Total Posts:164|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for pro-life people

rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This question is for anyone who believes that human personhood and all human rights begin at conception.

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 2:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:
This question is for anyone who believes that human personhood and all human rights begin at conception.

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

It's not my position, but unitedandy had the best attempt to make the case that I can remember seeing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 5:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

One does not argue this by religion. It can be won strictly on logic.

First and foremost, life begins at fertilization. This is scientific fact that cannot be argued away. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all technical medical terms that describe the development of the human being and not whether or not it is a human being. They are no different that toddler or teenager.

Second, we live under a principle of equality before the law.

Third we require parents to provide the needs of the child.

These are the basics that you have to build your argument around. People will throw up all sorts of crazy theories to attempt to find a hole in the argument. Hold firm to these and read good arguments. You have truth on your side in this argument. As such you will ultimately win the argument.

Additionally it helps if you learn some basic philosophy and understand how to determine if an action is moral or not.

I suggest that the principle of double effect is valid:

1) The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.

2) The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

3) The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.

4) The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

The second of these four conditions is an application of the more general principle that good ends do not justify evil means

This will help you understand how to deal with difficult moral quandaries.

If we look at a woman who is pregnant and has cancer. Is it moral for her to undergo chemo?

Is undergoing chemo to save the mother's life a morally neutral or positive act? Yes.
The death of the child is not what effects the positive effect on the mother? Yes.
The objective of chemo is to save the mother's life and not to kill the child? Yes.
The good of saving the mother's life is morally equivalent to the death of the child? Yes.

One life saved = one life that dies.

Thus a mother undergoing chemo when her life is at risk is morally justified to do so. Additionally, she is morally justified not to do so in order to save the life of the unborn child.

I cannot list every possibility here, but if there are specific arguments that you want an answer to let me know.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 5:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 5:04:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

One does not argue this by religion. It can be won strictly on logic.

First and foremost, life begins at fertilization. This is scientific fact that cannot be argued away. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all technical medical terms that describe the development of the human being and not whether or not it is a human being. They are no different that toddler or teenager.

Second, we live under a principle of equality before the law.

Third we require parents to provide the needs of the child.

These are the basics that you have to build your argument around. People will throw up all sorts of crazy theories to attempt to find a hole in the argument. Hold firm to these and read good arguments. You have truth on your side in this argument. As such you will ultimately win the argument.

Additionally it helps if you learn some basic philosophy and understand how to determine if an action is moral or not.

I suggest that the principle of double effect is valid:

1) The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.

2) The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

3) The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.

4) The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

The second of these four conditions is an application of the more general principle that good ends do not justify evil means

This will help you understand how to deal with difficult moral quandaries.

If we look at a woman who is pregnant and has cancer. Is it moral for her to undergo chemo?

Is undergoing chemo to save the mother's life a morally neutral or positive act? Yes.
The death of the child is not what effects the positive effect on the mother? Yes.
The objective of chemo is to save the mother's life and not to kill the child? Yes.
The good of saving the mother's life is morally equivalent to the death of the child? Yes.

One life saved = one life that dies.

Thus a mother undergoing chemo when her life is at risk is morally justified to do so. Additionally, she is morally justified not to do so in order to save the life of the unborn child.

I cannot list every possibility here, but if there are specific arguments that you want an answer to let me know.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 5:56:04 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.

A prime example right here. One could make 2 arguments. One could say that the child has a right to the mother's body based on natural law. The child is using the mother's reproductive system for precisely the purpose that it exists in precisely the way it is meant to be used. As the child has only been following the system that nature has established it is not guilty of any crime against the mother. Additionally, naturally the purpose of every living creature is to reproduce and further the species. Thus being pregnant is in reality a "natural good". If the mother voluntarily engaged in sexual activity she implicitly accepted the natural consequences of this action.

If she was raped we now have case of 2 competing victims. The mother who was raped and forced to engage in procreative act against her will, and the child whom the mother may want to abort. As this child did not create this situation, the mother does not have redress against the child as it is an innocent 3rd party. She does have redress against the rapist. Additionally, though there are competing rights at play here, the right of the woman to her own body and the right of the child to live. As the right to life is the most fundamental right of every human being, permitting the mother to kill the child is a greater offense than temporarily suspending the right of the mother.

