• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question for anti-abortion people

(See first post)

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • No

    Votes: 10 90.9%

  • Total voters
    11
1) Define "natural course." Are you saying that conception is not part of the "natural course" of a sperm cell?

2) And what if the "natural course" of the fertilized egg is to spontaneously abort? For that matter, who the hell cares what the "natural course" of something is anyway?

1) If left alone, a sperm cell will never be anything more than a sperm cell. Once conception happens, you are dealing with the earliest stages of a human's life. The parts are all assembled.

2) The natural course is relevant because we are trying to sort out when life begins. If a sperm cell will never grow up to be an adult human, but a fertilized egg will, then the fertilized egg is the beginning.
 
1) If left alone, a sperm cell will never be anything more than a sperm cell. Once conception happens, you are dealing with the earliest stages of a human's life. The parts are all assembled.

IF LEFT ALONE, a fertilized egg will never be anything more than a fertilized egg. It is essential to growth to have the environment of a womb for 9 months. If a woman does not want to provide that environment, it is her choice. Once conception has occurred, the DNA blueprint for assembly is complete, but assembly depends entirely on the sustenance of a woman, a woman who is not automatically an incubator for an egg's convenience.

2) The natural course is relevant because we are trying to sort out when life begins. If a sperm cell will never grow up to be an adult human, but a fertilized egg will, then the fertilized egg is the beginning.

Life began millions of years ago and has continuous ever since. Life doesn't come from something unliving, life only comes from other life. IOW, life doesn't have a "beginning", it is a circle.
 
You hold one singular scientific fact that you, in a self-serving and hysterical way, expound upon and stretch to build an entire philosophy upon.

Well your overblown exaggeration of my position is only due to the fact you can't argue the science. Yes it is a singular scientific fact, that we all begin a the time we are created, we are never anything but a human.

Taking that one immutable fact.....


Well that one question I was addressing.

No, thats a question that has been before the Supreme Court

And it refused to address it, it sloughed it off.

"It is impossible to say when human life begins."
Lawyer Cooperative, U.S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 35 (1974), Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, p. 181; 410 US 113 at 159; cf. Harold O. J. Brown, Death Before Birth (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 81, cf. pp. 73-96; John Warwick Montgomery, "The Rights of the Unborn Children," The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol. 5 (1985-86), p. 64.


Well no it's not based on the science.


Should we have empathy and sympathy for something like this:

Embryo

I don't know do you have empathy and sympathy for insects? Did you think you were pulling a fast one of something?

How about.

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/11week/02_11.jpg

or

http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/11week/11_06.jpg

or

http://www.hyscience.com/photos/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

If you think you can win a photo war I think you are seriously mistaken.
http://www.ub.ntnu.no/scorpion-files/p_truculentus(embryo).jpg
 
Oh wonderful, here come the dead fetus pictures. What an *******.
 
I noticed you didn't addresses any of the specific points I addressed but went on to another made-up definition.

Your "specific points" all referred back to the same general argument. I didn't expect you to read my post, but surely you read your own.

Nope, it certainly is not dead before then.

Human life. Can you ever see in shades of gray?

Oh another phony "consensus" argument. No that is not when human life begins...It is certainly not scientific fact...Since mine is based on scientific fact and yours is not we probably can't. The question is should we use made up definitions in order to justify the killing of a human life or not.

Here is another example of what I did earlier... all of these points address the science, so I'll reply to them collectively, OK? Is that suitable for you?

For every source you provide that says human life begins at conception, I can provide one that disagrees. They will both be backed by biased science. This is a dead end argument, not even a debate.


[URLs removed as they are pointless in debating]

If you think you can win a photo war I think you are seriously mistaken.

Oh, I have no doubt you can win an appeal at emotion, Stinger, those are your favorite methods of debate.
 
Well your overblown exaggeration of my position is only due to the fact you can't argue the science. Yes it is a singular scientific fact, that we all begin a the time we are created, we are never anything but a human.

I never stated we were anything but human. However, we are not always persons. And you haven't even begun to touch on the science...one singular point of truth is only the microscopic tip of a very big ice berg.

And it refused to address it, it sloughed it off.

"It is impossible to say when human life begins."
Lawyer Cooperative, U.S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 35 (1974), Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, p. 181; 410 US 113 at 159; cf. Harold O. J. Brown, Death Before Birth (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 81, cf. pp. 73-96; John Warwick Montgomery, "The Rights of the Unborn Children," The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol. 5 (1985-86), p. 64.


Well no it's not based on the science.

No, it made a fair judgment based on more than one singular point of fact. You keep stretching this singular point into an argument but it will only carry you so far.

I don't know do you have empathy and sympathy for insects? Did you think you were pulling a fast one of something?

I applaud you for being more astute than most. However, a scorpion is not an insect, it is an arthropod.


[/QUOTE]

Yay, I love it when pro-lifers claim to have so much respect for the fetus yet shamelessly display their corpses to generate some kind of sympathy vote. I wouldn't do that to one of our soldiers...why do you do that to one of your tiny babies that you claim to revere so much?

And I don't need to play a photo war...I don't need emotional appeals to win the intellectual war with you. :mrgreen:
 
I never stated we were anything but human.

