"Pro-choice" arguments
"'Fetal tissue' is no more a human being,
than a bolt is a Buick."
Those who argue that abortion does not
kill human life must have skipped high
school biology, never picked up a medical
book, or else are deliberately lying.
Virtually every secular medical book and
even a senate hearing declare human life
begins the instant of conception.
A report from Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists
and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of the life of a human
being--a being is alive and is a member of
the human species. There is overwhelming
agreement on this point in countless
medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
A split second after conception, this
one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human
being possesses everything it needs to
grow into an adult human except time.
It's not a blueprint of a human being.
It's not a part of a human being. It is a
human being. Never has a bolt grown into a
Buick!
Because words are so important in this
debate, Dr. Jack Wilke, the former
director of "National Right to Life,"
warns pro-lifers to avoid emotion-laden
words like "homicide" and "baby." He urges
the use of "kill" and "human life."
Pro-choicers can engage in wordplay
arguing that a "baby" is not "mur*dered,"
but cannot refute--with any scientific
credibility--that abortions do indeed kill
human life.
A close cousin to the "it's not human
life" argument is . . .
"A woman has a right to choose what she
will with her own body."
Again, this pro-choice/pro-abortion
argument reveals ignorance of human
physiology or, again, the perpetuation of
a deliberate lie.
The life growing within the mother is not
her body.
It has a very different chromosome
structure with a separate circulatory
system and often a different blood type.
There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a
different gender!
"A woman should be able to choose life in
her medical care"
Only 2 percent of the one and a half
million abortions performed each year in
the United State were for the express
purpose of saving the mother's life. The
overwhelming number of abortions performed
do not "save" anyone's life.
Last edited by meblonde01 on 05-10-07 15:21pm; edited 1 time in total
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3943 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Re: Interesting.. Posted: 05-10-07 15:05pm
meblonde01
wrote:
"Pro-choice" arguments
"'Fetal tissue' is no more a human being,
than a bolt is a Buick."
Those who argue that abortion does not
kill human life must have skipped high
school biology, never picked up a medical
book, or else are deliberately lying.
Virtually every secular medical book and
even a senate hearing declare human life
begins the instant of conception.
A report from Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists
and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of the life of a human
being--a being is alive and is a member of
the human species. There is overwhelming
agreement on this point in countless
medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
A split second after conception, this
one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human
being possesses everything it needs to
grow into an adult human except time.
It's not a blueprint of a human being.
It's not a part of a human being. It is a
human being. Never has a bolt grown into a
Buick!
Because words are so important in this
debate, Dr. Jack Wilke, the former
director of "National Right to Life,"
warns pro-lifers to avoid emotion-laden
words like "not a nice act" and "baby." He
urges the use of "kill" and "human life."
Pro-choicers can engage in wordplay
arguing that a "baby" is not "not a nice
acted," but cannot refute--with any
scientific credibility--that abortions do
indeed kill human life.
A close cousin to the "it's not human
life" argument is . . .
"A woman has a right to choose what she
will with her own body."
Again, this pro-choice/pro-abortion
argument reveals ignorance of human
physiology or, again, the perpetuation of
a deliberate lie.
The life growing within the mother is not
her body.
It has a very different chromosome
structure with a separate circulatory
system and often a different blood type.
There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a
different gender!
"A woman should be able to choose life in
her medical care"
Only 2 percent of the one and a half
million abortions performed each year in
the United State were for the express
purpose of saving the mother's life. The
overwhelming number of abortions performed
do not "save" anyone's
life.
I've never heard a legitimate prochoicer
argue that abortion does not kill human
life.
The fetus is sustained off her body. Did
you study that in biology?
Why did you have your abortion?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-10-07 15:26pm
Yeah, you clearly don't listen to any of
the pro-choicers on this site.
We say it's not murder, but
we fully admit it is killing.
