Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob, own yourself.

They're your own lies, not mine. There's nothing there for me to “own”.

 

[ding]

I see them in another person and their decision on whether they to carry them to birth.

Ya know, body autonomy.

And yet the SCOTUS found that that is for each state to decide for themselves, right?

 

[ding]

So, you want control of that too. Are you picking the wine too?

No idea what you are talking about. He asked me what I thought about the morning after pill. The morning after pill - as I understand it - does not end a human life, it blocks conception.

But you keep swinging at windmills, Don.

This is a human rights issue, Donny.

 

[otto105]

View attachment 842144

Irrelevant

 

[alang1216]

Is that the one that blocks contraception? If so, sure.

No. It blocks the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

I'm not the one who says so, science is the one that says so. But that's not the reason it doesn't resonate with you. It doesn't resonate with you because it's how you rationalize abortion doesn't end a human life.

Science can't answer moral questions like when does an egg become a person? Whether you admit it or not, your position is based in theology not science.

 

[koshergrl]

No. It blocks the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Science can't answer moral questions like when does an egg become a person? Whether you admit it or not, your position is based in theology not science.

Personhood is not a determining factor I g humanity, either.

 

[ding]

No. It blocks the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Science can't answer moral questions like when does an egg become a person? Whether you admit it or not, your position is based in theology not science.

Then that is ending a new genetically distinct life, now isn't it.

Oh so you believe a fertilized egg isn't a person. The DNA says otherwise. Tell me again why you believe this is a moral argument and not a human rights argument? Seems like you are trying to make a religious argument to me.

 

[alang1216]

Then that is ending a new genetically distinct life, now isn't it.

Everything alive is genetically distinct.

Oh so you believe a fertilized egg isn't a person. The DNA says otherwise. Tell me again why you believe this is a moral argument and not a human rights argument? Seems like you are trying to make a religious argument to me.

Persons have rights, molecules do not.

If I combine a human egg and sperm in a test tube have I created a human being? If I let it die did I commit murder?

 

[koshergrl]

Everything alive is genetically distinct.


Persons have rights, molecules do not.

If I combine a human egg and sperm in a test tube have I created a human being? If I let it die did I commit murder?

Human rights exist from the moment of our physical existence. That's at conception.
Murder is a legal term, and whether an action is legally defined as murder has no bearing on whether or not an act is a human rights violation. It wasn't murder to kill counterrevolutionaries, or slaves, or Jews according to the governments that committed those atrocities. The doesn't mean their victims aren't human or entitled to human rights.
Yes it is a human rights violation to artificially create humans and then destroy them.

 

[koshergrl]

Hey! How are things rolling for the twat police?

Your disparagement of females is noted, and typical. Abortion is a violation of the human rights of women as well as their dependent children.

 

[ding]

Everything alive is genetically distinct.

If you are talking about living beings, yes. That's been my point from the get go. Each living being is genetically distinct.

 

[ding]

Persons have rights, molecules do not.

No one is aborting molecules. They are aborting living beings inside them. Why do you continue to dehumanize them like that?

 

[ding]

If I combine a human egg and sperm in a test tube have I created a human being? If I let it die did I commit murder?

Seems like you are making a fringe argument to me. It would be much easier to admit that abortion ends a human life rather than making fringe arguments that have no bearing on that reality.

 

[alang1216]

Human rights exist from the moment of our physical existence. That's at conception.
Murder is a legal term, and whether an action is legally defined as murder has no bearing on whether or not an act is a human rights violation. It wasn't murder to kill counterrevolutionaries, or slaves, or Jews according to the governments that committed those atrocities. The doesn't mean their victims aren't human or entitled to human rights.
Yes it is a human rights violation to artificially create humans and then destroy them.

You are certainly welcome to your beliefs but do not expect everyone to accept your assertions as facts.

I see a BIG difference between a fertilized egg and an adult woman. Whatever rights that egg has, if any, are trumped by that woman.

 

[alang1216]

No one is aborting molecules. They are aborting living beings inside them. Why do you continue to dehumanize them like that?

You are claiming those DNA molecules are a human being equivalent to a woman. I look at a woman and I see a person. I look at some DNA and I don't. Given enough time and good fortune, that egg will develop into a person capable of thinking and feeling and sensing. Until then, it is just another organic molecule.

 

[ding]

You are claiming those DNA molecules are a human being equivalent to a woman.

Actually I have never made any such claim. Can you show me how you arrived at that conclusion because I believe you are skipping steps you shouldn't be skipping.

 

[ding]

I look at a woman and I see a person.

That's nice.

 

[alang1216]

If you are talking about living beings, yes. That's been my point from the get go. Each living being is genetically distinct.

Does each living being have a inviolable right to life?

 

[alang1216]

Seems like you are making a fringe argument to me. It would be much easier to admit that abortion ends a human life rather than making fringe arguments that have no bearing on that reality.

You claim to know what is and what is not human so this should be easy to answer.

 

[ding]

I look at some DNA and I don't.

You should try looking at it like it is in reality. A human being on it's early stages of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. In other words, it's not just DNA per se. The DNA is the evidence for human life.

Just curious though... you seem to be implying that there is some DNA that you look at as a person. Did you make a mistake in saying that? If not, can you explain which DNA you look at and see a human?