Evidence for God from Science

Imperial wrote:

Swamper wrote:http://www.abort73.com

I am convinced that this site can destroy any pro-abortion argument

It's Pro-Choice NO ONE is Pro-Abortion.. that would mean you want EVERY baby to be aborted.


Yaa that 2 minute video was pretty bad. I think it should be showed to anyone considering abortions before they make their choice O_o.

Imperial, Either an unborn human is human or not human. If the baby is human, and you want to make the case to call it pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, think about this. If I'm pro-choice, I think people should be able to kill anyone they wish for whatever reason they want. I'm not pro-murder, because I don't want to kill everyone I meet. i just think that people should have the right to kill anyone they choose. Maybe some moron runs a red light. So, I think that Joe Schmo should be able to chase him down and shoot him between the eyes. Notice that I'm not pro-murder because I don't want to kill everyone. I just think Joe Schmo should have the right to murder if he wants. I don't want to deprive old Joe of his rights, do I ?

RickD wrote:

Imperial wrote:

Swamper wrote:http://www.abort73.com

I am convinced that this site can destroy any pro-abortion argument

It's Pro-Choice NO ONE is Pro-Abortion.. that would mean you want EVERY baby to be aborted.


Yaa that 2 minute video was pretty bad. I think it should be showed to anyone considering abortions before they make their choice O_o.

Imperial, Either an unborn human is human or not human. If the baby is human, and you want to make the case to call it pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, think about this. If I'm pro-choice, I think people should be able to kill anyone they wish for whatever reason they want. I'm not pro-murder, because I don't want to kill everyone I meet. i just think that people should have the right to kill anyone they choose. Maybe some moron runs a red light. So, I think that Joe Schmo should be able to chase him down and shoot him between the eyes. Notice that I'm not pro-murder because I don't want to kill everyone. I just think Joe Schmo should have the right to murder if he wants. I don't want to deprive old Joe of his rights, do I ?

Yyyyya... exactly. You're for the CHOICE.. You aren't necessarily for MURDER (abortion). All Zoegirl (and others) are doin is exaggerating the opposing side of the argument to seem worse than they really are. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the actual meaning of what the word choice means.


FYI Zoegirl if you're reading this, If i was given the option to vote, I would be more for Pro-Life. GJ fighting against someone on your side - i just have enough respect for the opposite opinion to call it what it really is Choice.

Right, and if you *truly* believe that it is a life (and many in the "pro-choice" camp will accede to this) then even saying pro-choice is saying "I am really ok with someone murdering their child".

Let's apply this logic elsewhere. Let's say that all agree that this is a separate human being that is alive, just as a 2 month old is. The 2-month old is entirely dependent on the mother (or other care-giver). It cannot provide for itself. It relies on food being given it. So apart from it's location, it is entirely the same condition as a 2-month fetus.

So let's say (and actually Peter singer and some other ethicists will, believe it or not, espouse this idea) that a mother kills the 2-month old baby....and claims that because it is entirely dependent on her, she is still nursing it, etc...that it was her choice to terminate the baby.

Of course everyone gasps at this....why??!? Simply because she is in a different location?

Bottomline: IF IT IS A SEPARATE HUMAN LIFE, ABORTION KILLS....IT IS MURDER. Rationalize it all you want, call it choice....whatever. By saying it is choice, you are essentially condoning murder.

zoegirl wrote:Right, and if you *truly* believe that it is a life (and many in the "pro-choice" camp will accede to this) then even saying pro-choice is saying "I am really ok with someone murdering their child".

Let's apply this logic elsewhere. Let's say that all agree that this is a separate human being that is alive, just as a 2 month old is. The 2-month old is entirely dependent on the mother (or other care-giver). It cannot provide for itself. It relies on food being given it. So apart from it's location, it is entirely the same condition as a 2-month fetus.

So let's say (and actually Peter singer and some other ethicists will, believe it or not, espouse this idea) that a mother kills the 2-month old baby....and claims that because it is entirely dependent on her, she is still nursing it, etc...that it was her choice to terminate the baby.

Of course everyone gasps at this....why??!? Simply because she is in a different location?

Bottomline: IF IT IS A SEPARATE HUMAN LIFE, ABORTION KILLS....IT IS MURDER. Rationalize it all you want, call it choice....whatever. By saying it is choice, you are essentially condoning murder.

PLEASE tell me where i ever said Abortion is Not Murder. And for the 5th time just because someone is Pro-Choice doesn't mean they want to kill all babies, and it also does not mean that there will be more abortions if Choice wins. You are basically assuming that people will kill their babies for fun, or just because they can. My only deal here is that all you're doing is trying to make Pro-Choice people seem worse than they really are. And once again.

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the actual meaning of what the word choice means.

I'm not saying *you* don't think it's not murder....but that is exactly my point....If it IS murder....If it IS a distinct life, then why are we willing to give ANYBODY a CHOICE to kill their baby?!?!?!?!?

Hear how ludicrous this sounds....Well, *I* personally don't think you should kill a 2 year old and I know a 2 year old is alive....but every mother should have the choice to kill their 2 year old.

