Any lifer got the guts to debate me?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by MegadethFan, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What did she miscarry…..a rock?

    Tell me the difference between an abortion and a spontaneous miscarriage?

    I think one hired the hit done….the other has no control…it just happened on its own. :roll:
     
  2. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks, but it may as well stay so people can see what passes for argument from the anti women's rights brigade.
     
  3. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Red herring. Completely irrelevant. I'd appreciate it if your arguments could stick to the topic being discussed. You can certainly create another thread entitled "pro-life advocates who eat meat...?" or something of the sort if you really want to, and maybe I'll respond to that, maybe I won't. But as for the phrase "innocent human life" being sentimental "twaddle," that's absolutely false. Innocence is quantifiable and verifiable by its own definition. Innocence is the absence of guilt for/or wrong doing. That is innocence. Therefore a human being which is not even capable of wrong doing is entirely and one hundred percent innocent. To humor your irrelevant tangent, I value animal life tremendously. I often hold it in higher regard than human life because of that word we were just discussing--innocence. Animals kill out of instinct. There is no "wrong doing" within their state of mind, unless they have encountered a negative human influence. But again, that's very irrelevant.
    The cells are very human, you're denying scientific fact by saying they "might become human but aren't yet." It's a verifiable scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The debate is over whether or not the life is a "person," not whether or not it's "human." The way you came blasting into this thread, I would have assumed your position would be a bit more knowledgeable than that. How typically droll.
    You accuse my arguments of "sentimental twaddle" and then run off and begin to speculate on and compare the horrors of things as irrelevant as war and bombings? Ridiculous.
    Politicians are notoriously corrupt. Most if not all of them. We on this forum board are not necessarily politicians nor do we have political backgrounds other than those which are discussed here. To bring politicians into this discussion is more irrelevant "sentimental twaddle."
     
  4. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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. Unique human life begins with the combination of a sperm cell and an egg cell. Other human cells, including the sperm and egg cell as separate entities do not make up an entire set of human chromosomes, therefore while being human cells, cannot be considered a unique human life. This is all science and I guess initially I would have thought that your side of the debate would be more aware of these things before blasting the topic with incorrect assertions and misrepresentations. I guess I thought wrong. All in all, that's not terribly surprising.
    Again, much like l4zarus' irrelevant "sentimental twaddle," this absurd combination of ideas does not fit the general back and forth dialogue of this topic.
     
  5. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We believe in the right to life for all innocent human beings living here. 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. 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.
     
    churchmouse and (deleted member) like this.
  6. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.

    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.

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

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Unless they are pregnant women.

    There must never be. An embryo should never have 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.
     
  8. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who here condoned the killing of pregnant women?

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

    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.
     
  9. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  11. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  12. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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. :rolleyes: 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  16. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your statement points out absolutely nothing of value. A skin cell from one human being or a sperm or egg cell from one human being are not a unique human entity. They are from one person. A zygote contains the DNA from two people combined, 23 pairs of chromosomes, which is what humans have. It is unique, it is human, and it is a life. The reason it is innocent is self-explanatory. It is without guilt of/or wrong doing. That one is as defined by the dictionary.
    Thanks, but I don't need luck. I have science and debate skills. Consider your argument completely and utterly crushed.
     
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im not interested in Margaret Sanger but you do make a interesting point.

    The fact that there are women who use abortion as contraception, many of them not the sharpest tools in the box, is more a function of our lack of proper contraceptive training rather than the ability of these women to learn.

    "do we really need more of her projeny" This is one of the false arguments of the Eugenics movement of the 30's. Hitler did not live in a vacuum. The Eugenics movement was very popular in his time but Hitler took some of the false arguments from the movement to their logical extremes. There are actually some good arguments for social engineering but the pendulum had swung to far and when everyone jumped off the Eugenics bandwagon because of Hitler, the good arguments were forgotten.

