I am going to do a few posts highlighting different conversations I have had with pro-choicers that deal with specific objections to abortion. My intent is two-fold. First I want to show how the logic is revealed through actual conversation, and second I want to show how a kind word can turn away wrath.
I am frustrated with many in my camp who want to do good by making a pro-life change in this world, but their method is bent on ridicule and insult. I have never seen this as an effective method for changing hearts and minds.
In this conversation I want to show how a respectful tone can do much to set your opponent at ease. This by itself wont change their mind, but it is essential if the logic and facts are expected to do their job to make sure you don't close their ears.
I have included the comments of some of my comrades in arms. Some are beneficial comments, some are detrimental to the conversation. In the end I am glad to say that the point was won on my opposing friend's heart. He is still pro-choice but he is more open now than before to talk things through with me. The conversation may appear disjointed at times, that is just the nature of these message boards.
DBD
in all the time i have been posting on this channel, (and others) not one person has been able to show me conclusively that an embryo is a human being. not once! you would have thought that if there was something other than a leap of faith involved, someone would have shown me the evidence?
shardoin
DBD - not one person has been able to show me conclusively that an embryo is a human being. Admittedly, I am shocked that this would even be in question. Have you ever heard of a woman giving birth to anything other than human?
DBD
what has that to do with anything? a fertilised egg might become a human being.
IGNAT
DBD,In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that 'the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being' was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception. UVVAct of 2004 defines an UNBORN CHILD as a human being at any stage of development (ZYGOTE, EMBRYO, FETUS) who is carried in the womb of the mother.
DBD
I could go and check on your 60 year old report, but every time i do, i find that you have twisted or cherrypicked the facts, (like in the uvv 2004 case below) and that what you say is irrelevent. cutting and pasting BITS of documents and hoping that no-one take the time to check them is not a good debating strategy. and incidentally if what some people said 60 years ago was proof of anything, why did no-one act on it yet?
shardoin
DBD - why has no one acted on it? You are asking the wrong question, that's why. The abortion debate doesn't bring into question the humanity of the fetus; it is about the right to live for the unborn human being. It is a civil rights fight, not a semantics fight.
DBD
no i am asking the question I want an answer to, not the one you want answer, if theres a difference that doesnt mean I got the question wrong.
shardoin
That’s fine; we can take the long route. The reason no one has acted on what was said 60 years ago is that it doesn't have any bearing on the debate. No one is saying that the fetus is not a human being.
DBD
I am
shardoin
DBD - I am. If that is the case then the onus is on you to present evidence to support your position. It is a position that is contrary to science, semantics, and the medical community. I look forward to seeing your arguments though.
DBD
The onus is not on me because abortion is a legal activity, and i am not trying to chance that or stop anyone excercing their legal right, the onus is on you.
shardoin
DBD - the onus is not on me ...I can see you are having trouble following this. You made a statement that you have the onus to support. If I had said that abortion was not legal I would have the onus to present evidence. The position you took is that a fetus is not a human being. The onus is on you to support that position.
DBD
Buy a dictionary mine says "any man woman or child of the species homo-sapiens, no mention of fetus's
shardoin
PERSON
Noun
1. human being - any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.
The fetus is a member of the family hominidae.
DBD
its not living or a member.
shardoin
If you are saying the fetus is not alive then I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence.
DBD
I told you I don’t NEED to support it, you NEED to prove me wrong. I look forward to that.
DBD
unfortunately i have to go out, see if you change the law before i come back.
shardoin
DBD - you NEED to prove me wrong...Clearly you don’t understand the rules of debate. When you posit an opinion, especially one that is a contrary opinion, the onus is put on you to support your opinion. Otherwise it becomes discarded as merely opinion.
DBD
thats what YOU say.
shardoin
DBD - Are you seriously insisting that I supply evidence that the fetus is alive? Would you like supporting evidence for gravity as well?
Merl
DBDPro-lifers do not particularly careabout what pro-aborts consider "good debating strategy".Because you and you kind would rather see pro-lifers as a collection of submissive weeners. That's one dream that ain't going to happen.Ever.
DBD
"pro-lifer" dont seem to care about what a lot of people consider
shardoin
What do a lot of people consider?
DBD
a lot of people consider abortion to be ok
shardoin
The fact that a lot of people consider it ok is not an argument for anything. Mob rule does not always mean right rule. The latest polls show that the majority are pro-life, but again that really means nothing. A lot of people considered slavery to be ok once too.
