Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Technosoul]

The old Hitler card eh - how does the inalienable right to free will compare to the concentration camps?

You stated " Fact is that in the not so distant future people will view pro choice the same way as we now view slavery" (I reword it to save space). So now you got FACTS FROM THE FUTURE. How did you research that, with a crystal ball?

However now that I see the proper wording "that we inherit and were created with the right to life" I must withdraw my idea that we are "born with the right to life". You win that point. When I worked in the space program at the time we built the first space vehicle (for the moon landing) I had to work in a clean room because it was the policy of the USA government not to contaminate other planets with our micro organisms. That was none so that our micro organisms would not per-chance distroy any life forms that might potientially exsist on another planet. So it was USA policy back in the Kennedy days that organisms on other planets have the right to life and should not be distroyed by our space explorations. You might find that of interest because it was established policy. The question then is should that same policy we have for alien micro organisms be extended to life forms in the human womb?

Now if the court should reverse its standing established in the Roe case would history see them as hypocritical for changing their minds, and lable them as "flip floppers"? Perhaps you could check yor crystal ball and find out some facts about that also.

Well, Pale Rider I think you might be spending too much time on the computer making all those factual posts, get a life. I know of this here party with beer and wild wild women, wanna live it up for a change .... hee hee (could not pass on that joke).

Be back later.

Technosoul.

[tPA]

[quote=Technosoul]The old Hitler card eh - how does the inalienable right to free will compare to the concentration camps?
QUOTE]

The comparison is not Nazi/Jew relations, but rather that the official stance of the government was that Jews were non-Persons, and thus, not protected by the law. They were OBVIOUSLY human beings, OBVIOUSLY alive, but they were not "persons" as far as the gov't was concerned. Same with slaves--they were not legally persons, as defined by society, and were thus not protected but the "natural" rights everyone else enjoyed. Compare that to the ROTW - not legally defined as a person, and thus not protected, despite the OBVIOUS fact that it is human, and that it is OBVIOUSLY alive.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tPA Now now, you know we aren't allowed to mention the Holocaust or slavery, despite the fact that they are two glaring examples of society determining who is or is not a person, and then denying them rights thereby, based on skin color or race or religion. Oh, we also can't mention those "savage" Native Americans who weren't really all that human... I suppose you've heard of the Roe effect? If not, basically, those who would have abortions (on the whole) are those who will vote to keep abortion legal (Liberals and Democrats, generally). So, if those who have abortions are also those who want to keep abortion legal, then they are not having/raising kids who will then share those ideals, thus diminishing the hope in the future of keeping it legal. Which, it has been speculated, is why Democrats have been having a hard time the last few years. Roe v. Wade was 1973, so those kids aborted since then would have been 18 in 1991, up to the present. Which would explain Bill Clinton's "mandate" of 49%, and the continual losses by Democrats in Congress, and now the White House 2x... Kind of a far out theory, but the economic effects are undeniable. The number of consumers who WOULD be buying jeans and shoes and cars and houses is more than 30 million fewer than it would be were abortion not legal, or more restricted. The number of minds working on cures for diseases is lower; the number of workers in factories and other jobs is lower... you see where this goes...

I don't think that the Roe effect is far out at all. In fact, one would have to be a dolt (in my opinion) not to grasp the implications. It doesn't really matter whether any of those aborted (missing) people ever voted or not, or even if they ever registered to vote. Their very presence in the country has an effect on the distribution of electoral votes. Look at the changes in the electors as a result of the last census. Look at the states that lost electors (and representatives) and those who gained electors. Then compare the abortion statistics of those states that gained and lost.

There has been some interesting research done on the Roe effect and some of it has been done by liberal think tanks. The results have terrified the democrat leadership. It is no coincidence that hillary (and others) have suddenly moderated their position on abortion. The fact is that as it stands, it could be more than a generation before there are enough liberals in the country to amount to a serious political entity. The proof will be in the next couple of election cycles. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a republican (I am not republican) supermajority in both houses of congress by the end of this decade.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Now if the court should reverse its standing established in the Roe case would history see them as hypocritical for changing their minds, and lable them as "flip floppers"? Perhaps you could check yor crystal ball and find out some facts about that also. Well, Pale Rider I think you might be spending too much time on the computer making all those factual posts, get a life. I know of this here party with beer and wild wild women, wanna live it up for a change .... hee hee (could not pass on that joke). Be back later. Technosoul.

The court is already viewed as hypocritical because they reversed themselves several times in the process of eliminating slavery, and giving the right to vote to women, and encouraging then discouraging segregation, and any number of other instances in which they have reversed themeslves. The only people who don't view them as hypocritical are those who are not familiar with their judicial history.