And yet somehow we are willing to tolerate a murder, abortion, simply because of location.

I am sure that there are a whole lot of nice pro-choice people....doesn't mean they aren't thinking through their position.

Here's nother way to think about the pro-choice position. "I wouldn't personally have slaves and I personally think having slaves is wrong, but I think everyone should have the choice to decide".

It sure sounds nicer to say you are giving people a choice, doesn't it!? But why in the world are we tolerating it?

If an action is wrong, if we are saying that it is murder, then by golly we even tolerate a choice?!?!? we don't give people a choice for murder, we this!

zoegirl wrote:I'm not saying *you* don't think it's not murder....but that is exactly my point....If it IS murder....If it IS a distinct life, then why are we willing to give ANYBODY a CHOICE to kill their baby?!?!?!?!?

Hear how ludicrous this sounds....Well, *I* personally don't think you should kill a 2 year old and I know a 2 year old is alive....but every mother should have the choice to kill their 2 year old.

And yet somehow we are willing to tolerate a murder, abortion, simply because of location.

I am sure that there are a whole lot of nice pro-choice people....doesn't mean they aren't thinking through their position.

Here's nother way to think about the pro-choice position. "I wouldn't personally have slaves and I personally think having slaves is wrong, but I think everyone should have the choice to decide".

It sure sounds nicer to say you are giving people a choice, doesn't it!? But why in the world are we tolerating it?

If an action is wrong, if we are saying that it is murder, then by golly we even tolerate a choice?!?!? we don't give people a choice for murder, we this!

Soooo the only reason you're still replying to this is because you're trying to convince me that Pro-Choice is bad even though i already said that i'm more for Pro-Life?

I understand perfectly where you stand....

I am saying that Pro-choice is an irrational stand to take if you are *personally* against abortion because you feel it is murder and yet you are willing to let others kill babies.

Simple as that. Those that say "I personally do not believe in abortion, and in fact believe it to be murder, but I want others to have a choice" haven't thought through the ramifications of their philosophy.

I contend to you that since the right to your own body is a basic human right, that abortion should be decided by oneself.

Except, of course, when you are carrying another person inside you, then it is not your body...

Actually it is your own body, because the fetus cannot survive without being attached to said body. The fetus is not an individual because it is not capable of independent existence. A fetus is not a human being, it is pre-human. If you are going to categorize pre-human as human then you might as well categorize a caterpillar as a butterfly.

So you would condone a murder of a 3 month old because it can't survive on it's own...gotcha...

The fetus has different DNA, the mom's immune system has to be fooled into not attacking the baby, it produces it's own distinct antigens, what about the fetus means it's not an individual?? The fact that it gets its nutrients from the umbilical cord???

And the caterpillar certainly has the same DNA as that of the butterfly form, it's simply a different stage.

Nice straw-man. Did I say I would murder a 3-year-old? No, I didn't. That goes under the assumption that I would kill something that can't survive on it's own, which I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Your point? Different DNA does not mean it is a human being. If we were to go by that logic then I could say a mosquito has a human being inside it because of the human DNA it got from sucking on human blood.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

ramunematt wrote:Nice straw-man. Did I say I would murder a 3-year-old? No, I didn't. That goes under the assumption that I would kill something that can't survive on it's own, which I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I personally did not see any other reason you put besides self-survival as to why you consider a human "little one" (fetus) pre-human.

ramunematt wrote:Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

Well, my natural environment thankfully is not inside another human body. May I ask where the natural environment of a human fetus is, if not the womb of the mother?

ramunematt wrote:Nice straw-man. Did I say I would murder a 3-year-old? No, I didn't. That goes under the assumption that I would kill something that can't survive on it's own, which I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

It was a very easy conclusion. You stated that the reason it is not considered a separate human individual is that it depends upon the mother...which very obviously means thta anything that depends upon another human is not really a separate individual.

The only difference between a fetus and a baby born 1 minute old is it's location. So I must assume that your litmus test is dependency.

Your point? Different DNA does not mean it is a human being.

Then what is it??

If we were to go by that logic then I could say a mosquito has a human being inside it because of the human DNA it got from sucking on human blood.

Umm, no, because the number of chromosomes is completely distinct. The mosquito has it's own unique number of chromosome and eating some of our cells does not mean it is that organism

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission.

Other than the initial conception, much of the pregnancy is controlled by the fetus. The hormone levels, the immune response,the amount of bone loss of the mother to provide calcium to the baby, even the birth is triggered by the fetus. For the duration of the pregnancy, that baby has essentially taken over her body...it does not require her permission to be sustained.

This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body.

Permissions are not rights. Even if you did consider the fetus as an actual human being, there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else. A woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church) it is her decision whether she wants to give the fetus permission to be a parasite to her body or not.

So you are saying that by the simple fact that it is located inside the womb, we are given the right to kill.

A simple question....Is it alive or not? Is it a separate human being. If it isn't then pray explain why it isn't considered alive and if it isn't a separate human being.

If it is, then you are now condoning murder. Simple as that. Either it is alive and a separate human or it's not.