Originally Posted by PaleRider

I have explained it precisely. I care about abortion because it denys a living human being the most basic human right that we have. The right to live.

And I didn't say that I was not religious. I said that there is no need to inject religion into this issue because religious arguments are worthless in a court of law which is where this issue will ultimately be decided.

If you have other questions, ask them separate from your pages and pages of religious arguments which I am not going to read. They don't constitute proof that we are not human beings. They don't constitute proof of anything except the fact that religious people who have an agenda can manipulate the bible to support whatever position they hold.

One hundred and fifty years ago, religious people could make a fine argument for slavery by using the bible. Today, religious people make a fine argument for destroying the entire US by using their religious book.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

I never thought you had a abortion Lexi. Nor did I mean to imply you did.

Your initial post doesn't contain any link or any reason for me to think it wasn't you a physician talking. I thought to myself wow I didn't know Lexi was a doctor.

By your response here I can see that it was not you talking. Just some generic physician. That you failed to give a link to the original story.

I said the physician was right to give the morning after pill. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

You did the right thing Lexi. God sends the soul when a baby is born, not before.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Yes I have proof. But it is a long biblical study. Considering the fact it appears you may not even know we have souls pale rider, I would say it would be a waste of my time to undertake that study with you.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life. [Editor's note: Read more detailed pro-choice and pro-life analyses of Exodus 21.]

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.


Exodus 21:22-25

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

If your not religious why do you care about abortions? That would be a good start . How about answering that question pale rider?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What you have explained palerider is your basing your decision on emotions , not scientific or biblical fact.

The only sensible fact your have presented is that a fertilized egg is biologically human and alive. Thats right so are skin cells grown in petri dishes.

Pale rider is one of the emotional over reactors Lexi, who bases decisions on emotions like a over wrought woman who is used to having her way.

Forget it Lexi. People like this don't think. No use talking to them.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What you have explained palerider is your basing your decision on emotions , not scientific or biblical fact.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

The only sensible fact your have presented is that a fertilized egg is biologically human and alive. Thats right so are skin cells grown in petri dishes.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Forget it Lexi. People like this don't think. No use talking to them.

Originally Posted by Lexi

I realized that a few days ago Peach. I'm just having fun with him now.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

If you don't believe humans are unique and God knew us each before our births, why would you care about abortion or the morning after pill?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Do you believe the bible or not pale rider? That is a simple enough question and I don't know why it would upset you to answer it.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Brain activity is a measurement of human life. And clearly newly fertilized human eggs don't have a brain to think with for several weeks after fertilization. They don't have a brain to control their own bodies. They live biologically as parasites off the human mothers bodies.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

So tell me pale rider are you against birth control pills because they starve newly fertilized eggs to death ?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Are you a vegetarian who believes no life should be taken?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Just when does a human become a human pale rider? Is biological life without a brain human?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Just what are you against pale rider? I am yet to figure it out by your posts.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

What exactly does this have to do with this particular conversation pale rider?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

How do you feel about birth control which causes more abortions than do doctors in abortion clinics?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

How do you feel about fertility clinics that throw fertilized embryos out in the trash each day?

Originally Posted by wvpeach

How do you feel about cloning?

Originally Posted by PaleRider

You like looking like an idiot and reinforcing your flat earther status in front of everyone?

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The purpose of the morning after pill is not to prevent conception, but to prevent implantation. Since its purpose is to deliberately cause the death of a child, it is denying that child his or her most basic human right. I have no probem at all with any form of contraception, but abortificients are not contraception, they are abortion.

It doesn't upset me to answer, but in this discussion, my religious beliefs are about as important as my preference in sports teams. This issue is going to be determined and settled in a court of law. A religious argument is at best a matter of faith, and in whole, an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion. Neither is valid evidence when a human life is at stake. If you can't prove your point via rational argument and actual evidene, then you can't prove your point and you are destined to lose.

Sorry, but brain activity is not a measurement of human life. Life is measured in terms of growth through metabolism, cell reproduction, and adaptation to the environment via internal mechanisms. Brain activity is one of many indicators, but hardly the only indicator.