I have a life. This is part of it. I enjoy tearing down liberals far more than drinking beer, and I have been married to a wild woman for over 3 decades.. I love backing my opponents into corners of their own making and watching them struggle to get out, never realizing that they could get out by tearing down the false walls that they have built for themselves. Simply face the truth and the walls will dissappear. The truth will truely set you free.

[Pale RIder]

[quote=tPA]

Quote by: Technosoul The old Hitler card eh - how does the inalienable right to free will compare to the concentration camps? QUOTE] The comparison is not Nazi/Jew relations, but rather that the official stance of the government was that Jews were non-Persons, and thus, not protected by the law. They were OBVIOUSLY human beings, OBVIOUSLY alive, but they were not "persons" as far as the gov't was concerned. Same with slaves--they were not legally persons, as defined by society, and were thus not protected but the "natural" rights everyone else enjoyed. Compare that to the ROTW - not legally defined as a person, and thus not protected, despite the OBVIOUS fact that it is human, and that it is OBVIOUSLY alive.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Technosoul]

So what you are suggesting is that the blame does not fall upon the heads of pro-choice organizations but on the whim of our court system. So the solution would be to change that court system or replace all the judges with pro-life judges. A point I made about changing the social environment is not much different so that it is user friendly to single moms.

Being that many Christians are on your side lets examine this topic from a biblical standpoint. Adam was created with his inalianable right of life (perhaps eternal life) but he did not follow orders in spite of the warning "in that day you will surely die". So did humanity looses its created right to life then? Or was it during the great flood when God killed all of the human race except for Noah and family, who somehow produced the next generation via in-breeding. The detials are not clear if Noah had sex with his daughters or if his children had sex with each other to reproduce the next generation - bother and sister mating. But none the less all the immoral people had been distroyed in the great flood which might suggest they lost their rights to life somehow or for some reason after the time the first peroson was created. At that time Noah established slavery because one kid laughed when he saw Noah drunk on wine and naked as a jay-bird, so the kid was punished with orders that he would spend the rest of his day in service to his brother, as the world's first slave.

So the question is - form a biblical standpoint were those rights to life taken away from humanity for some reason (like not following orders)? Or do we still have them inspite of the flood story and so forth? Now Eve was not created the same way as Adam was but was removed from Adam and then somehow became a female extra Adam. Did they remove DNA and produce her by some sort of stem cell application? Was she aborted from Adam but survived as his other half? Hard to tell just what happened. Or was the whole story something Noah imagined while he was high on his wine?

The main point is where did our founding forefathers come up with the concpet that we were created with inalienable rights to life? How did they interpret the bible or did they use some other source for their information? Or did they not have any corroberation from the past to back them up in their theory?

What do you think?

Technosoul.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul So what you are suggesting is that the blame does not fall upon the heads of pro-choice organizations but on the whim of our court system. So the solution would be to change that court system or replace all the judges with pro-life judges. A point I made about changing the social environment is not much different so that it is user friendly to single moms. Being that many Christians are on your side lets examine this topic from a biblical standpoint. Adam was created with his inalianable right of life (perhaps eternal life) but he did not follow orders in spite of the warning "in that day you will surely die". So did humanity looses its created right to life then? Or was it during the great flood when God killed all of the human race except for Noah and family, who somehow produced the next generation via in-breeding. The detials are not clear if Noah had sex with his daughters or if his children had sex with each other to reproduce the next generation - bother and sister mating. But none the less all the immoral people had been distroyed in the great flood which might suggest they lost their rights to life somehow or for some reason after the time the first peroson was created. At that time Noah established slavery because one kid laughed when he saw Noah drunk on wine and naked as a jay-bird, so the kid was punished with orders that he would spend the rest of his day in service to his brother, as the world's first slave. So the question is - form a biblical standpoint were those rights to life taken away from humanity for some reason (like not following orders)? Or do we still have them inspite of the flood story and so forth? Now Eve was not created the same way as Adam was but was removed from Adam and then somehow became a female extra Adam. Did they remove DNA and produce her by some sort of stem cell application? Was she aborted from Adam but survived as his other half? Hard to tell just what happened. Or was the whole story something Noah imagined while he was high on his wine? The main point is where did our founding forefathers come up with the concpet that we were created with inalienable rights to life? How did they interpret the bible or did they use some other source for their information? Or did they not have any corroberation from the past to back them up in their theory? What do you think? Technosoul.

