Pro-Lifers Read.

[Archivist]

Ok can you give me an example of where life occurs apart from conception of sperm and egg? At least my opinion matches all observable instances.

Some people would say quickening, others would say birth. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Does the fetus have the right to abort the woman? Balancing is hardly the word is it.

The pregnant woman is a life in being. The fetus is not.

Roe sets up a balancing test. I presume that you have read the opinion.

Ah ok on the same basis if one believes paedophilia is wrong just don’t do it ourselves and if people want to they can?

Did you read what I wrote? Paedophilia impacts a life in being. Abortion does not.

On the contrary abortion does! Paedophilia is a different matter but for the logic of the argument made if one believes paedophilia is wrong just don’t do it ourselves and if people want to they can.

You do understand the maening of a person in being.

Abortion is much worse, an abused life can recover, a terminated life cant.

Again, a fetus is not a life in being.

 

[Trashionista]

Dear Quirlk,
Sorry but based on the remark you made the comparison is applicable, thats why I made the comparison.

The comparison isn't applicable.

Geeze, read what I wrote.

Abortion: act between woman and doctor. Most likely, woman in question will not go on murderous rampage in a public park. In all likelihood, if the woman wishes procedure to remain secret, it will be.

Paedophilia/Sex abuse: act between adult and child. Child may never reveal truth of abuse, but good chance child may become an abuser themselves. In all likelihood, the peadophile may have other victims. Making the sex abuse a community issue that will have detrimental effects upon society.

The only effect abortion has on society is the nosy busy-bodies who decide to make reproductive rights of women their business when it doesn't concern them.

There is a clear difference that you can't seem to see, so you've relied on a weak, out-of-left-field comparison without substance that is easily torn down when looked at in any capacity.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist,

Some people would say quickening, others would say birth. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

I said nether, my question was whether you could give me an example of where life occurs apart from conception of sperm and egg? I assume you cant which kind of proves my point.

The pregnant woman is a life in being. The fetus is not.

The foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, as you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life I would say your ‘balance’ is in fact unbalanced.

Did you read what I wrote? Paedophilia impacts a life in being. Abortion does not.

Again, the foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, as you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life I would say your abortion terminates life and paedophilia merely abuses life.

You do understand the maening of a person in being.

Yes, I am not sure you do.

Again, a fetus is not a life in being

Again, the foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, and you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Quirk,

The comparison isn't applicable.

Yes it is for the same reason I was pointing out to archivist. Life doesn’t occur unless there is conception with a sperm and egg, that’s the starting point. So abortion: isn’t just an act between a woman and doctor, it between a woman a foetus and a doctor, with the foetus helpless in the hands of the destroying doctor and woman.

Paedophilia/Sex abuse: act between adult and child. Child may never reveal truth of abuse, but good chance child may become an abuser themselves. In all likelihood, the peadophile may have other victims. Making the sex abuse a community issue that will have detrimental effects upon society.

Agreed but it is still not as bad a terminating life.

The only effect abortion has on society is the nosy busy-bodies who decide to make reproductive rights of women their business when it doesn't concern them.

Good we want justice and life not death.

There is a clear difference that you can't seem to see, so you've relied on a weak, out-of-left-field comparison without substance that is easily torn down when looked at in any capacity.

Having given no alternative to when life starts and unable to deny it starts at conception your opinion seems baseless. I am arguing for the unborn lives in danger of termination from your weak argument.

 

[Archivist]

I said nether, my question was whether you could give me an example of where life occurs apart from conception of sperm and egg? I assume you cant which kind of proves my point.

As Quirk said, do you read what others write?

I never said that you said that life begins at quickening or birth, I said that many use those points as being the start of human life. Their opinions are just as valid as your opinion.

BTW, yes life (since you failed to specify human life) does occur apart from conception of sperm and egg. Single-celled creatures reproduce by dividing.

The foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, as you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life I would say your ‘balance’ is in fact unbalanced.

No, a life in being requires birth. The only exception is under the old Rule Against Perpetuities, which recognizes a period of gestation to cover a posthumous birth, but which still requires birth.

Again, I did offer two alternatives to conception as the start of human life. Do you read what others write, or do you care only about your own opinions?

Again, have you read the Roe v. Wade opinion? It would be nice to get an answer to my question. The opinion does create a balancing test. If you had read it, you would know that.

Again, the foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, as you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life I would say your abortion terminates life and paedophilia merely abuses life.

Are we in the same thread? Have you read anything that I wrote?

Again, the foetus is a life in being as life starts at conception, and you have been unable to give me any alternative to conception for the start of life.