Finally you could show that the mother can be legally forced to use her body for the good of a child. Let's assume the mother of a newborn decided to feed with formula instead of breast feeding because it caused her discomfort. She was trapped in a snow storm and couldn't get any more formula. As she is obligated by law to provide for the needs of her child, and the fundamental purpose of breasts is the nourishment of the young of the species, she would be obligated by law to breast feed her child until she could arrange for another means of providing food for her child.

As you can see it is logical arguments that will win the debate.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don Marquis Future Like Ours argument.

Basically, it reasons that the best explanation for a general account for the wrongness of killing include the unborn.

Marquis would argue that it's not as strict as usual arguments against abortion in its demand for either life beginning immediately after conception or in it's labelling of a foetus as a person. It also doesn't demand a consistent "life" position (i.e. opposition to euthanasia). In other words, it allows opponents of abortion flexibility while proving (imo) pretty decent grounds for justifying the view that abortion is seriously morally wrong.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 5:04:03 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

One does not argue this by religion. It can be won strictly on logic.

First and foremost, life begins at fertilization. This is scientific fact that cannot be argued away. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all technical medical terms that describe the development of the human being and not whether or not it is a human being. They are no different that toddler or teenager.

First of all, a conclusion can only be reached via logic if you have established premises leading to that conclusion. All you've just done is reword the conclusion you've already reached and used it to support itself.

Secondly, science has nothing to say on when life begins, because it is not demonstrable, and is reliant on subjective definitions. Therefore saying it's a scientific fact is blatantly false.

Thirdly, if science has anything to say on the topic, it actually contradicts your position. While science hasn't made any conclusions on when life begins, it does have some pretty clear conclusions on when it ends. Specifically, a person is considered to be truly "dead" once brain activity has ceased. This stands to reason, as everything about a person's identity - their thoughts, memories, sense-of-self, is dependent on the brain functioning, and when it ceases to function, it cannot start again.

So following from that, it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that life couldn't be considered to have begun until at least there is some form of brain activity. Which is some time after conception.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:
This question is for anyone who believes that human personhood and all human rights begin at conception.

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

I don't think there is any scientific way to know the answer. The one thing that has always gone through my mind is whether it's best to err on the side of caution by accepting that it is possible or whether to take the more convenient course because it simply can't be proven. Do we gamble with the possibility that we're ending a human life or do we dismiss that possibility for the sake of convenience?
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:22:32 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/17/2014 5:56:04 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.

A prime example right here. One could make 2 arguments. One could say that the child has a right to the mother's body based on natural law. The child is using the mother's reproductive system for precisely the purpose that it exists in precisely the way it is meant to be used. As the child has only been following the system that nature has established it is not guilty of any crime against the mother. Additionally, naturally the purpose of every living creature is to reproduce and further the species. Thus being pregnant is in reality a "natural good". If the mother voluntarily engaged in sexual activity she implicitly accepted the natural consequences of this action.

If she was raped we now have case of 2 competing victims. The mother who was raped and forced to engage in procreative act against her will, and the child whom the mother may want to abort. As this child did not create this situation, the mother does not have redress against the child as it is an innocent 3rd party. She does have redress against the rapist. Additionally, though there are competing rights at play here, the right of the woman to her own body and the right of the child to live. As the right to life is the most fundamental right of every human being, permitting the mother to kill the child is a greater offense than temporarily suspending the right of the mother.

Finally you could show that the mother can be legally forced to use her body for the good of a child. Let's assume the mother of a newborn decided to feed with formula instead of breast feeding because it caused her discomfort. She was trapped in a snow storm and couldn't get any more formula. As she is obligated by law to provide for the needs of her child, and the fundamental purpose of breasts is the nourishment of the young of the species, she would be obligated by law to breast feed her child until she could arrange for another means of providing food for her child.

As you can see it is logical arguments that will win the debate.

Well you produced a lot of emotive excuses but not one iota of logic.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:09:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:
This question is for anyone who believes that human personhood and all human rights begin at conception.

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

Better yet, how do you convince Christians that the flesh of men are only illusions that are formed from their processed invisible existence as invisible vibrations?