    The idea that the progeny of a stupid person will necessarily be stupid is "of course" false. Same with the progeny of a smart person which is why passing kingship down through bloodlines had a few hiccups along the way.

    That said there is something to be said for children raised in disfunctional environments. Not that these kids will necessarily be criminals, or even that most of them willl be, but environment does have a statistical impact.

    Inserting the word "developing" matters not. Rights are not accorded "as far as I know" on the basis of being in a state of development.

    As far as the zygote being a "human life", innocent or developing or otherwise, all human cells are "human life"

    There is nothing wrong with killing "human life" typing on the keyboard helps to kill "human life"

    Why should we care about killing "human life" so long as we are not talking about "a human".


    All that has been killed is potential .. and a human cell or two.

    Why should I be saddened by the idea that the potential for another human to come into existence was not realized.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off .. you have presented no relevent science as I will show.
    If you are going to make good on your claim to have some debating skills you better have some good science because I have plenty.

    Every other "innocent human cell" is also not guilty of wrongdoing so this is not a "significant difference". In fact there is no difference.

    Lets see if there is anything else of value in your argument that shows a significant difference such that a zygote should get the title "innocent human life" and the other living human cells should not.


    How is uniquness significant ?

    The parent zygote splits into two identical clones shortly after conception.
    Each of these new cells is independently capable of creating a new human but they are no longer unique.

    Do we not now have 2 "innocent human lives" ? or are these lives not innocent because they are no longer unique ?

    Should we kill one of the two cells so that it can keep its uniqueness or are they no longer important because they are not unique.

    The first cell that will be part of the eventual born human is also "unique" as is the first heart cell and the first skin cell and on and on.

    How does being "unique" matter ? There are many more arguments against uniqueness being a significant quality.

    Every human cell contains the DNA from two people .. is human.. and is just as alive as the zygote.

    Obviously this is not a significant difference because there is no difference in the DNA .. other than one thing !

    The truth of the matter is that the only "significant" difference between the zygote and other human cells is that the program codes to "create a human" are turned on.

    Every other cell has these codes but they are just not turned on.

    Does having the program codes to create a human turned on make the zygote innocent and the other human cells not innocent ?

    I don't think so but if you can make a case for this I am willing to listen since it is the only argument valid you have left.
     
  19. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Margaret Sanger started PP with the purpose to limit the population of blacks. She was a big Eugenics proponent.

    Billions have been spent on not only contraceptives but government health programs for women. I would say that MOST women are very well educated in the use of contraceptives and abortion.

    Abortion is not a good thing. Not only does it kill a developing human life but the woman loses part of her (remember she owns the embryo/fetus) and could subject herself to health problems. It's a lose/lose situation.

    If the desire is to have fun but not get pregnant, women should not have procreational sex before they are ready. If they want to 'be like men' sexually, then they can find other ways to have an orgasm and refuse a man entry with his penis into their vagina. I don't want to get graphic here but we all know there are other ways so show affection and give and receive pleasure. It's still sex but it doesn't carry the possibility of a pregnancy.

    After all, if a woman says 'NO' and a man forces his way into her vagina...that is RAPE.

    When it comes to deciding other peoples future, (as with Eugenics) it always goes too far. My comment was flip and meant to be flip because no one is forcing these women to abort.

    The bottom line comes down to morality which has somehow gotten a bad rap of late. Morality is simply being able to tell the difference between right and wrong. It's WRONG to have PROCREATIONAL sex when there is no commitment, no planning, no loving relationship and no ability to raise and care for children.

    Abortion and contraceptives have their place but IMO are not substitutes for doing what is right.



    Rights and morality are two different things. To deny that a zygote is a developing human life is telling oneself a lie that will come back to bite you later.

    The word 'developing' is a problem for pro-aborters because it cannot be denied. Instead they just leave it off. Like you did. That way the claim can be made that "well it's not a human being" which (in their minds) makes it OK to kill it. Once you add 'developing human life' then that causes problems with their rationalization.

