GoNavy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2015
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 16
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I have heard many pro-choicers try and sound educated on this ... and end up failing.
I looked up Webster's definition of 'alive.' It says - "having life, not dead, continuing to exist."
So that right there answers the question. The pro-choicers would probably say - It is only growing or "continuing to exist" because of the air and nutrients that the parent ALLOWS it to receive. Its design depends on someone not interrupting their basic provisional needs.
Ok. My response - WE ALL are designed to depend on provision. We all will continue to exist as long as someone does not interrupt provision - like an abortion does. If a strong man holds you under water, he will be interrupting the provision of air and nutrients to you. Murder. 1st Degree. Straight up. The weaker person's design depends on someone NOT interrupting their basic provisional needs. Same as a newborn. Right? What difference is there between a 1 day old newborn vs. a 40 week old tissue? The simple fact that they receive their oxygen from the atmosphere? That's what qualifies for "alive" ?? Really ??
Oh yeah. But I forgot. The location argument. A tissue that exists outside the womb is alive. Ok - back to my analogy. What if that strong man puts you in a different location? Like under water? You are not designed or developed to receive your basic provisional needs under water. The same as taking a fish out of water. So, whether the strong man interrupts your needs, or whether a Planned Parenthood interrupts the tissues needs ... how is that fundamentally different? They are both deliberate, intentional, and premeditated. A person with power exerting over a person with no power.
Ok - the "relationship argument." How we define the "life" status. Fine. Let's go there. Obligate Symbiosis. There are four types. Mutualism, Commensalism, Parasitism, and Competition. This brings in another key question - let's address quickly. Who benefits? Ok well, we are addressing this from the atheistic perspective, right? No religion. Just secular analysis. Fine. Evolution. What is the purpose of any species? To survive and propagate. To mature, sexually, and pass on your genes. Ok. So, your offspring are benefiting you in the evolution sense. Fulfilling your primal purpose. That fits the definition of Mutualistic Co-Operative Obligate Symbiosis which is defined as "two organisms that ... benefit from the activity of the other." Organism. Defined as an individual animal, plant, being, creature, or single-celled life form. Life form.
So, what if a pro-choicer disagrees and says the tissue is the only one that benefits? Ok fine. That is called Parasitism. Defined as "non mutual relationship where the parasite benefits at the expense of the host." So - are babies ... I mean tissues just parasites? What does Webster say a parasite is? "An organism that lives in another organism." Lives in. So ... they are living ... but they aren't alive? That's your argument, pro-choicer?
I mean - listening to pro-choicers trying desperately to convince others of - "life does not begin at conception" ... I mean ... you're better off watching a dog chase its own tail.
I looked up Webster's definition of 'alive.' It says - "having life, not dead, continuing to exist."
So that right there answers the question. The pro-choicers would probably say - It is only growing or "continuing to exist" because of the air and nutrients that the parent ALLOWS it to receive. Its design depends on someone not interrupting their basic provisional needs.
Ok. My response - WE ALL are designed to depend on provision. We all will continue to exist as long as someone does not interrupt provision - like an abortion does. If a strong man holds you under water, he will be interrupting the provision of air and nutrients to you. Murder. 1st Degree. Straight up. The weaker person's design depends on someone NOT interrupting their basic provisional needs. Same as a newborn. Right? What difference is there between a 1 day old newborn vs. a 40 week old tissue? The simple fact that they receive their oxygen from the atmosphere? That's what qualifies for "alive" ?? Really ??
Oh yeah. But I forgot. The location argument. A tissue that exists outside the womb is alive. Ok - back to my analogy. What if that strong man puts you in a different location? Like under water? You are not designed or developed to receive your basic provisional needs under water. The same as taking a fish out of water. So, whether the strong man interrupts your needs, or whether a Planned Parenthood interrupts the tissues needs ... how is that fundamentally different? They are both deliberate, intentional, and premeditated. A person with power exerting over a person with no power.
Ok - the "relationship argument." How we define the "life" status. Fine. Let's go there. Obligate Symbiosis. There are four types. Mutualism, Commensalism, Parasitism, and Competition. This brings in another key question - let's address quickly. Who benefits? Ok well, we are addressing this from the atheistic perspective, right? No religion. Just secular analysis. Fine. Evolution. What is the purpose of any species? To survive and propagate. To mature, sexually, and pass on your genes. Ok. So, your offspring are benefiting you in the evolution sense. Fulfilling your primal purpose. That fits the definition of Mutualistic Co-Operative Obligate Symbiosis which is defined as "two organisms that ... benefit from the activity of the other." Organism. Defined as an individual animal, plant, being, creature, or single-celled life form. Life form.
So, what if a pro-choicer disagrees and says the tissue is the only one that benefits? Ok fine. That is called Parasitism. Defined as "non mutual relationship where the parasite benefits at the expense of the host." So - are babies ... I mean tissues just parasites? What does Webster say a parasite is? "An organism that lives in another organism." Lives in. So ... they are living ... but they aren't alive? That's your argument, pro-choicer?
I mean - listening to pro-choicers trying desperately to convince others of - "life does not begin at conception" ... I mean ... you're better off watching a dog chase its own tail.
