviously I would, but I don't see that as being likely to happen. Post 42# Thumbs up for infanticide.

Yes. "Obviously I would...oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status."

"Oppose" means "to be against it." Therefore, I would be against a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status. Does that clear it up for you?

Originally Posted by Cady

Yes. "Obviously I would...oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status."

"Oppose" means "to be against it." Therefore, I would be against a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status. Does that clear it up for you?

But not against a law that stripped blacks of their personhood status I'm guessing - at least be consistent, if your against laws granting new "personhood" status then you should be against blacks having been granted that as well.

Originally Posted by Cady

Yes. "Obviously I would...oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status."

"Oppose" means "to be against it." Therefore, I would be against a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status. Does that clear it up for you?

Yes I know…..and you denied them personhood one second BEFORE THEY WERE BORN. ?????????????????

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT ONE MINUTE WHAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WOULD WNAT TO PROTECT

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yes I know…..and you denied them personhood one second BEFORE THEY WERE BORN. ?????????????????

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT ONE MINUTE WHAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WOULD WNAT TO PROTECT

This is analogous to opposing age of consent on the grounds that a 17 year 364 day old person is no different the next day when he turns 18. LET HIM SMOKE!