Political Crossfire Forums

[Mycroft147]

People who say there is a middle ground dont realize that the middle ground is only discrimination. Imagine that abortion is illegal because it violates the embryos right to life. To allow abortion in a rape case would discriminate against rape-babies, saying they do not have the same right to life as anyone else even though they have done nothing wrong. Same goes for incest, or medical problems. The right not to be murdered is supreme among all others. Take away this and anything can be made legal.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

Why should he bother to repost his ideas and contentions, which have been stated numerous times in numerous threads, if you are not willing to do a little looking on your own to see if you can figure it out?

[Sailor Moon]

Nah hes not here cause hes on my ignore list... believe me.. he still brings my name up in other forums all the time.. so it must be true... :lol:

At least thats my educated guess, anyways.. hahaha

[Mycroft147]

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

Why should he bother to repost his ideas and contentions, which have been stated numerous times in numerous threads, if you are not willing to do a little looking on your own to see if you can figure it out?

because im already positive that i wont find his arguments convincing and in the end ill just want to debate it with him anyways? I just dont want to wade through his numerous posts when i know i wont find anything new.

[The Grandmaster]

Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

[The Grandmaster]

Sailor Moon wrote: Nah hes not here cause hes on my ignore list... believe me.. he still brings my name up in other forums all the time.. so it must be true... :lol:

At least thats my educated guess, anyways.. hahaha

What?? I'm not here because I am on your ignor list?? Does putting me on your ignor list make me go away from the forums?

[Coral]

Dezz wrote: Serious question that I'm sure will anger a lot of people passionate about this either way, but I know that I'm tired of this issue. It occupies entirely too much of this nations attention and support. People actually support potential judges and elected officials just for this issue and that worries me.

I mean no offense by this but the middle ground is often kept quiet in this debate and I don't think it should be.

BTW - Hi I'm Dezz :-D

I'm sick of righteous nutcases meddling in everyone's sex lives.

[Mycroft147]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

Actually I am not advocating the taking away of the mothers bodily rights, only the realization that a human beings right to life is the most important right, and that an embryo should be entitled to this right.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

The mothers rights are not the ones endangered, the embryos right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address.

[The Grandmaster]

Coral wrote: I'm sick of righteous nutcases meddling in everyone's sex lives.

Me too Coral....me too.

[The Grandmaster]

Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

Actually I am not advocating the taking away of the mothers bodily rights, only the realization that a human beings right to life is the most important right, and that an embryo should be entitled to this right.

*yawn* Yup. I knew it would be the same old sh1t. I was hoping for something original. I’m used to being disappointed. Lets get started before I fall asleep.

Mycroft147 wrote: An embryo is obviously a living entity.

It isn't obviously a living entity.

Mycroft147 wrote: Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being.

Yup, the DNA trick. So anything that has human DNA must be a human being huh? Well my finger has human DNA. So does my heart and kidney. Is my finger or kidney a human being. Nope. I know, your standard response to this is always “differing DNA” at this point. So lets move on.

Mycroft147 wrote: It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs.

However, what about cancer Mycroft? It is not dead, it is clearly living. It’s DNA is not that of a chicken, or horse, or all the other animals you guys use in this line. It is that of a human. It is also as different from the surrounding tissue to as great, or greater degree than many children are from their mothers. As it’s DNA is human, and differing…must it not be a human being too?

What about a hydatiform mole, also cellular matter, which has human DNA, which differs from the mother. Would this not also be a human being? Must hydatiform moles be given life too?

Mycroft147 wrote: That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

The genetic view presents its own problems of being arbitrary, dependant upon how a human being is defined. You’ll be interested to know, that to appeal to science that conception is the beginning of a human life is to appeal to a field in which there is no consensus. It is not agreed upon that a human being begins at conception. Many scientists don’t even hold this view anymore, due to the embryological view of when a human life begins.

Mycroft147 wrote: The mothers rights are not the ones endangered,

Lets advocate imprisoning you for determining what is inside your body or not and see if you do not believe your rights are being endangered.

Mycroft147 wrote: the embryos right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address.

But the cancer’s right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address too.

So there went your DNA thing. Aaaaannnnd, cue the tired old potentiality argument. :roll:

[Mycroft147]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

Actually I am not advocating the taking away of the mothers bodily rights, only the realization that a human beings right to life is the most important right, and that an embryo should be entitled to this right.