You can't make up your own definitations. A fetus is not a life in being. I presume that you have read Lord Coke's writings on the issue.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist

As Quirk said, do you read what others write?

Yes and very carefully, so much so that I respond to each point specifically as I am doing, so I know the question hasn’t been answered.

I never said that you said that life begins at quickening or birth, I said that many use those points as being the start of human life. Their opinions are just as valid as your opinion.

Ok so firstly assume this opinion is as valid, that make my opinion as valid as well, so how do you chose between two valid points?
Secondly quickening isn’t relevant.as without conception there will be no quickening.

BTW, yes life (since you failed to specify human life) does occur apart from conception of sperm and egg. Single-celled creatures reproduce by dividing.

Yes but we don’t abort amoebas as I am aware and the topic is about human abortion.

No, a life in being requires birth.

No that’s not what I said, there can be no birth unless there was conception.

Again, I did offer two alternatives to conception as the start of human life. Do you read what others write, or do you care only about your own opinions?

I saw none, remind me.

Again, have you read the Roe v. Wade opinion? It would be nice to get an answer to my question. The opinion does create a balancing test. If you had read it, you would know that.

The answer is the Roe vs Wade is error for the very reason I am pointing out to you. The Roe vs Wade case doesn’t recognise life starts at conception.

You can't make up your own definitations. A fetus is not a life in being.

Yes it is because life starts at conception.

,I presume that you have read Lord Coke's writings on the issue.

If he makes the same fundamental and logical error what good is reading it? Your appeal goes to what other people think, the premise I am making that life starts at conception shows they are in a logical and fundamental error.

 

[Archivist]

Yes and very carefully, so much so that I respond to each point specifically as I am doing, so I know the question hasn’t been answered.

Obviously not, because you said that I had failed to provide any examples when I had in fact provided two. the fact that you disagree with the examples that I provided--quickening and birth--is irrelevent. The fact is taht I did provide examples.

Ok so firstly assume this opinion is as valid, that make my opinion as valid as well, so how do you chose between two valid points?

That's why it is called opinion.

Secondly quickening isn’t relevant.as without conception there will be no quickening.

That is your opinion. History says otherwise, as shown by Wikipedia which states "Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus."

Yes but we don’t abort amoebas as I am aware and the topic is about human abortion.

Then you should be more specific in your statements.

No that’s not what I said, there can be no birth unless there was conception.

You don't understand the meaning of life in being. As I said before, a life in being requires birth. The only exception is under the old Rule Against Perpetuities, which recognizes a period of gestation to cover a posthumous birth, but which still requires birth.

I saw none, remind me.

Quickening and birth.

The answer is the Roe vs Wade is error for the very reason I am pointing out to you. The Roe vs Wade case doesn’t recognise life starts at conception.

Again, have you read the decision? You claim that you "respond to each point specifically." Why do you not answer my questions.

The Roe decision does not deal with when life begins.

Yes it is because life starts at conception.

In your opinion.

If he makes the same fundamental and logical error what good is reading it?

Do you even know who Coke is?

Your appeal goes to what other people think, the premise I am making that life starts at conception shows they are in a logical and fundamental error.

In other words, everyone else is wrong; only you are right.

 

[Trashionista]

Dear Quirk,
Yes it is for the same reason I was pointing out to archivist. Life doesn’t occur unless there is conception with a sperm and egg, that’s the starting point. So abortion: isn’t just an act between a woman and doctor, it between a woman a foetus and a doctor, with the foetus helpless in the hands of the destroying doctor and woman.

Agreed but it is still not as bad a terminating life.

Good we want justice and life not death.

Having given no alternative to when life starts and unable to deny it starts at conception your opinion seems baseless. I am arguing for the unborn lives in danger of termination from your weak argument.

The argument isn't weak. If if it were so "weak", why is abortion still legal in most Western nations?

There's a need for it.

And just because you as a male will never have to make that decision doesn't invalidate the entire need for it.

And you can't really argue sperm + egg = human life. Creation of zygote? Yes. That's scientific fact.

But proclaiming an embryo equal to a human is like declaring a cat equal to a human. Its totally subjective and open to opinion.

Now, just because I think animal torture is wrong, I'm not exactly in a place to call all meat-eaters "immoral". They believe it to be morally ok to eat a ham sandwich, PeTA does not. However, you can't "prove" a cow to be equal to a human. Just as you can't prove a fetus or embryo or zygote is equal to a 25 year old woman.

So, you have PeTA's supporters going veggie. And you have those who have no problem with eating meat enjoying a ham sandwich.