DBD
no they dont
shardoin
I dont know what you are disagreeing with unless you specify
DBD
the majority of americans 75% said in that* poll, that they agreed with abortion, some under certain unstated conditions , (me too), 51% plus or minus 3% the majority you are talking about said they felt more pro life than pro choice when face witha false dichotomy. gallup spokesmenn said they thought the hickup was a kneejerk reaction to obamas recent abortion policy.
shardoin
what false dichotomy?
DBD
are you pro choice or pro lfe.
Merl
DBD - and a lot of people don't consider abortion to be ok.
DBD
"and a lot of people dont consider abortion to be ok", and i respect their right to not have one.
Merl
DBD - No person has the right to take the life of a helpless unborn babe.
DBD
actually undead abortionists do. go and have a look at the facts.
Merl
DBD"..undead abortionists.."?You also referred to people (including yourself) as being "undead corpses" last night.Your outlook on life is truly bizarre - it explains a great deal about your pro-abort stance.
shardoin
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
DBD
but that could all be as a result of the conection by umbilical cord to the mother. once these functions can be performed independenty of the mother, (for a n extended period) then a fetus can be said to be alive.
shardoin
None of the functions of life happen because of the cord. From the moment of conception, the conceptus begins to reproduce thru mitoses, it metabolizes, it responds to its environment. Even the placenta is grown by the fetus, not the mother.
DBD
you can apply all of this logic to a vaginal wart.
shardoin
Really? Does a vaginal wart have its own DNA? Seriously are you here for real debate or just to troll?
DBD
why is dna at all relevant?
shardoin
Why is DNA relevant?Because DNA is one huge way in which we can determine autonomy.
Merl
DBD - Human Beings as unto a wart! Your slip is showing.
shardoin
Independence is also not a criterion for life. A newborn has no independence. It cannot survive on its own. A conceptus exhibits every trait of life prior to attaching itself tothe uterine wall, independent of the mother.
DBD
"independence is not a criteria for life", who says so?
shardoin
Who says so? Biologists who define what constitutes biological life.
DBD
biologists say that dna is relevent in defining what constitutes a human being?
shardoin
Yes biologists do say that DNA is relevant for defining not only a human being but any other animal.
Merl
DBD - Re: "once these functions can be performed independenty of the mother, (for an extended period) then a fetus can be said to be alive.'Who do you think you are - the author of life? You, who doesn't even understand the cause of the force which holds him to the ground.Life begins at the moment of conception. Fact.
DBD
facts are provable, and please tell me what is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor?
shardoin
What is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor? Giant magnets
Merl
DBD For a person who believes that he knows when life begins - he has to ask Merl as to what the cause of the force is that holds him to the ground? What a joke.
DBD
you accused me of being ignorant because I didnt know something and you cant show that you know it? that is a joke
Merl
DBD.Don't try to reverse the argument - a typical pro-abort tactic.You claim to know when life begins - therefore, you tell us here tonight, what the cause of gravity is.There's no scientist on earth who knows the answer to that question.Perhaps you do - seeing as you claim that life begins at some moment other than at conception.
DBD
shardoin, can we then state categorically that if something were to have its own individual human dna that it is a human being?
shardoin
You are putting the cart before the horse. Genetic tests identify the being already present before you. It can define that being as being human, or the DNA can identify the type of animal that the item came from as in a hair which would be a byproduct of that being.
DBD
so dna shows only that it is a part of something that is/was alive?
shardoin
DNA identifies the owner of the item in question. Be it an arm, a hair, an entire body. DNA doesshow that whatever is being tested was once alive though, you are correct on that. DNA requires life to exist.
Meta
"[DNA] shows only that it is a part of something that is/was alive?"DNA shows a great deal more than that. It shows which particular species it is, among other things. FBI DNA evidence has been being used to prove cases in court for decades.The DNA of an organism determines what species that organism is.
DBD
so what we have ascertained thus far unless I am mistaken, (which is not impossible) is that a fertilized egg, has its own human DNA, which shows indisputably that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far
shardoin
So far we seem to be on the same page ...continue please.
DBD
" continue please" I got nothing, I 'm trying to remember why it was relevent?
shardoin
lol, that's fine. We can pick it up later if you want to take a break.
DBD
thanks but what i mean is that you now now convinced of the facts that I oulined, and i have nothing more to add to or question on that subject. I cant remember (or never knew) why the matter would be of any signifigance.
shardoin
I'm not sure why it is significant either; you started the line of questioning.
DBD
"you started the line of questioning" so where were you before you were so rudely interupted?
