Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

Okay, and your point is? Is a seed the same as a plant, just because a plant comes from a seed?

Bottom line, all you anti-choicers want to make up your own science on the matter, when, bottom line, a zygote or an embryo is not a viable being. They are not human. They are cellular stages of growth.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

How is a seed not a plant or a tree. If you plant it it will become a plant or a tree. It wont become a monkey or a rock it will become a plant or a tree.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I've never understood the use of the term "Pro-Choice" to the people that believe in abortion. Isn't Pro-Abortion the correct term? I believe Pro-Choice would be giving up the child for adoption.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude



How is a seed not a plant or a tree. If you plant it it will become a plant or a tree. It wont become a monkey or a rock it will become a plant.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Wow. Someone needs to take a rudimentary science course.

A seed is an ovule that contains an embryo. The embryo turns into a plant. Not that complicated.

Originally posted by DarkElvis
I've never understood the use of the term "Pro-Choice" to the people that believe in abortion. Isn't Pro-Abortion the correct term? I believe Pro-Choice would be giving up the child for adoption.

Really? So pro choice means you should only have one choice?

Pro-abortion would mean someone supports abortion whole-heartedly. I have yet to meet, in my life, someone who is an outward advocate of abortion.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude



How is a seed not a plant or a tree. If you plant it it will become a plant or a tree. It wont become a monkey or a rock it will become a plant.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Wow. Someone needs to take a rudimentary science course.

A seed is an ovule that contains an embryo. The embryo turns into a plant. Not that complicated.

Even you just said it turns into a plant. IF that single item can turn into a plant then its a plant. It doesnt matter if it takes 1 or 2 steps to get there it is still going to be a plant. You have already formed the dna of that unique plant.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I have yet to meet, in my life, someone who is an outward advocate of abortion.

And why do you think it is that you have never met anyone that is an outward advocate of abortion? Maybe because you cant support something you know is wrong. Whether you call it pro-choice or not, its still just a good marketing name for something that is basically destruction of life. At least I admit that war is a destruction of life.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Honestly I cannot seee the hypocrisy. I dont want there to be war but I dont see any other solution when people cant resolve differences through diplomacy and when one group of people are a threat to the lives of another group. Even you have to admit at some point in the womb that thing is human. It looks like a human. It has feelings and probably consciousness like a human. You cant really believe that thing doesnt gain any sense of being until it has left the womb and been smacked on the bottom can you?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Really? You dont see the hypocrisy in condoning the killing of one thing and condemning the killing of another?

At late stages, a fetus becomes viable life. At that point, you can call it human.

Last I checked, late stage abortion is illegal in this country.

I would like to see evidence for your claims before I will even touch on the "feelings and consciousness" comment, as those things can hardly be classified.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Really? You dont see the hypocrisy in condoning the killing of one thing and condemning the killing of another?

I dont think killing anyone is right. But I do believe that sometimes you must kill other people if they are a threat to your life or the lives of others and they refuse to stop. It doesnt make it right. It just makes it the lesser of two bad choices.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I have yet to meet, in my life, someone who is an outward advocate of abortion.

And why do you think it is that you have never met anyone that is an outward advocate of abortion? Maybe because you cant support something you know is wrong. Whether you call it pro-choice or not, its still just a good marketing name for something that is basically destruction of life. At least I admit that war is a destruction of life.

Wrong. If you actually talk to people, instead of assuming you know what they are thinking, you find that pro-life advocates understand that abortion is never RIGHT, but it is often the correct choice for people.

Again, you need to study the science of egg fertalization. Destruction of life does not in any way describe the termination of a cellular structure.

I love that you flat out admit that you are for the destruction on life on one hand, but use the same term as rhetoric when speaking of another.

This is a classic agenda thread. You havent actually refuted anything Ive said, you have only come back with responses based on emotion.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Wrong. If you actually talk to people, instead of assuming you know what they are thinking, you find that pro-life advocates understand that abortion is never RIGHT, but it is often the correct choice for people.

Again, you need to study the science of egg fertalization. Destruction of life does not in any way describe the termination of a cellular structure.