As for the paedophilia being not as bad as abortion... I find that reprehensible. But as I'm all for freedom to choose, well... nice to see what your values are.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist,

Obviously not, because you said that I had failed to provide any examples when I had in fact provided two. the fact that you disagree with the examples that I provided--quickening and birth--is irrelevent. The fact is taht I did provide examples.

There can be no birth or quickening without conception so they are irrelevant. Are you saying birth can occur without conception, if so I think you are outside reality.

That is your opinion. History says otherwise, as shown by Wikipedia which states "Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus."

As I said there can be no quickening without conception so life has already begun at conception, without conception there is no life.

Then you should be more specific in your statements.

No I expect you to remain on topic,

No that’s not what I said, there can be no birth unless there was conception.

You don't understand the meaning of life in being. As I said before, a life in being requires birth.

Life starts at conception so the concept of life in being is error unless it recognises this fact.

Quickening and birth.

Ok as I said I saw none but my apologies I accept that is the evidence you have provided.

In your opinion.

yes because without conception your opinion is invalid.

In other words, everyone else is wrong; only you are right.

How can I be the only one who thinks as I do when so many others think the same way?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Quirk,

The argument isn't weak. If if it were so "weak", why is abortion still legal in most Western nations?

Selfishness?

And you can't really argue sperm + egg = human life. Creation of zygote? Yes. That's scientific fact.

I can and do, as do many, don’t try and tell me I cant make a widely held argument. Without the conception of sperm and egg there will be no zygote. All you are doing is offering different stages in the development of life as an alternative to the start of life, which is the reason your argument is weak.

But proclaiming an embryo equal to a human is like declaring a cat equal to a human. Its totally subjective and open to opinion.

No its nothing like the same, the cat started life at conception just as the human.

As for the paedophilia being not as bad as abortion... I find that reprehensible.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I would have thought terminating life was worse than abusing it.

But as I'm all for freedom to choose, well... nice to see what your values are.

Well nice to see that my values are that paedophilia and abortion as a choice are both reprehensible, yet you support abortion. I think my values are ok.

 

[Trashionista]

Dear Quirk,
Selfishness?

I can and do, as do many, don’t try and tell me I cant make a widely held argument. Without the conception of sperm and egg there will be no zygote. All you are doing is offering different stages in the development of life as an alternative to the start of life, which is the reason your argument is weak.

No its nothing like the same, the cat started life at conception just as the human.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I would have thought terminating life was worse than abusing it.

Well nice to see that my values are that paedophilia and abortion as a choice are both reprehensible, yet you support abortion. I think my values are ok.

Ok, you honestly aren't reading what I wrote.

I'm aware sperm and egg equal zygote. That's basic ninth grade science, dude. I never doubted it.

What I do doubt is the sureness some people have that its equal to a infant. Its not - in my view. You hold the view that it is, but do you really have any proof besides Bible passages? And a couple of scientific "facts" gleamed from a pro-life website?

Its great to know you think being a loudmouth busy-body, trying to force your view on women's bodies - despite the fact you're male, is something you see as wonderfully beneficial to society. Hint: its not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Quirk,

What I do doubt is the sureness some people have that its equal to a infant. Its not - in my view.

But that’s my point it’s a life not an infant an infant is just another example of basic ninth grade science, an infant is life and so is a zygote for without the conception of a sperm and an egg neither would have developed.

You hold the view that it is, but do you really have any proof besides Bible passages? And a couple of scientific "facts" gleamed from a pro-life website?

Yes, sperm+ egg = conception = life.

 

[Archivist]

There can be no birth or quickening without conception so they are irrelevant. Are you saying birth can occur without conception, if so I think you are outside reality.

So in other words only your opinion is relevant. Everyone else is wrong.

As I said there can be no quickening without conception so life has already begun at conception, without conception there is no life.

And you are entitled to your opinion. As I have shown, many others disagree with your opinion.

No I expect you to remain on topic,

I am remaining on topic. However when you make blanket statements like life always starts at conception I need to point out that you are wrong.

No that’s not what I said, there can be no birth unless there was conception.

In the case of humans true, but that does not mean that life begins at conception.

Life starts at conception so the concept of life in being is error unless it recognises this fact.

In your opinion life begins at conception.

"Life in being" is a term of art. It requires birth.

Ok as I said I saw none but my apologies I accept that is the evidence you have provided.

Thank you.

Yes because without conception your opinion is invalid.

There is really very little point in continuing this since you have decided that you opinion is the only one that is valid and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

How can I be the only one who thinks as I do when so many others think the same way?

And many do not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist,

So in other words only your opinion is relevant. Everyone else is wrong.

No. How? How can I be the only one right when others also agree with the argument I have made?

And you are entitled to your opinion. As I have shown, many others disagree with your opinion.

Yes but I could disagree that the sky is blue, but that doesn’t make it any other colour, your challenge is to say why you disagree with the argument I have put forward, how quickening can occur if there never was an conception in the first place.

I am remaining on topic. However when you make blanket statements like life always starts at conception I need to point out that you are wrong.

how? Why am I wrong. If you are saying life doesn’t start at conception can you explain why all life starts at conception? Sorry I think you are outside reality.

In the case of humans true, but that does not mean that life begins at conception.

But as I said before this thread is about human abortion, I ma not aware for example that amoebas are abortion by the medical profession

In your opinion life begins at conception.

So if my opinion is that life doesn’t start at conception and my wife and I conceive and the baby is born that still isn’t a life? Sorry I cant quite see how you are right.

There is really very little point in continuing this since you have decided that you opinion is the only one that is valid and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

yes perhaps you are right I think somehow your argument is outside reality.

And many do not.

How can I be the only one who thinks as I do when so many others think the same way despite many who do not?

 

[Phinehas2]

You see by determining that life starts at a particualr point one can fool oneself into thinking one can abort and not terminate life and thus not feel guilty. But if one has to do that one obvioulsy needs to rethink the situation.
Remember through repentance in Christ Jesus all guilt is gone and finished, all reminders of guilt are the work of the Satan. But I put it to everyone, can they really say given the situation arising they are totally happy with abortion as a choice?

 

[Archivist]

How can I be the only one who thinks as I do when so many others think the same way despite many who do not?

There is no sense in continuing this discussion if you are going to misrepresent what I say. At no point did I say that you were the only one who has this view. What I have said is that you are entitled to your view just as others are entitled to their views.

You claim that you acrefully read the posts, yet you have failed to respond to several questions that I have asked you while I have answered every question that you have asked. There is no sense in going on if you are going to insist on this being a one-sided discussion.

Now you are starting to throw insults, stating that I am operating "outside of reality." My experience is that such personal attacks are the behavior of a person who has nothing valid to say on the subject.

I will be reporting your post.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist,

There is really very little point in continuing this since you have decided that you opinion is the only one that is valid and everyone who disagrees is wrong

My opinion is shared by many and yes I do think it is valid and yours isnt, I cant see what the probelm with that is. I should have thought that was what we could naturally expect.
The reason is I think life must start at conception and be valid at conception and to suggest otherwise seems outside reality to me and I have asked you how can life start anywhere else? I dont know why you have reported me for my view.

 

[Archivist]

My opinion is shared by many and yes I do think it is valid and yours isnt, I cant see what the probelm with that is. I should have thought that was what we could naturally expect.

My opinion is also shared by many. The difference between you and I is that you have decided that those who do not agree with you are "out of touch with reality" and "invalid," while I have continually said that deciding where life begins--be it at conception or at quickening or at birth--is a matter of individual cloice and your opinion is no more valid than any other opinion.

The reason is I think life must start at conception and be valid at conception and to suggest otherwise seems outside reality to me and I have asked you how can life start anywhere else?

And I have responded. You simply have dismissed my responses and refused to answer my questions to you.

I dont know why you have reported me for my view.

I haven't reported you for your view. I have reported you for your insults.

 

[Trashionista]

Dear Quirk,

But that’s my point it’s a life not an infant an infant is just another example of basic ninth grade science, an infant is life and so is a zygote for without the conception of a sperm and an egg neither would have developed.

Yes, sperm+ egg = conception = life.

That's opinion, not fact.

Sorry chief.
Again, where is this scientific basis you claim to have?

You really have no say in regards to what happens to the contents or lack there-of of my uterus.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear archivist,

My opinion is also shared by many. The difference between you and I is that you have decided that those who do not agree with you are "out of touch with reality" and "invalid," while I have continually said that deciding where life begins--be it at conception or at quickening or at birth--is a matter of individual cloice and your opinion is no more valid than any other opinion.

If you can prove where outside of sperm and egg conception life begins then ok, but if someone were to claim they were a no 47 bus I would not start believing in the possibility that buses can write on forums.

And I have responded. You simply have dismissed my responses and refused to answer my questions to you.

You responses show me you cant give any examples as all the examples you give depend firstly on sperm/egg conception.

I haven't reported you for your view. I have reported you for your insults.

Ok so you think those who disagree withyou are insulting you.