Yes, from the moment of conception until we either die or are killed. From that moment we are being, and are human beings. That is the science, the rest is semantics.


However, we are not always persons.

The rest is just silly semantical games to justify the killing of a human being. "We'll just declare them non-person humans and then we can kill em!"

And you haven't even begun to touch on the science..

My whole argument has been based solely and singularly in science.

.one singular point of truth

The only salient point to the question when does the life begin.
is only the microscopic tip of a very big ice berg.

No, blowing it up into something big is just trying to complicate the issue, in order to confuse the issue then anything can be justified.

No, it made a fair judgment based on more than one singular point of fact.

No sir, as I cited, it specifically and succinctly refuse to.

You keep stretching this singular point into an argument but it will only carry you so far.

It IS the point of the argument, trying to change the point doesn't change the point.


I applaud you for being more astute than most. However, a scorpion is not an insect, it is an arthropod.

Actually they are Arachnidia, which are insects. Spiders, assorted bugs an the like. Why did you post pictures of insect larve and ask me if I had empathy for them?

Yay, I love it when pro-lifers claim to have so much respect for the fetus yet shamelessly display their corpses to generate some kind of sympathy vote.

If you are going to post pictures of dead things, expect me to respond in kind except I will post actually pictures of the results of what it is you support allowing to happen. Your claiming that I did something shameless in response to your posting what you claimed to be a fetus when in fact they were larve ( I told you I majored in biology why you try to pull these things is beyond me) was dishonest. I posted what YOU claimed to be posting and you say I am shameless. I think the events show otherwise.

And I don't need to play a photo war...

Yeah that's for sure.

I don't need emotional appeals

Then don't try it again.

to win the intellectual war with you.

Then don't try it again.
 
Yes, from the moment of conception until we either die or are killed. From that moment we are being, and are human beings. That is the science, the rest is semantics.


The rest is just silly semantical games to justify the killing of a human being. "We'll just declare them non-person humans and then we can kill em!"

If you're going to use the scientific definition of "human" to set policy, then you need to explain why it's ethically wrong to kill any organism that is biologically "human."
 
Yes, from the moment of conception until we either die or are killed. From that moment we are being, and are human beings. That is the science, the rest is semantics.

Whether or not zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are "human", they have no right to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to extract the bodily resources of another human against her will.
Nobody, born or unborn, has that right.
 
there are Grays between Alive and Dead?
when are those?

Heck let's just declare the teenage years a gray area and then when they get really bad we can threaten to abort them cause we don't like them anymore.
 
Whether or not zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are "human", they have no right to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to extract the bodily resources of another human against her will.
Nobody, born or unborn, has that right.

Oh geez that silly argument.

NO thanks.
 
Oh geez that silly argument.

There's nothing silly about it. No one has the right to use another person's body against their will, period. You can't force someone to use their body to keep yours alive regardless of the circumstances. That's simple reality, whether you're talking about a fetus or an adult hooking themselves up to your kidneys. It cannot be done, period.

The fact that you have no response to this simple truth shows that you really have nothing to say against it.
 
Whether or not zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are "human", they have no right to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to extract the bodily resources of another human against her will.
Nobody, born or unborn, has that right.
YOU ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THIS MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN YOU SPREAD YOUR LEGS
IMPLIED CONSENT IS ALREADY THERE
All life has rights, despite the B.S. argurments of self-absorbed women ANYTHIGN ELSE IS A COPOUT OF RESPONSIBILITY
 
YOU ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THIS MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN YOU SPREAD YOUR LEGS
IMPLIED CONSENT IS ALREADY THERE
All life has rights, despite the B.S. argurments of self-absorbed women ANYTHIGN ELSE IS A COPOUT OF RESPONSIBILITY

Acceptance of the possibility of a negative outcome is not consent for that negative outcome to happen. I don't consent for the plane to crash when I get on it, but I accept it could happen.
 
Acceptance of the possibility of a negative outcome is not consent for that negative outcome to happen. I don't consent for the plane to crash when I get on it, but I accept it could happen.

And you have to deal with whatever negative outcome happens.
 
If you're going to use the scientific definition of "human" to set policy, then you need to explain why it's ethically wrong to kill any organism that is biologically "human."



Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,



The Constitution of the United States of America:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Mirriam-Webster on-line Dictionary
One entry found for posterity.


Main Entry: pos·ter·i·ty
Pronunciation: pä-'ster-&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English posterite, from Anglo-French pusterité, from Latin posteritat-, posteritas, from posterus coming after
1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
 
Last edited:
Whether or not zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are "human", they have no right to inhabit the body of an unwilling human host, nor to extract the bodily resources of another human against her will.
Nobody, born or unborn, has that right.

They have the inalienable right to life--and procreation, or rather, being "procreated" is entirely a law of nature to which every human is subject and ergo entitled to this right to life.
 
The fact that you have no response to this simple truth shows that you really have nothing to say against it.
The laws of nature ensure the entitlement to the right to life--that is SELF-EVIDENT--except to those that want to allow the killing of one's "posterity."
 
Last edited:
They have the inalienable right to life--and procreation, or rather, being "procreated" is entirely a law of nature to which every human is subject and ergo entitled to this right to life.

If that would the only "law" of nature, then no animal (including us) would ever kill another animal. Kinda debunks that "law" doesn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom