Why I Am Pro-Life

[Rahul]

The fingernail argument is lame and fails to take into account genetic determinism. A baby has a heart, lungs, fingernails, eyelashes and a circulatory system. The blastocyst you had none of these things, and yet the blastocyst you is exactly that collection of cells that gave rise to all those specialized parts of the baby that eventually got born. Fingernails do not an embryo make.

This fails the logic test for one main reason. A blastocyst is not going to give rise to all those specialized parts of the baby that eventually got born. A blastocyst is potentially going to do that. There's no "eventuality" to it. Eventuality implies inevitably.

You are looking backwords. You are looking at a living human and retroactively thinking, "What if someone had aborted that person? They would no longer exist."

That person already exists so you can't use that as an example.

Aborting a fetus isn't killing anyone. It's only removing a possibility.

If you believe removing the possibility of someone existing holds weight in this discussion then you have to admit that your not having our unborn, potential child is equally as wrong as having an abortion.

So when do we meet?

[fr0d0]

What sources? What science? I still haven't seen any, and you've failed to address the many people who have asked you, so here I am again: What sources? What science?

You needs to read the thread Rex

(I'm on my mobile so forgive me for not wiping your bum for you)

[rexbeccarox]

What sources? What science? I still haven't seen any, and you've failed to address the many people who have asked you, so here I am again: What sources? What science?

You needs to read the thread Rex

(I'm on my mobile so forgive me for not wiping your bum for you)

I read the whole thread, Fr0d0, including my post back on page... I dunno... five maybe? Where I asked you to cite your sources. Still didn't happen. I guess you must be on your mobile all the time. I can wipe my own ass, thanks.

[Slave]

Actually, I don't think of it that way. I don't care for people who project their opinion of me onto me as though it were a fact and it has no place in a debate. I have simply demonstrated that there is a clear and definable difference between your severed finger and an embryo. The finger is the physical result of a genetic code that took time and nourishment to achieve. A finger is a piece of flesh consisting of human DNA. An embryo is not a piece of flesh. An embryo is an unborn offspring in the process of development. Your finger is an extension of you, your body. An embryo - as it is well established - is not merely an extension of the mother who hosts it. An embryo is a seperate entity.

The 'an embryo might as well be a tumor' argument, popular among pro-abortionists, has been refuted time and time again, and not without facts. I will not address this analogy again, because I am tired of dancing around the same tired argument when it has been made clear why it is a false premise.

Aborting a fetus isn't killing anyone. It's only removing a possibility.

Aborting a fetus is the termination of a human life. Repeating something over and over again in spite of evidence does not make it true. I have defined what constitutes life. I have defined how a fetus is a human, not just a body part. If you cannot understand that a fetus is merely a human in a different stage of growth from you, I don't know what more I can say. I guess I can point you to a webpage with a multitude of quotes from abortion doctors themselves who admit to being aware that they are killing humans by performing abortions. Maybe if it comes straight from the horses mouth, you might understand why abortion is not simply a 'removing of a possible human'.

http://liveactionnews.org/abortionists-a...s-killing/

If you believe removing the possibility of someone existing holds weight in this discussion then you have to admit that your not having our unborn, potential child is equally as wrong as having an abortion.

A fetus is not a possibility of someone existing. They already exist. How is this not already understood?

The cognitive dissonance in this thread never fails to surprise me.

[fr0d0]

A freshly severed human finger is a human "life". It isn't beetle. It isn't a monkey. Living human cells going about their normal processes. And it all contains human DNA.

Unless anyone here is able to prove to me that a freshly severed human finger is not human and not alive, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

I really wish you'd fire those ears up. Because my argument is sound.

Human DNA never ever equals human life.

DNA from a human is human DNA. That's all.

What is created in the course of human reproduction is human life. A life that begins at conception, with the zygote (see scientific sources above).

Cloning etc is a whole other subject where ethics may be blurred. Just because cloning removes a choice to terminate life, it doesn't follow that when a person does choose to terminate a pregnancy that theirs is the choice to terminate human life.

The severed finger was part of a living animal. If it's severed, and assuming that human fingers can't survive without the body which supports it, cannot be classed as a life in its own right. It will be alive as long as it's support remains. Not for very long after its support is removed.

A severed finger from a human is never a human. It has no life independently of a human.

Zygotes have a life outside of the host. it's life and the hosts life are two different things. Two lives, one growing inside the other. At some point a separation occurs, the legal definition of unjust killing, and two humans emerge.

I see no sound argument that a finger is the same as a human life.

[rexbeccarox]

The cognitive dissonance in this thread never fails to surprise me.

Wow. Really? Me neither!

[fr0d0]

I read the whole thread, Fr0d0, including my post back on page... I dunno... five maybe? Where I asked you to cite your sources. Still didn't happen. I guess you must be on your mobile all the time. I can wipe my own ass, thanks.

I cited them clearly in one of my first few posts in this thread rex. Slave cited some just a few posts ago.

Your ass must be very dirty.

[rexbeccarox]

I read the whole thread, Fr0d0, including my post back on page... I dunno... five maybe? Where I asked you to cite your sources. Still didn't happen. I guess you must be on your mobile all the time. I can wipe my own ass, thanks.

I cited them clearly in one of my first few posts in this thread rex. Slave cited some just a few posts ago.

Your ass must be very dirty.

Yeah. From wading waist-deep in other people's shit.

ETA: I'm proud to say this is my 500th post.

[Rahul]

Actually, I don't think of it that way. I don't care for people who project their opinion of me onto me as though it were a fact and it has no place in a debate. I have simply demonstrated that there is a clear and definable difference between your severed finger and an embryo. The finger is the physical result of a genetic code that took time and nourishment to achieve. A finger is a peace of flesh consisting of human DNA. An embryo is not a piece of flesh.

Yes it is. Living human cells. Not a person. Piece of flesh.

An embryo is an unborn offspring in the process of development.

By unborn you mean it's going to be born. That's a sure thing. We're not talking about a sure thing. We're talking about a possibility.

Your finger is an extension of you, your body. An embryo - as it is well established - is not merely an extension of the mother who hosts it. An embryo is a seperate entity.

It's not an entity until the higher brain develops. The Cerebrum. Until then it's not an entity. It's not a person. It's just a potential one.

The 'an' embryo might as well be a tumor' argument, popular among pro-abortionists, has been refuted time and time again, and not without facts. I will not address this analogy again, because I am tired of dancing around the same tired argument when it has been made clear why it is a false premise.

It's only been made clear that it's false by flawed thinking. Which is to say, it's not false.

Aborting a fetus is the termination of a human life.

Define human life. Define it.

If you cannot understand that a fetus is merely a human in a different stage of growth from you, I don't know what more I can say.

If you won't logically ruminate on your thinking I guess I don't know what more I can say either.

I guess I can point you to a webpage with a multitude of quotes from abortion doctors themselves who admit to being aware that they are killing humans by performing abortions.

I don't care what some doctor thinks. Most doctors would believe otherwise. I don't care if some doctors are dense.

Maybe if it comes straight from the horses mouth, you might understand why abortion is not simply a 'removing of a possible human'.

http://liveactionnews.org/abortionists-a...s-killing/

The entire article is a plea to emotion.

A fetus is not a possibility of someone existing. They already exist. How is this not already understood?

"Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time."

http://www.babycenter.com/0_understandin...age_252.bc

The cognitive dissonance in this thread never fails to surprise me.

Ever considered the slight possibility that you might be wrong? It would explain a lot to you.

[NoraBrimstone]

A human kidney grown from stem cells in a lab would have human DNA. Can we kill that if it's not needed/wanted? Or is that unethical, too?