    The spark of human life starts at conception and after that, if one stops that process, one is killing a developing human life. Given the myriad of options available there is no excuse.




    No it is DEVELOPING into a human being. It is LIFE and it is HUMAN. It is all three together no matter how you change words or throw words under the bus.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont know much about Sanger so I can not comment on here but I will say this.

    I think China's policy was based in good intention. Implementation of the policy was bad because folks aborted mostly girl babies and now China has a demographic problem.

    Either way the population growth in China was stopped which is a good thing.

    Every human cell is a "developing human life" I do not see what is so bad about killing one.


    I have actually done this in order to avoid "pregnancy". Not because I was worried about abortion .. but that the woman might choose to not have one.


    No but there are people trying to force them not to abort.


    I agree that morality has gotten a bad rap. This is mostly because of those that continuously try and force their personal morality on others.

    Its like when you grow up in a home where kids drink alcohol at the table .. alcohol is no big deal. In the homes where parents forbid alcohol the kids will often binge drink.

    The more you keep something away from people the more they want it.

    I do not deny that it is developing human life .. just as is every other cell.

    Adding the term developing causes no problems for me. The problem I have with the use of the term is that it is obfuscation.

    The term "developing" is irrelevent to the humanness, or lack thereof of the zygote. It only serves to further confuse those who are already confused and thwart folks with good arguments because some of these folks do not have the education or smarts to identify the flaws in the term.

    I know you get the distinction but the problem is that many lifers will confuse the term "developing human life" with something that is "a human".


    I disagree .. I would claim that the "spark" of human life comes with the activation of significan brain synapse.

    Others might claim that "the spark" of human life starts with the sperm swimming to the egg.

    Others might claim that "the spark" of human life starts with the first cell that will actually be part of the structure of the human that is being created.

    You are welcome to your opinion as well but others are just as good.


    The zygote is not "developing into a human being" IMO. Im sure we are going to disagee on this but it is all in how one defines "developing"

    If we look at what is actually happening at the zygote stage we see that what the zygote is doing is creating the structure that will house the embyoblast. The blastocyst.

    It is the embryoblast cells that will form/develop into/ are part of the structure of the eventual human.

    Just like a large building... the cranes, builders and external trappings that will all be removed after the building is completed are not "the building" or even part of the building.

    We do not say that the external trappings are "developing into a building" ... they are developing, forming, creating the building.

    They do not form part of the building nor develop into the building.

    Even if we delve into religion and claim that the zygote has a unique soul that this soul is somehow is kept intact through the billions of times the DNA is split to create new cells, there are some issues.

    After the first mitotic division there are two clones of the parent zygote created. The Parent zygote is not gone but half of its DNA is in each of the new cells.

    Where is the soul ? Call the two clones A and B.

    Is the soul in A, in B, or distributed over A and B ?

    My guess is that most folks will choose "distributed over A and B" but it does not matter which is chosen.

    Both A and B have each have individual capacity to create a new human .. as do the next 100 cells or so.

    If there was only one soul to begin with then what happens if we create two humans out of A and B instead of one. Does one have a soul and the other does not ? If we create 4 new humans out of the first 4 cells, does only one have a soul and the other 4 do not or do each have 1/4th of a soul ?

    What you are seing at work here is an incredible survival adaptation. Even if some of the original cells are destroyed, for the first little while any one of the cells can continue the process individually.

    Notice that each one of these cells is equivalent to the zygote.

    Lable the zygote A and after 3 divisions there are 8 cells so lable these B through H.

    A is equivalent to G. Each can create a human without the other cells

    If we get rid of all the other cells G can still create a human.

    The point here is that so long as the programming has been replicated that programming can continue to create.

    Theoretically we could extend this process indefinately.. letting the cells multiply to 8 and then killing off the other 7.

    or .. we could implant these other 7 cells and just let them go on to create a 7 new humans .. yet continue the process with the first one never allowing it to complete the creation process but sustaining its existence.