Look, nature is full of death, and that's
the bottom line in my opinion. We as
people are sentient - a fetus is not, by
the way - and so we have the capability to
make our own choices. Note I didn't say we
had the "right", just that we had the
capability. Personally I do think we have
the right to make our own choices but I'm
sure pro-life disagrees with me. From what
I've gathered, pro-life believes that
humans have no basic rights except to live
and breed like rabbits. Any conscious,
ehtical desicion that betters themselves
of society is evil if it involves death.
That's what pro-life believes.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3943 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-12-07 12:59pm
I think it's a travesty that people can
post stuff they didn't write and not give
credit to it's author. I'd get kicked out
of graduate school for this.
On debate sites other than this one (which
is so less formal) she would be kicked
off.
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8226 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 159
Thanked:14
Posted: 05-12-07 13:03pm
If you're going to do cut/paste jobs, at
least cite your source(s) by posting the
link at the bottom.
*edited because I said site instead of
cite*
Last edited by AyaMiyaki on 05-12-07 13:13pm; edited 1 time in total
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2122 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-12-07 13:06pm
AyaMiyaki
wrote:
If you're going to do
cut/paste jobs, at least site your
source(s) by posting the link at the
bottom.
sure! is that a rule or just a suggestion?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3943 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-12-07 13:08pm
meblonde01
wrote:
AyaMiyaki
wrote:
If you're going to do
cut/paste jobs, at least site your
source(s) by posting the link at the
bottom.
sure! is that a rule or just a
suggestion?
It's responsible posting, and since you
are so familiar with what "responsibility"
is, I'm sure you would agree.
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8226 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 159
Thanked:14
Posted: 05-12-07 13:12pm
It's like in .english class when you were
asked to write an essay. Any information
you used and/or quoted must be cited and
referred to. Failing to do so would be
plagiarism, because you are not giving
credit where credit is due and are
(purposely or not) passing their words off
as your own.
Citing your source is, as .birch said,
responsible.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2122 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-12-07 13:17pm
AyaMiyaki
wrote:
It's like in .english class
when you were asked to write an essay. Any
information you used and/or quoted must be
cited and referred to. Failing to do so
would be plagiarism, because you are not
giving credit where credit is due and are
(purposely or not) passing their words off
as your own.
Citing your source is, as .birch said,
responsible.
Ok, so it's a choice! So if I want to I
will.. Thanks for the English lesson..
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8226 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 159
Thanked:14
Posted: 05-12-07 13:24pm
*blinks*
umm yes, I suppose it is a choice. Just as
murder is a choice. Theft is a
choice. Abusing your child is a choice.
Rape is a choice.
None of the above are viewed as the right
thing to do in society, but they are
undoubtedly choices.
Will you choose to do the wrong thing? Do
you think you will help the pro-life cause
by commiting plagiarism?
*edited to avoid the filter*
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2122 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 05-12-07 13:29pm
AyaMiyaki
wrote:
*blinks*
umm yes, I suppose it is a choice. Just as
murder is a choice. Theft is a
choice. Abusing your child is a choice.
Rape is a choice.
None of the above are viewed as the right
thing to do in society, but they are
undoubtedly choices.
Will you choose to do the wrong thing? Do
you think you will help the pro-life cause
by commiting plagiarism?
*edited to avoid the
filter*
Did I say I was not going to? No! I said
it's a choice.. Nothing more.. Actually I
would be glad to post the site or the book
or the person I got the information from.
I think it is Very beneficial to pro
lifers.
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8226 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 159
Thanked:14
Posted: 05-12-07 13:34pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Did I say I was not going
to? No! I said it's a choice.. Nothing
more..
what you said was ".i will if I want to",
which led me to question why someone would
consider doing such a thing. I didn't
accuse you of doing it - I asked you if
you were really considering it. One would
think that, after learning exactly what
plagiarism is, they would recognize it as
the wrong thing to do and not do it again,
instead of saying "oh I have a choice, and
.i'll do the right thing if I want
to."
Quote:
Actually I would
be glad to post the site or the book or
the person I got the information from. I
think it is Very beneficial to pro
lifers.