*yawn* Yup. I knew it would be the same old sh1t. I was hoping for something original. I’m used to being disappointed. Lets get started before I fall asleep.

Mycroft147 wrote: An embryo is obviously a living entity.

It isn't obviously a living entity.

Mycroft147 wrote: Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being.

Yup, the DNA trick. So anything that has human DNA must be a human being huh? Well my finger has human DNA. So does my heart and kidney. Is my finger or kidney a human being. Nope. I know, your standard response to this is always “differing DNA” at this point. So lets move on.

Mycroft147 wrote: It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs.

However, what about cancer Mycroft? It is not dead, it is clearly living. It’s DNA is not that of a chicken, or horse, or all the other animals you guys use in this line. It is that of a human. It is also as different from the surrounding tissue to as great, or greater degree than many children are from their mothers. As it’s DNA is human, and differing…must it not be a human being too?

What about a hydatiform mole, also cellular matter, which has human DNA, which differs from the mother. Would this not also be a human being? Must hydatiform moles be given life too?

Mycroft147 wrote: That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

The genetic view presents its own problems of being arbitrary, dependant upon how a human being is defined. You’ll be interested to know, that to appeal to science that conception is the beginning of a human life is to appeal to a field in which there is no consensus. It is not agreed upon that a human being begins at conception. Many scientists don’t even hold this view anymore, due to the embryological view of when a human life begins.

Mycroft147 wrote: The mothers rights are not the ones endangered,

Lets advocate imprisoning you for determining what is inside your body or not and see if you do not believe your rights are being endangered.

Mycroft147 wrote: the embryos right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address.

But the cancer’s right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address too.

So there went your DNA thing. Aaaaannnnd, cue the tired old potentiality argument. :roll:

1. Living entity-How is a living cell not a living entity? no matter what you say it is, its alive or there wouldnt be anything to kill.

2. DNA- It is a seperate organism with differing DNA. I am a different person than you partly because we have differing and unique DNA.

3. It is a living entity with sperate DNA and is also a developing human, not just some form of cancer.

This shows it is a human being, and since it is a human being entitled to the right to life.

[Mycroft147]

Do you not have any idea how ludicrous your arguments sound when you compare a fetus to cancer?

And even though doctors certianly dont all agree on conception being the beginning of human life, they dont all agree on anything else being the beginning either.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

Actually I am not advocating the taking away of the mothers bodily rights, only the realization that a human beings right to life is the most important right, and that an embryo should be entitled to this right.

*yawn* Yup. I knew it would be the same old sh1t. I was hoping for something original. I’m used to being disappointed. Lets get started before I fall asleep.

Mycroft147 wrote: An embryo is obviously a living entity.

It isn't obviously a living entity.

Mycroft147 wrote: Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being.

Yup, the DNA trick. So anything that has human DNA must be a human being huh? Well my finger has human DNA. So does my heart and kidney. Is my finger or kidney a human being. Nope. I know, your standard response to this is always “differing DNA” at this point. So lets move on.

Mycroft147 wrote: It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs.

However, what about cancer Mycroft? It is not dead, it is clearly living. It’s DNA is not that of a chicken, or horse, or all the other animals you guys use in this line. It is that of a human. It is also as different from the surrounding tissue to as great, or greater degree than many children are from their mothers. As it’s DNA is human, and differing…must it not be a human being too?

What about a hydatiform mole, also cellular matter, which has human DNA, which differs from the mother. Would this not also be a human being? Must hydatiform moles be given life too?

Mycroft147 wrote: That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

The genetic view presents its own problems of being arbitrary, dependant upon how a human being is defined. You’ll be interested to know, that to appeal to science that conception is the beginning of a human life is to appeal to a field in which there is no consensus. It is not agreed upon that a human being begins at conception. Many scientists don’t even hold this view anymore, due to the embryological view of when a human life begins.

Mycroft147 wrote: The mothers rights are not the ones endangered,

Lets advocate imprisoning you for determining what is inside your body or not and see if you do not believe your rights are being endangered.

Mycroft147 wrote: the embryos right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address.

But the cancer’s right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address too.

So there went your DNA thing. Aaaaannnnd, cue the tired old potentiality argument. :roll:

1. Living entity-How is a living cell not a living entity? no matter what you say it is, its alive or there wouldnt be anything to kill.

2. DNA- It is a seperate organism with differing DNA. I am a different person than you partly because we have differing and unique DNA.

3. It is a living entity with sperate DNA and is also a developing human, not just some form of cancer.

This shows it is a human being, and since it is a human being entitled to the right to life.

So are cancer cells, as GM1 pointed out. They are living cells with DNA differing from the cells surrounding it. It is, using this sort of inductive reasoning, just as much a human as a fetus.

[Mycroft147]

UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Actually yes. I came here months ago, and have spent most of my time in the abortion section. I appear to be one of the top pro-choicers to have come to this site. But now that I’ve heard it all, again and again, I believe I might be sick of it yes. It’s like my buddy Anarchist said. They never have anything new. You beat them time and time again, refute the same old stuff over and over, and for what? It all just starts over, like it never happened. A new thread will begin, and they’ll make the same claims from scratch, to which I’ll respond with variants of the same refutations. I could be spending more time on Flash, or 3D Max, or my other projects.

I think I’ve just about got what I’ve come to this site for, enough training in the issue to win every argument on the subject I’ll ever realistically have. I don’t want to let Prole go at it alone, but I’m thinking of retiring soon.

I havent bothered searching out any of your previous posts. Do me a favor and give me a sound logical argument that proves that abortion is not murder. Maybe you could respond in the thread i started regarding this issue.

I am not in a position where I have to Mycroft. It is you who advocate the taking away of bodily rights from that which we know for certain to be a person with rights, namely, the mother. If we are to be taking rights away from people, I think we are justified in having a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof rests upon the anti-choicer to justify this loss of autonomy.

Actually I am not advocating the taking away of the mothers bodily rights, only the realization that a human beings right to life is the most important right, and that an embryo should be entitled to this right.

*yawn* Yup. I knew it would be the same old sh1t. I was hoping for something original. I’m used to being disappointed. Lets get started before I fall asleep.

Mycroft147 wrote: An embryo is obviously a living entity.

It isn't obviously a living entity.

Mycroft147 wrote: Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being.

Yup, the DNA trick. So anything that has human DNA must be a human being huh? Well my finger has human DNA. So does my heart and kidney. Is my finger or kidney a human being. Nope. I know, your standard response to this is always “differing DNA” at this point. So lets move on.

Mycroft147 wrote: It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs.

However, what about cancer Mycroft? It is not dead, it is clearly living. It’s DNA is not that of a chicken, or horse, or all the other animals you guys use in this line. It is that of a human. It is also as different from the surrounding tissue to as great, or greater degree than many children are from their mothers. As it’s DNA is human, and differing…must it not be a human being too?

What about a hydatiform mole, also cellular matter, which has human DNA, which differs from the mother. Would this not also be a human being? Must hydatiform moles be given life too?

Mycroft147 wrote: That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

The genetic view presents its own problems of being arbitrary, dependant upon how a human being is defined. You’ll be interested to know, that to appeal to science that conception is the beginning of a human life is to appeal to a field in which there is no consensus. It is not agreed upon that a human being begins at conception. Many scientists don’t even hold this view anymore, due to the embryological view of when a human life begins.

Mycroft147 wrote: The mothers rights are not the ones endangered,

Lets advocate imprisoning you for determining what is inside your body or not and see if you do not believe your rights are being endangered.

Mycroft147 wrote: the embryos right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address.

But the cancer’s right to life was the first right to be ignored and the most important to address too.

So there went your DNA thing. Aaaaannnnd, cue the tired old potentiality argument. :roll:

1. Living entity-How is a living cell not a living entity? no matter what you say it is, its alive or there wouldnt be anything to kill.

2. DNA- It is a seperate organism with differing DNA. I am a different person than you partly because we have differing and unique DNA.

3. It is a living entity with sperate DNA and is also a developing human, not just some form of cancer.

This shows it is a human being, and since it is a human being entitled to the right to life.

So are cancer cells, as GM1 pointed out. They are living cells with DNA differing from the cells surrounding it. It is, using this sort of inductive reasoning, just as much a human as a fetus.

You just ignored the part about the "developing human being" which a cancer isnt.

[Sailor Moon]

The truth is, pro choicers on here seem to prefer to just write human beings off as something else, or compare them to something dreadful, to avoid the obvious guilt they have somewhere deep inside for being proponents of murder.