I don't bring religion into this topic. If I couldn't defeat any argument that the pro choice side has without religion, I would not debate the topic at all.. Why don't we discuss the scientific realities. You seem to want to dodge them altogether in favor of topics where proof isn't required. Why is that?

Grasping, reaching, failing...always failing.

And our founders didn't "come up" with the concept that we have an inalienable right to life. Read sometimes.

"We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT....

You understand self evident don't you? Even though you used the term in error earlier, you invoked the concept. What is self evident is that human beings have a right to live their lives and not be killed for any or no apparent reason based on the whim of a single person. Some things need little explanation because they are self evident. This would explain why my position on this subject is so simple yet so undefeatable. It is rooted in the absolute truth. There is no part that you can disprove. There is no part that you can make a coherent argument against.

You write great long diatribes that are nothing but an attempt to dodge the biological reality. You want to discuss trees, and brain death, chickens, and now religion. Why don't we discuss your evidence that unborns are neither human nor alive? Convince me of that and I am on your side since if they are neither human nor alive, then they can't possibly have an inalienable right to life. If they are human and alive then it can not be denied that they have an inalienable right to life (in this country anyway).

[macnpat]

I am against abortion.

However, abortion is a woman's decision. Unfortunately, males impregnate women who are not able to make selfless, mature decisions in her own or others interest regarding the life of the zygote. A male who is against abortion should weigh that when he impregnates a woman.

But, once again, once a male has deposited his sperm, neither he, nor anyone else has a right to determine its (the sperms) survival by mandating what a woman can do with her own flesh if it interferes with her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe it should be against the law for any woman who is voluntarily artificially inseminated to abort a pregnancy unless her life is in danger.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat I am against abortion. But, once again, once a male has deposited his sperm, neither he, nor anyone else has a right to determine its (the sperms) survival by mandating what a woman can do with her own flesh if it interferes with her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe it should be against the law for any woman who is voluntarily artificially inseminated to abort a pregnancy unless her life is in danger.

So, are you saying that we should be able to kill other human beings in the course of exercising our rights? I can agree that we have the right to kill another if that other is threatening our life, but it is ludicrous to suggest that we should be allowed to kill in order to not be inconvenienced.

There are plenty of laws on the books that might interfere with your pursuit of happiness, depending upon what might bring you happiness. A normal pregnancy does not threaten a woman's life. I am ok with abortion if her life is threatened and she most certainly is not imprisoned by pregnancy. Inconvenienced possibly, but not imprisoned and we have no inalienable right to not be inconvenienced.

[Technosoul]

Pale Rider - You said you did not what to bring religion into this topic but you did bring your version of this topic into the Religion and Phlosophy forum - not the human rights forum. Then you dodge giving clear answers or responses to my points simply by claiming I posted them to dodge your point of view. Or you interpret my viewpoints as grasping or as a stuggle and failure, when I have nothing at all to gain or loose as the result of this debate.

You claim "We hold these truths to be self evident ..... but what is self evident? DNA mapping only became self evident a few years ago after we developed to the technology to witness it. And in the future we will discover even smaller life forms then the ones we now know about, due to even newer techonological abilites. We have yet no idea how small our universe is. So until everything is in fact self evident we can only make opinions based on what is now self-evident, and current theory would change with each new discovery (perhaps). We are still shortsighted in our abilty to see everything and do not know what all is evident yet, meaning we know some of the truth but not the whole or "abosoute" turth.

If humans had the right to life without anyone killing them, and if our founding fathers believed in that for real, then how come they killed a bunch of white Englishmen form their own home country to become independant - did they think that the English were subhuman, France and Spain? What is the difference between a woman seeking her independence and a bunch of pioneers seeking independence just so they could dodge paying their taxes?

I did not dodge the biological proof you mentioned and stated a number of times that I agree that our individual biological (physical identity) starts at the moment of conception - to continue formulting and taking shape into the human image. But I also said "is that all there is to life and identity"?

If I ask you "who you really are" what would you answer, would you say that you as an individual are only a clump of cells that by random chance collected into a particular DNA pattern - is that it? No mind or spirit to go along with the body?

Is a hard boiled turkey egg the same thing as a real turkey dinner? Don't dodge the ball nor fumble it this time - live up to your responsibity as part of this debate team.

Technosoul.

