The Right to Life

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, at the moment of conception race, sex, hair color, skin color, eye color, an awful lot of personality is formed-yet some people say that is not a human being.

As I pointed out, to say it is not a living human being is not logically permissible:

1. It is definitely living -- if it were not, we would not be having this conversation.

2. It is definitely human -- it has human DNA.

3. It is definitely a being -- it has its own DNA.

It is as much a living human being as you or I -- or any of our resident National Socialists.

[togor]

Vernon makes my point. He's deaf, dumb and blind to every single complexity in this issue, and there are so many. A fertilized embryo has a long way to go. Especially if it's frozen in LN2. Just an example of the complexities he refuses to engage. Tug at one loose thread and the whole argument might unravel!

I win this debate.

[JB White]

More fuel on the fire.....

Both the Constitution and the Bible mention rights as birthrights. Upon birth. Neither make mention of rights upon conception.

Not that I'm for abortion. Just that mentioning such writings as part of the argument does not lend credibility. Especially among those who might be familiar with them.
Makes people look like the knee jerk left when they start with their fabricated versions of so-called proof.

Just saying......

[S.A. Boggs]

As I pointed out, to say it is not a living human being is not logically permissible:

1. It is definitely living -- if it were not, we would not be having this conversation.

2. It is definitely human -- it has human DNA.

3. It is definitely a being -- it has its own DNA.

It is as much a living human being as you or I -- or any of our resident National Socialists.

Vern you are wasting your time dealing with an emotional deficient.
Sam

[Bill D]

. . . .Makes people look like the knee jerk left when they start with their fabricated versions of so-called proof.

Just saying......[/QUOTE]



And Togor emphatically states “I win this argument”.

[JB White]

. . . .Makes people look like the knee jerk left when they start with their fabricated versions of so-called proof.

Just saying......

And Togor emphatically states “I win this argument”.[/QUOTE]


Might be. I think that's where he was originally going? At least until the tangent factor kicked in as usual.

[togor]

Bill I win the argument not because minds were changed but because the other side refused to engage. It's a serious topic and they're stuck on "embryos are people" as a matter of personal opinion, not biological fact. They steadfastly refuse to address counter arguments. So win by default, but a win.

[Vern Humphrey]

More fuel on the fire.....

Both the Constitution and the Bible mention rights as birthrights. Upon birth. Neither make mention of rights upon conception.

Not that I'm for abortion. Just that mentioning such writings as part of the argument does not lend credibility. Especially among those who might be familiar with them.
Makes people look like the knee jerk left when they start with their fabricated versions of so-called proof.

Just saying......

Where in the Constitution does the word "birthright" appear?

[Roadkingtrax]

Where in the Constitution does the word "birthright" appear?

Right next to Article 1, "The Ovum and Sperm".

[S.A. Boggs]

Where in the Constitution does the word "birthright" appear?

The Nazi's are screaming to drown out the crying of murdered babies, "they" can't deny the sound.
Sam

[togor]

Where in the Constitution does the word "birthright" appear?

Convention at the time was you had to be born to count. They knew too well the perils of pregnancy and childbirth. No sense in getting ahead of things.

"Unborn" in any conception of the word (pun intended) is clearly absent. Want unborn protections in the basic law? Then amend the Constitution. Don't twist it's meaning.

[lyman]

Bill I win the argument not because minds were changed but because the other side refused to engage. It's a serious topic and they're stuck on "embryos are people" as a matter of personal opinion, not biological fact. They steadfastly refuse to address counter arguments. So win by default, but a win.

what is the saying???


never argue with ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

- - - Updated - - -

Right next to Article 1, "The Ovum and Sperm".

now you done it, ,

I got a Monty Python tune rambling in my head,,,

- - - Updated - - -

Convention at the time was you had to be born to count. They knew too well the perils of pregnancy and childbirth. No sense in getting ahead of things.

"Unborn" in any conception of the word (pun intended) is clearly absent. Want unborn protections in the basic law? Then amend the Constitution. Don't twist it's meaning.

you did not answer his question

[jdmcgrath]

Terry Schiavo. Remember her? Her brain was toast, she was gone, but mom and dad couldn't let go.

[togor]

you did not answer his question

LOL, has he answered any of mine? We all know the text. If you want to get in the game on this one, I got a list.

[togor]

Terry Schiavo. Remember her? Her brain was toast, she was gone, but mom and dad couldn't let go.

Goes to show that Vernon's rules can bite people at both ends of life's journey. Good point.

And to restate. I'm not pro-abortion. But I am pro-freedom, especially on tough calls at the beginning and end, and I am anti-chop-suey, as far as turning the Constitution into something unrecognizable in order to achieve a pet end.