    Notice that there never was one individual human.. it is a process that has the potential to create numerous humans.

    What we have at the zygote stage is "the programming" to create a human.

    As long as this programming is kept intact we can create as many humans as we like from it.

    The programming does not really "develop" . .it replicates itself which you could call development but it is a different kind of development than what goes on when the embryoblast is developing.
     
  21. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    She was a famous eugenicist. She thought it better for society that certain folks be culled from society. Even recommended free sterilization for certain women. There is a lot about her pro and con. Some will even say she wasn't a eugenicist. I think she made a famous (or infamous) speech at the KKK. This person is the creator of PP.

    A classic example of government intervening in the private lives of individuals 'for the good of all.'

    That is just an outright lie. A zygote is a special cell that will develop into a complete human being if not precluded from doing so. A skin cell (for example) will never do that.

    Like I said, if you don't want to be a father, don't have procreational sex. Pretty simple...It you're gonna 'do the deed' you had better make and get a commitment with a signed contract. Marriage is the most common.

    When a woman consents to procreational sex, then gets pregnant, she has involved the sperm-donor, the sperm-donors family, her family, sperm-donors friends and her friends. SOME of these folks may have a 'dog in the race' and try to influence her to have the child. (the would be grandmothers most likely) it's just human nature. It all could have been avoided if she would have used her head in the first place. We should be teaching girls that type of thing in 'sex education' class, not how to take a pill, get a secret abortion, or making 'condom trees.'

    No...its the STATE forcing their secular morality on our children that breaks down traditional family morals and values. All in the name of women's rights. Women have the right to vote...good...Women should not be discriminated against....good Women are not property or chattel...good...we all agree now, how about showing some personal responsibility?

     
  22. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The people who believe they have no right to decide what happens to their body.



    They don't and never have, thankfully.

    However, there are people who are trying tog et that changed.



    Absolutely not. Men don't financially support their potential children.

    Well, you can reccomend whatever you like.
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is too bad you did not consider some of my more compelling arguments. I was a bit disappointed.

    In any case.

    It is not a lie. A heart cell is human, developing, and alive.

    That the zygote will "create" a complete human in the future does not change the fact that it is merely a living human cell at the time of conception.

    The two daughter cells after the first mitosis, and many cells division after, also have the individual capacity to develop into a complete human beings. By not doing in vetro at this point we missing out on many potential humans.




    A heart cell is actively replicating as well.

    You mention the two separate sets of genetic material that the zygote has. Does the heart cell not have these ?
     
  24. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, she wasn't a famous eugenicist any more than Winston Churchill.


    http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/sangerebb_2.htm

    An excerpt:

    Pregnancy was a chronic condition among the women of this class. Suggestions as to what to do for a girl who was "in trouble" or a married woman who was "caught" passed from mouth to mouth--herb teas, turpentine, steaming, rolling downstairs, inserting slippery elm, knitting needles, shoe-(*)hooks. When they had word of a new remedy they hurried to the drugstore, and if the clerk were inclined to be friendly he might say, "Oh, that won't help you, but here's something that may." The younger druggists usually refused to give advice because, if it were to be known, they would come under the law; midwives were even more fearful. The doomed women implored me to reveal the "secret" rich people had, offering to pay me extra to tell them; many really believed I was holding back information for money. They asked everybody and tried anything, but nothing did them any good. On Saturday nights I have seen groups of from fifty to one hundred with their shawls over their heads waiting outside the office of a five-(*)dollar abortionist.
     
  25. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They have the same potential - to turn into a baby in the future. By using contraception, you are actively preventing this potential from realising. Just like abortion actively prevents the potential of an embryo to turn into a baby.


    The same applies to contraception. You would not exist now if your mother used it. The consequence is the same. Should we ban it?
    Only actual persons should be protected, not potential persons.
     

Share This Page