[tPA]

Quote by: Technosoul So what you are suggesting is that the blame does not fall upon the heads of pro-choice organizations but on the whim of our court system. So the solution would be to change that court system or replace all the judges with pro-life judges. A point I made about changing the social environment is not much different so that it is user friendly to single moms. Being that many Christians are on your side lets examine this topic from a biblical standpoint. Adam was created with his inalianable right of life (perhaps eternal life) but he did not follow orders in spite of the warning "in that day you will surely die". So did humanity looses its created right to life then? Or was it during the great flood when God killed all of the human race except for Noah and family, who somehow produced the next generation via in-breeding. The detials are not clear if Noah had sex with his daughters or if his children had sex with each other to reproduce the next generation - bother and sister mating. But none the less all the immoral people had been distroyed in the great flood which might suggest they lost their rights to life somehow or for some reason after the time the first peroson was created. At that time Noah established slavery because one kid laughed when he saw Noah drunk on wine and naked as a jay-bird, so the kid was punished with orders that he would spend the rest of his day in service to his brother, as the world's first slave. So the question is - form a biblical standpoint were those rights to life taken away from humanity for some reason (like not following orders)? Or do we still have them inspite of the flood story and so forth? Now Eve was not created the same way as Adam was but was removed from Adam and then somehow became a female extra Adam. Did they remove DNA and produce her by some sort of stem cell application? Was she aborted from Adam but survived as his other half? Hard to tell just what happened. Or was the whole story something Noah imagined while he was high on his wine? The main point is where did our founding forefathers come up with the concpet that we were created with inalienable rights to life? How did they interpret the bible or did they use some other source for their information? Or did they not have any corroberation from the past to back them up in their theory? What do you think? Technosoul.

I'm not sure who mentioned religion, but I know I didn't, and I don't think Pale Rider did, so I'm not sure how it figures into this conversation. There are lots of atheist/pagan pro-lifers, too. Sure, this is a "Religion and Philosophy" board, but none of the arguments that I've read by Pale Rider (and none that I've made myself) have mentioned religion or God, so you can't pose questions to us based on religion or God.

I've always found that it is best to leave religion out of the debate, as all it takes is someone to say "I don't believe in your religion," and the footing is immediately lost. You cannot debate, however, scientific and biological FACTS.

[tPA]

Quote by: Technosoul Pale Rider - You said you did not what to bring religion into this topic but you did bring your version of this topic into the Religion and Phlosophy forum - not the human rights forum. Then you dodge giving clear answers or responses to my points simply by claiming I posted them to dodge your point of view. Or you interpret my viewpoints as grasping or as a stuggle and failure, when I have nothing at all to gain or loose as the result of this debate. You claim "We hold these truths to be self evident ..... but what is self evident? DNA mapping only became self evident a few years ago after we developed to the technology to witness it. And in the future we will discover even smaller life forms then the ones we now know about, due to even newer techonological abilites. We have yet no idea how small our universe is. So until everything is in fact self evident we can only make opinions based on what is now self-evident, and current theory would change with each new discovery (perhaps). We are still shortsighted in our abilty to see everything and do not know what all is evident yet, meaning we know some of the truth but not the whole or "abosoute" turth. If humans had the right to life without anyone killing them, and if our founding fathers believed in that for real, then how come they killed a bunch of white Englishmen form their own home country to become independant - did they think that the English were subhuman, France and Spain? What is the difference between a woman seeking her independence and a bunch of pioneers seeking independence just so they could dodge paying their taxes? I did not dodge the biological proof you mentioned and stated a number of times that I agree that our individual biological (physical identity) starts at the moment of conception - to continue formulting and taking shape into the human image. But I also said "is that all there is to life and identity"? If I ask you "who you really are" what would you answer, would you say that you as an individual are only a clump of cells that by random chance collected into a particular DNA pattern - is that it? No mind or spirit to go along with the body? Is a hard boiled turkey egg the same thing as a real turkey dinner? Don't dodge the ball nor fumble it this time - live up to your responsibity as part of this debate team. Technosoul.

Ok~
1) The truths that they held self evident were: All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among those "unalienable rights" are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that governments are instituted among men to protect those rights; etc etc. THOSE are the truths that they held Self Evident.
Also, that passage is from the Declaration of Independence, a non-legal, non-lawmaking document. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Declaration guided the making of the Constitution, but only in protecting the people from the grievances listed in the former.

2) The Founders never mentioned not killing people. They had a problem with unjust killing--like King George ordering trials of Colonists be held in England, with unfair juries who would then sentence the colonist to death. Aside from that, war is the wrench thrown into the gears--they wanted their rights, and since England wouldn't resolve it peacefully, they had to fight. It was the Brits, remember, who started it (ever hear of the "Boston Massacre"?) After that it was self-defense.

Also, this is, perhaps, the most important reason for the separation of Church and State--not so that a bunch of panty-waists don't get offended by a Nativity scene, but so that the state can be godless and wage war against other states without the "sin" or the "crime" of the war falling on the people. The government has a duty to protect its citizens. Once you inject religion into it, it becomes a moral matter, rather than a state duty.