I love that you flat out admit that you are for the destruction on life on one hand, but use the same term as rhetoric when speaking of another.

This is a classic agenda thread. You havent actually refuted anything Ive said, you have only come back with responses based on emotion.

You just said abortion is never right. So how can it be the correct choice for people. How do you make that leap in logic to say it is NEVER RIGHT, but its a right choice for some people.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Really? You dont see the hypocrisy in condoning the killing of one thing and condemning the killing of another?

I dont think killing anyone is right. But I do believe that sometimes you must kill other people if they are a threat to your life or the lives of others and they refuse to stop. It doesnt make it right. It just makes it the lesser of two bad choices.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

So what makes this lesser of two evils acceptable, and the other not? What gives you the right to make that decision?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Wrong. If you actually talk to people, instead of assuming you know what they are thinking, you find that pro-life advocates understand that abortion is never RIGHT, but it is often the correct choice for people.

Again, you need to study the science of egg fertalization. Destruction of life does not in any way describe the termination of a cellular structure.

I love that you flat out admit that you are for the destruction on life on one hand, but use the same term as rhetoric when speaking of another.

This is a classic agenda thread. You havent actually refuted anything Ive said, you have only come back with responses based on emotion.

You just said abortion is never right. So how can it be the correct choice for people. How do you make that leap in logic to say it is NEVER RIGHT, but its a right choice for some people.

Just because something is not RIGHT(again, notice the emphasis on right), doesnt mean it is always wrong. You yourself are advocating war, but saying it is not right. You answered your own question.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude



How is a seed not a plant or a tree. If you plant it it will become a plant or a tree. It wont become a monkey or a rock it will become a plant.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Wow. Someone needs to take a rudimentary science course.

A seed is an ovule that contains an embryo. The embryo turns into a plant. Not that complicated.

Even you just said it turns into a plant. IF that single item can turn into a plant then its a plant. It doesnt matter if it takes 1 or 2 steps to get there it is still going to be a plant. You have already formed the dna of that unique plant.

Does a seed turn into a plant on its own? Think about that question for a few, then get back to me.

Again, you dont get to change science just to fit your argument. Facts are facts.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Really? You dont see the hypocrisy in condoning the killing of one thing and condemning the killing of another?

I dont think killing anyone is right. But I do believe that sometimes you must kill other people if they are a threat to your life or the lives of others and they refuse to stop. It doesnt make it right. It just makes it the lesser of two bad choices.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

So what makes this lesser of two evils acceptable, and the other not? What gives you the right to make that decision?

I obviously dont have that right according to the law as the way it is written and enforced now. So according to your lines of thinking it is ok to murder as long as it was someone elses choice to commit the murder, because we dont really have a right to say they shouldnt murder someone. Maybe they have a valid reason to murder that person, like they abused them in some way, etc... So maybe we should all become pro-murder for the few people that actually have a percieved valid reason to murder.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude


I obviously dont have that right according to the law as the way it is written and enforced now. So according to your lines of thinking it is ok to murder as long as it was someone elses choice to commit the murder, because we dont really have a right to say they shouldnt murder someone. Maybe they have a valid reason to murder that person, like they abused them in some way, etc... So maybe we should all become pro-murder for the few people that actually have a percieved valid reason to murder.

And with that, I am done with this thread. The sensationalizing and propaganda is old, and I have argued it far too many times. If you want to speak factually, thats great. I am not going to participate in this emotional round-and-round you are trying to create.

You want to start getting emotional, saying I am supporting murder, etc. I am not going to play that game. There is scientific fact, and there is rhetoric. You are using rhetoric, friend.

What a stupid question, how can ANYONE be PRO torture? You must be a
pretty sick individual to have the opinion that torturing people is fine under
any conditions.

Even if it can save lives, YOU STILL DON'T USE TORTURE! No human has
the moral right to torture a living being, for any reason what so ever. If
you allow torture under any conditions, then more innocent people will get
tortured than people saved by torturing.. FAR more.

Even if you THINK you can save 100 lives by torturing someone, YOU STILL
HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO IT. Because you can never know for sure if it will
work, and like I said before, if you allow it under any conditions, it will be
abused. Your country is the perfect example of this.