Don't you understand that it takes information ( God's language ) in order to form illusions in a womb that's only an illusion, also?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm non-religious and pro-life. I just don't think a baby should be killed on the whim of a woman who knew what she was getting into. Obviously a dangerous pregnancy/rape are different, but I just don't care for recreational abortion.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:15:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over

Except the zygote is formed of independent genetic material. Genetically speaking, it is it's own entity, and not a part of the mother's body. So your argument is flawed. Game over.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:18:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:15:59 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over

Except the zygote is formed of independent genetic material. Genetically speaking, it is it's own entity, and not a part of the mother's body. So your argument is flawed. Game over.
If it's not a part of her body then it is a parasite and she has every right to dispense with it. Great argument.
Game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:24:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:18:40 PM, bulproof wrote:

If it's not a part of her body then it is a parasite and she has every right to dispense with it. Great argument.
Game over.

Ah. The old "parasite" argument. Except no other "parasite" has the potential to reason, to have conceptions of morality, to be human. A zygote is fundamentally different from any other parasite on earth. First, it doesn't just utilize resources from the mother's daily intake of food, it develops a conscience. Second, a parasite is a parasite inside and outside the body of it's host. A zygote develops into a fully functional, independent lifeform. It is not a parasite, therefore, because at some point in it's life development, it can function without the host. A parasitic creature does not gain it's independence at all. It requires a host to live. A zygote doesn't, once it develops far enough. You are, therefore, attempting to dehumanize something that is inherently human. It's human DNA, not dog, not worm, not tapeworm DNA in that "parasite."

Lastly, inherent in the description of a zygote as a "parasite" is the assumption that the relationship developed between the mother's body and the zygote was not mutual in development. That is, that the mother did not wish for it, nor was she aware of the possibility of that relationship developing. Everyone who has sex knows that a child results from it. It is, therefore, illogical to describe it as a parasite.

Game over.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another point dismantling the "baby is a parasite" argument. A parasite exists purely at the expense of it's host. A baby sends cells across the placenta to heal and keep the mother alive. A parasite would be concerned first and foremost with it's nutrients, and parasitic organisms don't care if their host dies or not. No tapeworm endeavors to keep it's host alive. But a baby does.

http://www.lifesitenews.com...
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:28:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:14:17 PM, rockwater wrote:
This question is for anyone who believes that human personhood and all human rights begin at conception.

How can you convince anyone with no religious beliefs to believe this? How do you convince them that a human fertilized egg is a human person and not just a potential human person?

Because in reality, it's an individual human organism, just at a different point in its life. And that's what we all are. :P
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:30:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
More proof of the baby's propensity to keep it's mother alive:

http://liveaction.org...
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:22:32 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/17/2014 5:56:04 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.

A prime example right here. One could make 2 arguments. One could say that the child has a right to the mother's body based on natural law. The child is using the mother's reproductive system for precisely the purpose that it exists in precisely the way it is meant to be used. As the child has only been following the system that nature has established it is not guilty of any crime against the mother. Additionally, naturally the purpose of every living creature is to reproduce and further the species. Thus being pregnant is in reality a "natural good". If the mother voluntarily engaged in sexual activity she implicitly accepted the natural consequences of this action.

If she was raped we now have case of 2 competing victims. The mother who was raped and forced to engage in procreative act against her will, and the child whom the mother may want to abort. As this child did not create this situation, the mother does not have redress against the child as it is an innocent 3rd party. She does have redress against the rapist. Additionally, though there are competing rights at play here, the right of the woman to her own body and the right of the child to live. As the right to life is the most fundamental right of every human being, permitting the mother to kill the child is a greater offense than temporarily suspending the right of the mother.

Finally you could show that the mother can be legally forced to use her body for the good of a child. Let's assume the mother of a newborn decided to feed with formula instead of breast feeding because it caused her discomfort. She was trapped in a snow storm and couldn't get any more formula. As she is obligated by law to provide for the needs of her child, and the fundamental purpose of breasts is the nourishment of the young of the species, she would be obligated by law to breast feed her child until she could arrange for another means of providing food for her child.

As you can see it is logical arguments that will win the debate.

Well you produced a lot of emotive excuses but not one iota of logic.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over

You're just question begging. Sure, if the fetus is just another part of the woman's body, then she can do what she wants with it (legally, but not necessarily morally.)

Your argument would only convince pro-choicers, so it's useless in this context. No pro-lifer thinks that the fetus is just another part of the woman's body.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:18:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:15:59 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM, bulproof wrote:

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over

Except the zygote is formed of independent genetic material. Genetically speaking, it is it's own entity, and not a part of the mother's body. So your argument is flawed. Game over.
If it's not a part of her body then it is a parasite and she has every right to dispense with it. Great argument.
Game over.

Lol, not necessarily morally. She's half of the cause of why it's in her body in the first place. If it's another person who has been created against its will (if it had one at the time cuz it didn't exist yet, lol) due to her having sex, then she doesn't have a right to kill it.

Suddenly you find yourself in a room, with all the doors locked. Every day they feed you bread and water. You don't know why you're in there... you certainly didn't choose it. Then they come in, and kill you, because the owner of the building said you were trespassing on his property. But you find out that the whole reason you're in there in the first place is partly due to him. That sounds like great logic to me. xD
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:24:10 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:18:40 PM, bulproof wrote:

If it's not a part of her body then it is a parasite and she has every right to dispense with it. Great argument.
Game over.

Ah. The old "parasite" argument. Except no other "parasite" has the potential to reason, to have conceptions of morality, to be human. A zygote is fundamentally different from any other parasite on earth. First, it doesn't just utilize resources from the mother's daily intake of food, it develops a conscience. Second, a parasite is a parasite inside and outside the body of it's host. A zygote develops into a fully functional, independent lifeform. It is not a parasite, therefore, because at some point in it's life development, it can function without the host. A parasitic creature does not gain it's independence at all. It requires a host to live. A zygote doesn't, once it develops far enough. You are, therefore, attempting to dehumanize something that is inherently human. It's human DNA, not dog, not worm, not tapeworm DNA in that "parasite."

Lastly, inherent in the description of a zygote as a "parasite" is the assumption that the relationship developed between the mother's body and the zygote was not mutual in development. That is, that the mother did not wish for it, nor was she aware of the possibility of that relationship developing. Everyone who has sex knows that a child results from it. It is, therefore, illogical to describe it as a parasite.

Game over.
To the highlighted.

HOW OLD ARE YOU? SHEESH

You're the one who declared it a parasite, claiming that it may develope into an intelligent parasite is as weak an argument as I've seen.
Go back to talking with the deluded, your drowning out here in the deep water.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:39:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:36:21 PM, bulproof wrote:

HOW OLD ARE YOU? SHEESH

You're the one who declared it a parasite, claiming that it may develope into an intelligent parasite is as weak an argument as I've seen.
Go back to talking with the deluded, your drowning out here in the deep water.

Well. Seems like you have absolutely no respect for anyone who disagrees with you. 21, but I guess you couldn't figure out that the little arrow on your screen and the corresponding button on your mouse can lead you to my profile, where my age is clearly displayed.

I never said anything about a "parasite." And I just showed how your characterization of a zygote as a "parasite" is fundamentally flawed. If all you have left is ad hominem attacks, you truly must be a pathetic human being. How sad, that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks when your argument is dismantled before your eyes.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:49:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:39:49 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:36:21 PM, bulproof wrote:

HOW OLD ARE YOU? SHEESH

You're the one who declared it a parasite, claiming that it may develope into an intelligent parasite is as weak an argument as I've seen.
Go back to talking with the deluded, your drowning out here in the deep water.

Well. Seems like you have absolutely no respect for anyone who disagrees with you. 21, but I guess you couldn't figure out that the little arrow on your screen and the corresponding button on your mouse can lead you to my profile, where my age is clearly displayed.

I never said anything about a "parasite." And I just showed how your characterization of a zygote as a "parasite" is fundamentally flawed. If all you have left is ad hominem attacks, you truly must be a pathetic human being. How sad, that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks when your argument is dismantled before your eyes.

Did you read what you wrote. You need a lesson or 100 in reproductive biology.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:49:29 PM, bulproof wrote:

Did you read what you wrote. You need a lesson or 100 in reproductive biology.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.

I read exactly what you wrote. And your diagnosis of a baby as a parasite is incorrect, for the reasons I listed above. Looks like I'm not the one who needs a biology lesson. And I'd sign up for a reading lesson while you're at it, or do you just make a habit of completely ignoring any argument that runs counter to your position, regardless of how much factual and biological support it has?