They start at conception:

Nah its not a human, whatever.. whats a human, uh ..its just a speck.. even though some of us use those specks and push hard to use those specks to have our own babies, but uhh... its nothing not a life.. uhh ...

Then they go to Embryonic stage:

Nah it isnt a real human yet, cause its just too small, and besides we are all psychic so we know it has no feelings, and therefore who gives a damn, uhh uhh... uhh.. well, uhh... Dna, so what? uhh....

Then they get to the 3rd month- viability

so what? It is a parasite, like a disease, etc, etc, yammer yammer...

Then they get to viability, and things get unclear-

Well, uhh the womans life, and uhh if its not perfect it should be dead.. and uhh. well it has feelings, but who cares, anyways.. and uh yammer yammer on and on...

I find the entire denial of the pro choicers on here DISGUSTING and ABHORRENT.

Shame on you.

[Mycroft147]

Dont try to appeal to their emotions or sympathy, it appears they have none.

[The Grandmaster]

Mycroft147 wrote: 1. Living entity-How is a living cell not a living entity? no matter what you say it is, its alive or there wouldnt be anything to kill.

It is human cellular matter. That does not make it “a life” Unless you plan to give rights to every cell in our body.

Mycroft147 wrote: 2. DNA- It is a seperate organism with differing DNA. I am a different person than you partly because we have differing and unique DNA.

Yes I know, refuted in my next response of that post.

Mycroft147 wrote: 3. It is a living entity with sperate DNA and is also a developing human, not just some form of cancer.

So is the hydatiform mole. Yet why no fuss over giving it rights?

I simply used your own criterion, your own premises to derive the conclusion that it is cancer. I used nothing you did not give me. If it is a human being, it must be so for reasons other than you have given me.

Mycroft147 wrote: This shows it is a human being, and since it is a human being entitled to the right to life.

If it is a human being, then so is the hydatiform mole and cancer, for they satisfy the same criterion that you gave me. :wink:

Mycroft147 wrote: Do you not have any idea how ludicrous your arguments sound when you compare a fetus to cancer?

Yes I do Mycroft. Thanks again. This is the 5th time someone has called themselves stupid because of this argument. Mycroft….it wasn’t my argument. I did nothing more than use the premises that you gave me…Human DNA, and DNA differing from that of the mother, to derive that conclusion. Yes, it is pretty ridiculous isn’t it. That was my entire point, using only these criterion is foolish, and you now realize this. You just called your own argument foolish. Bravo. :lol:

Mycroft147 wrote: And even though doctors certianly dont all agree on conception being the beginning of human life, they dont all agree on anything else being the beginning either.

My god. What are you trying to do to yourself? You are destroying your own argument so well, I do not have to do a thing. Thiswas quite literally my entire point. Scientists have not demonstrated when a human being begins. So how can we say that we are murdering human beings if it hasn’t been demonstrated one even exists. :-D We are not justified in taking away the mother’s rights then for the rights of that which does not exist.

[Enoch]

Mycroft147 wrote: Dont try to appeal to their emotions or sympathy, it appears they have none.

I do have sympathy, and I don't appreciate your attacks on my character.

[Mycroft147]

i dont have much time left for this tonight but i have to respond to grandmasters last statement.

if the scientists are not sure if the embryo is human or not, why the hell is it ok to kill it? It can be compared to hunting near a park and shooting at a moving object in the distance. you dont know if its a human or not, so its obviously not legal to shoot at it. if it is a person and you kill them then its murder, or at least manslaughter.

when in doubt kill, should not be an accepted method.

[Big Evil]

[quote="UrielsFyre]I do have sympathy, and I don't appreciate your attacks on my character.[/quote]
He wasn't attacking you personaly, get over yourself.. :roll:

The problem with being pro-choice is it go's against our natural instincts. And yet these are the same folk that claim to believe in evolution..

How can hummanity progress if we're going to kill some of us off before they have a chance to show thier stuff? Let people live, and grow, THEN decide if they should live or die.. But to have an abortion is to rob a human of it's chance at litteraly being human.. That's moraly, biologicaly, and intellecutaly wrong.. And it's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what is.. Is this why the left tend to do so many drugs? To further escape reality?

It doesn't even make sense for anyone to be pro-choice, if your mothers had been pro-choice you wouldn't be here now would you?