You did not ask me "if I killed your two cells just after conception, would I kill you", you asked me "if I killed your two cells just after conception, would you be here now". The two are very different - the first refers to killing a person, the second (which you actually asked) refers to preventing that person from coming into existence in the first place.
Using that argument - it does indeed vary from case to case, although not by a matter of months as you imply - more days. This is not a problem, since it happens throughout life - eg when in a person's life does puberty start/end? Come to that, where exactly during the 24-hour conception process do you believe that a 'person' becomes present?
It is my personal opinion, indeed, which happens to also be shared by others. This is my point. You are making up your point of view just as much as I am making up mine. The difference is that you admit you cannot prove your POV, whereas I can support my views - and yet for some reason you are convinced that your view, and no others, is the 'truth' of 'reality'.
Let's put it this way - this is a debate forum. If you say something with a flaw, those with a different opinion to you will seize on that flaw and tear your argument to shreds. I've posted something which documents a massive hole in the pro-life position and not one person has posted a justified rebuttal. Silence can speak volumes.
I have proved my case, in the other thread. You have not responded to it. Furthermore, you have failed to prove your own case in this thread.
I have done no such thing - see above.
You want to force pregnant women to act according to your opinon. I don't think that has ever been in doubt.
Feel like repeating that textbook definition for me? Although I remind you of something you recently said: "the presumption that scientists never use terminology incorrectly either deliberately to forward a goal or due to ignorance / incompetence.
Uh, no it isn't. As I've explained twice now: Consider going back in time and killing my egg and sperm just before conception (not just after, which was your premise).
In your opinion, unjustified and unproved, only.
So you consider 'life' to start at the instance sperm first comes into contact with egg, before the two DNA strands have even had time to interact chemically?
I can prove my side just as much - if not more than - you can prove yours. I have evidence, justifications, etc. You have nothing.
If you want to think that, feel free. You're certainly spending a lot of effort debating something that isn't very important, in that case.
If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread then you would discover exactly why I think I'm right. As it is, the evidence continues to stand unchallenged.
See above. I was not saying what you are twisting my words to mean. And even with that twisting of the words, your conclusions are still false.
That is a whole bunch of words to just admit that you can't even justify your own assertions.
I never said anything about 'denying women rights they don't really have'. I said 'forcing women to act as if your opinions were correct'. It is your opinion that a zygote, embryo etc is a person - an opinion which you freely admit you cannot prove. You are forcing women to act as if that opinion was correct. While your motive may be 'saving babies', your means are forcing women.
Dubya, although I doubt very much he will respond.
That is correct. I'm talking about after. Not before.
- I am agreeing with you.
only when they are joined. [/QUOTE] Yes, it does mean that they are a person.
I'm not going to go through your post point by point for two reasons. Firstly, a large proportion of your post is throw-away one liners which aren't worth the time to respond to (like the last three segments, for example). Secondly, I think you've mangled the quote system up - some of you've written seems to be inside my quotes, sometimes the quote tags themselves are in error, and so on. To make things simpler, let's distil out the important parts.
Firstly, I never claimed that you said 'before conception'. However, your argument implied that your premise was valid in all cases, which does include 'before conception'. If you include an exception in your argument that "this does not apply before conception" then you are guilty of special pleading by way of circular reasoning. To explain this - 'special pleading' is where you try and argue for an exception to a general rule without justifying why the exception exists. For example, "yes, I know that all people should be allowed to marry - but not mixed-race couples!". You have argued that "if going back in time and killing X results in a person not being here today, X must be a person - but not before conception!"
Really?
The problem with pretending you didn't say something on a forum is that your quotes can be cited for anyone to see. Like the following - when you deny that...
...again, this is your opinion only. It is not a fact.
There is no baby involved in an abortion.
...and the development of a cake begins when eggs are broken and mixed with flour and sugar. That doesn't mean that a cake mix is a cake. And if you are happy to quote textbooks, I suggest that you go over to the other thread and looks at the excerpts I have presented. Or are textbooks only 'biased' and 'untrustworthy' when they agree with me, but are perfectly valid for you to quote when they agree with you, even though the excerpts are held on a webpage with 'prolife' in the URL?
As has been repeatedly explained to you, it is not a fact that there is a 'baby' being 'killed' - it is your opinion only. You have tried to justify that it *is* a fact and, by the looks of it, my last post shot your attempted justification down so hard that you have given up on it and have returned to simply repeating your POV again.
Brilliant reasoning, after all we are on the verge of extinction...