Lorra41
" To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence".The "Father of Modern Genetics" Jerome Lejeune....Univ. of Descarte, Paris.
Lorra41
Everyones life begins at fertilization. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. No matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.
shardoin
The criterion for biological life has been established. It is not opinion; it is a consensus of scientific study. The conceptus fulfills every criterion for biological life.
DBD
biological life does not mean a human being though right?
shardoin
Biological life only means human biological life if it is biologically human.
DBD
biological human life does not mean a biological human being though right?
shardoin
Biologically speaking...yes
DBD
yes it does not?
shardoin
lol yes it does mean a biological human being. Biologically it can'tbe anything else.
DBD
so to recap again, shortly after conception, a fertilised egg contains its own human dna and is biologically a human being? is that right?
shardoin
not shortly after conception, but AT conception. Otherwise we are in agreement.
Meta
"a [fertilized] egg, has its own human [DNA], which shows indisputably that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far"Never thought of it that way, but I have no disagreement with that statement. The DNA is used to determine species and individuality. Life is determined by the characteristics of the organism, those characteristics being, cellular division (growth), metabolism, autonomous movement and reaction to stimuli.
DBD
and is an independent life.
shardoin
Dependency is too loosely defined; I would say an individual life.
DBD
individual will do for me.
shardoin
ok :)
DBD
1 more question (which I dont expect you to be ble to answer) why, after commenting on this vid for months and repeatedly asking, is this the first time anyone has told me all this?
shardoin
ur right, I can’t say why that is but I hope I was helpful to you.
DBD
" but I hope I was helpful to you" not really, because now i will have to endure pro.lie merl and ignatious costantly ranting that human life begins at conception, because technically speaking they are right, but thanks for trying.
shardoin
Well you could always join us :)
DBD
thanks for the invite but i dont like the company you keep.
shardoin
There are all kinds in both camps. Life at conception is just the beginning. There are plenty of arguments to work thru from that starting point. I don’t hang my hat on that argument alone. Hopefully we will be able to hash thru these together again.
ignatius
DBD,You still deny the basic scientific facts.Your opinion does not change the scientific facts -- You lie and you lie nothing more nothing less.Embryology, Fetology, Obstetrics, and Biology have clearly confirmed that human life begins at conception. And that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are unborn children who are human beings, carried inthe womb of the mother (UVoVAct of 2004; 1981 Senate Report, S-158 of 97th Congress).
DBD
"you still deny the basic scientific facts" really? oh and as you know the uvv act 2004 specifically excludes abortion
shardoin
The exclusion of abortion is a political act. It doesn’t mean that they thought these were human beings, UNLESS the mother wanted to kill them. They were being political cowards.
DBD
“they were being political cowards" maybe, they still excluded abortion, and it is unreasonable to select some information and and ignore other pieces of information from the same document because you say it is unreliable.
shardoin
What information was being ignored? They did not deny the humanity of the fetus when they gave exclusion for abortion.
DBD
"they did not deny the humanity of the fetus" and neither did I, (after you explained it to me), the fact being ignored is the fact that that documents states that that protection is not extended to abortion.
shardoin
I agree to the limits of that document in protecting the unborn, but I believe He used that document to show that the fetus was officially classified as a human being legally. There are certainly plenty of inconsistencies in the law when it comes to protecting the unborn.
DBD
hey i wouldnt wanna be the next person to ask me "which came first the chicken or the egg?"
shardoin
lol
*next day*
kirs
DERBULL: You said in you post"Life begins at conception, technicaly THEY ARE RIGHT ! "Thankyou for that :D
DBD
dont thank me thank sardoin (sp?)
kirs
Ummmmmm page 9 der it was definatly you my dear,pop your specks on and go look,,but hey its a good day ,der has admitted something he has been denying to be true,,well done der,,see it didnt hurt did it ! XD
DBD
ha ha!, why you have to be rude? typical. what I meant was, dont give me the credit for saying that, thank sardoin(sp?) he explained it to me.
DBD
sHardoin
This topic is certainly a hot topic and it takes a great deal of patience to keep from attacking your opponant, rather than their facts or logic. I slip often enough but I am also easy to acknowledge it if I am called out or if I recognize it myself. When you engage someone on this topic remember why you are talking to them about it. What is your ultimate goal? Are you there to just cast stones or do you care to change their heart and perhaps change enough hearts to save 50 million babies a year?
Abortion is the leading cause of death for the unborn. We cant afford to be the reason for losing this fight. Present the facts, present your sound reasoning and then just get out of the way.