Game over. Player 2: Blaze8 winner!
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:01:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:51:27 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:49:29 PM, bulproof wrote:

Did you read what you wrote. You need a lesson or 100 in reproductive biology.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over.

I read exactly what you wrote. And your diagnosis of a baby as a parasite is incorrect, for the reasons I listed above. Looks like I'm not the one who needs a biology lesson. And I'd sign up for a reading lesson while you're at it, or do you just make a habit of completely ignoring any argument that runs counter to your position, regardless of how much factual and biological support it has?

Game over. Player 2: Blaze8 winner!
A demonstration of your knowledge of biology
Everyone who has sex knows that a child results from it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:01:41 PM, bulproof wrote:

A demonstration of your knowledge of biology
Everyone who has sex knows that a child results from it.

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize the rapist who rapes another person wasn't aware that intercourse is intended to result in a baby. I didn't realize that children who marry young and conceive early were completely ignorant of the fact the intention behind the act was to have a child. I didn't realize that teenagers who fu$% other people had no idea the actions they were engaging in were intended to result in sex.

Care to provide a statistically significant number for people who don't know that sex is intended to result in children? Good luck finding one.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*intended to result in a child.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:24:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:07:15 PM, blaze8 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 9:01:41 PM, bulproof wrote:

A demonstration of your knowledge of biology
Everyone who has sex knows that a child results from it.

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize the rapist who rapes another person wasn't aware that intercourse is intended to result in a baby. I didn't realize that children who marry young and conceive early were completely ignorant of the fact the intention behind the act was to have a child. I didn't realize that teenagers who fu$% other people had no idea the actions they were engaging in were intended to result in sex.

Care to provide a statistically significant number for people who don't know that sex is intended to result in children? Good luck finding one.

Get mummy and daddy to have THE talk with you. 90% of copulations do not result in fertilization and only 1 in 5 fertilized eggs progresses to a live birth. Over 60% of all abortions are natural in your language that means goddidit.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:47:21 PM, Drayson wrote:

First and foremost, life begins at fertilization. This is scientific fact that cannot be argued away. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all technical medical terms that describe the development of the human being and not whether or not it is a human being. They are no different that toddler or teenager.

First of all, a conclusion can only be reached via logic if you have established premises leading to that conclusion. All you've just done is reword the conclusion you've already reached and used it to support itself.

Secondly, science has nothing to say on when life begins, because it is not demonstrable, and is reliant on subjective definitions. Therefore saying it's a scientific fact is blatantly false.

200 years ago before the days before modern embryology you could get away making such an argument. Modern embryology (the basic stuff you learn in grade 10 bio these days) shows conclusively that a new human being has come into existence at the moment of fertilization. I can go back through your life second by second and find that you are the very same organism until the moment of fertilization when the gametes of your parents joined. This is indisputable fact that a new homo sapiens has come into being at this moment.

Thirdly, if science has anything to say on the topic, it actually contradicts your position. While science hasn't made any conclusions on when life begins, it does have some pretty clear conclusions on when it ends. Specifically, a person is considered to be truly "dead" once brain activity has ceased. This stands to reason, as everything about a person's identity - their thoughts, memories, sense-of-self, is dependent on the brain functioning, and when it ceases to function, it cannot start again.

So following from that, it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that life couldn't be considered to have begun until at least there is some form of brain activity. Which is some time after conception.

Except that this is a definition of when the biological process ceases past a certain stage of life. It says nothing about the active biological processes before a certain stage of life.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:29:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:00:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
Well you produced a lot of emotive excuses but not one iota of logic.

A woman is the only person who has a right to her body.
Game over

Really? None of what I wrote was based on emotion, but natural law, which is the underpinning of all legal frameworks.

Just writing a woman is the only person who has a right to her body is an argument based on emotion.
blaze8
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:24:19 PM, bulproof wrote:

Get mummy and daddy to have THE talk with you. 90% of copulations do not result in fertilization and only 1 in 5 fertilized eggs progresses to a live birth. Over 60% of all abortions are natural in your language that means goddidit.

Get your mum and dad to teach you manners. Copulation is intended to result in a child. Whether or not a child results, is a different question. The act of copulation is designed to result in children. There is no other purpose, no other reason for copulation, considering that the natural result of it, under natural circumstances, than to conceive.
"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."-Sterling Archer