3) As for the "soul" of the person, how do you know that the moment the first division takes place isn't at the impetus of the soul entering the body? Aristole talked about "de animae," so it is perfectly logical that as soon as an otherwise *only* biological entity composed of one cell begins to replicate and divide of its own accord, it is either being acted upon, or is acting. Since there is nothing in the womb prodding the cell to divide, it would make sense that it is "acting" on its own...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Is a hard boiled turkey egg the same thing as a real turkey dinner? Don't dodge the ball nor fumble it this time - live up to your responsibity as part of this debate team. Technosoul.

Both are real turkey. That you can't grasp that is a shortcoming that belongs to you. That you only recognize turkey in its most mature form speaks volumes about your ability to grasp concepts.

Again I ask for you to demonstrate that unborns are neither human nor alive and as such do not have an inalienable right to life as encoded into our legal system.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Technosoul Is a hard boiled turkey egg the same thing as a real turkey dinner? Don't dodge the ball nor fumble it this time - live up to your responsibity as part of this debate team. Technosoul.

Don't hold your breath Soul, Rider has not been engaging in any kind of a debate on this thread for a very long time. I am wondering why the mods have not shut it down.

Starboy

[tPA]

Quote by: Starboy Don't hold your breath Soul, Rider has not been engaging in any kind of a debate on this thread for a very long time. I am wondering why the mods have not shut it down. Starboy

If TechnoSoul would stop making fallacious comparisons and false analogies, perhaps StarBoy would be more apt to discuss substance. As it is, Techno keeps coming up with unrelated "arguments" that serve no purpose other than to obfuscate the truth. Comparing turkey eggs to humans is fallacious at BEST...stupid, at worst.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Don't hold your breath Soul, Rider has not been engaging in any kind of a debate on this thread for a very long time. I am wondering why the mods have not shut it down. Starboy

You are right. I have only been batting away the idiocy tossed my way. In order for me to engage in actual debate, someone from the pro choice side must offer up some sort of substantive argument. It isn't happening.

Do you have any evidence that unborns are not human and not alive and thus have no inalienable right to life?

That's what I thought.

[macnpat]

Quote by: Pale RIder You are right. I have only been batting away the idiocy tossed my way. In order for me to engage in actual debate, someone from the pro choice side must offer up some sort of substantive argument. It isn't happening.

What have you said specifically that requires refutation for you to understand there are two sides to every coin? I am interested to hear it.

Do you have any evidence that unborns are not human and not alive and thus have no inalienable right to life?

I have evidence that if you took away the flesh, and blood of the Mother's pre-existing tissue, all new life inside her would perish. This indicates that the mother is only aborting a part of her own body, and not a separate living entity.

That's what I thought.

Why don't you start a thread for us, and we'll talk about it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat I have evidence that if you took away the flesh, and blood of the Mother's pre-existing tissue, all new life inside her would perish. This indicates that the mother is only aborting a part of her own body, and not a separate living entity.

I never said that the unborn was not dependent. By the way, can you provide legal precedent that suggests that dependence is a valid reason to kill?

The unborn is most certainly not part of her body. If you believe that, then you have absolutely no grasp of human development. Any cell in her body (even cancer) is easily identified as part of her by its DNA. The unborn, as evidenced by its DNA, is clearly not part of her body.

This is exactly the sort of argument that I am talking about when I say "batting away idiocy". I have yet to see a single pro choicer offer up even a remotely intelligent argument that suggests that unborns are neither living nor human beings. Do you have one that you are holding in reserve? The one you offered up certainly wasn't it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat What have you said specifically that requires refutation for you to understand there are two sides to every coin? I am interested to hear it.

Two sides. The right side. That would be the side that is supported by science. That would be the side that is not arguable in any intelligent way. And the wrong side. That would be the side that has to twist pseudoscience, misinformation, shuck and jive, and outright lies into whatever sort of silly argument they can think of to avoid the biological facts. Which side of the coin do you argue from?

[Agent007]

We agree that killing a living human is wrong. We agree that anything composed of living cells is living. We agree that a single human zygote is indeed a human cell since it contain human DNA, and not that of a cat or planarian. We agree that a human who is not dead is living. A human zygote is a human since it is not any other biological entity; if we cannot agree on this point, then there is no point to this debate. Since a human zygote is not dead and is actually devoloping by the definition of a cell, it is living. Therefore, killing a human zygote is wrong since it is human; ergo, life begins at the conception of a zygote, and killing it is inherently wrong.