Your suggestion that brain activity is a measure of human life is flawed because you don't become more human if you have more brain activity. You are not more human than a mentally retarded person even though you certainly have more brain activity. If you are not more human than someone with less brain activity or less human than someone with more brain activity, then it stands to reason that our humanity isn't measured by the amount of, or lack of brain activity present. A child born without a brain is a human being. A terribly disabled human being that will have a short life, but a human being none the less.

If you lack brain activity, then you are so terribly sick, or hopelessly injured that there is little likelyhood that you will ever recover. If you are perfectly healthy, however and simply have not matured to the point where brain activity would be necessary for you to live, then suggesting that one is not a living human being because one doesn't have brain activity is on the order of saying that an infant is not a living human being because it doesn't have permanant teeth.

There is a differnece between being so sick or injured that your vital systems are failing, and being so young and immature that those systems have not become vital to you.

Your assumption that brain activity is what makes us human beings is flawed. I do invite you to provide some credible science that states explicitly that we are not human beings until we have measurable brain activity. I would be interested in seeing it. I have certainly provided plenty that says we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

And I have provided plenty of reasons that unborns are not parasites. Feel free to look back through my posts and learn why. Your suggestion that unborns are parasites is a clear indication that your definition of a parasite is both immature, and biologically incorrect. A more mature knowledge of parasitilogy eliminates the argument that unborns are parasites.



First, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, neither egg nor sperm exists as their former selves.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 6th ed., (p. 43)

You claim a knowledge of medicine, but you don't exhibit any knowledge of it at all. I woud have no problem at all with a birth control pill that did nothing but prevent ovulation which actually is a contraceptive but the abortifacient quality of preventing implantation which causes the death of the child is abortion.



Nope. But I do beleive that we, as human beings, have a basic right to live. Remove that right and we are nothing more than one more creature in the jungle.

I have provided ample credible science that states exactly when we become human beings. Exactly why would you ask that question when I provided reference after reference to medical school textbooks and medical journals that state explicitly when we become human beings. I have asked for you to provide equally credible science that states that the offspring of two humans is ever anything but a human being and to date, neither you, nor any pro choicer has stepped up and provided it. That would be because, no such credible science exists.

You are a human being right now. Would we agree on that? Lets assume that you are an adult (even though you don't debate like one). That would mean that you were at some point a child. You didn't come from a child as a butterfly comes from a catterpillar. That is, you didn't metamorphose from a child into an adult, you simply grew up. That being the case, whatever you were as a child, you are also as an adult. You simply grew older and more mature. You are not more human today than you were as a child because you grew up. Would we agree on that?

You were also once an infant. You didn't come from an infant either. You were an infant so it stands to reason that whatever you were as an infant, you are also today. You are not more human than an infant by virtue of being more mature.

If you accept that you didn't come from a child but were once a child and you didn't come from an infant, but were once an infant, then you must also accept that you didn't come from a fetus, but were once a fetus and therefore whatever the fetus was, you are since you didn't do anything but grow and mature. You also didn't come from a zygote, you actually were once a zygote. You didn't metamorphose, you didn't wrap yourself in a coccon and change into something that you weren't before, you simply grew and matured. So whatever you were as a zygote, you are as an adult. Growing up didn't make you into a new creature. You are what you have always been. Just more mature.

I am against one human being having the power to deny another human being their most basic human right.


I have heard it said that satan can use the bible to prove any pastor's sermon wrong. I have heard it said that satan can use the bible to prove that any evil is acceptable. Your use of bible verses as support for your position doesn't prove that you are a good Christian doing good. It only proves that you are using the bible to prove your point. Satan can also use the bible to prove his points. How is one to determine whether you are working for good or evil since both are perfectly capable of proving their points using the same words? He is, after all, the father of lies and you have proven yourself to be a liar.

I have already answered this, but I will answer it again. Any birth control medication or device that has an abortifacient effect, will be banned when roe is struck down as it will violate the 14th amendment protection of the unborn.

I have also answered this. I believe that they should only be allowed to fertilize one egg at a time for implantation. If this drives up the cost so that couples can no longer afford the proceedure, then adoption is an option.

I have answered that as well. If you are talking about cloning spare parts that doesn't involve embryos, then I have no objection to the proceedure. If you are talking about cloning human beings I don't have any specific objection to that proceedure either so long as the clone is recognized as a human being and is entitled to all of the rights any other human being would expect. If you are talking about growing and killing embryos for medical purposes, then I object to that practice on the same basis as abortion.

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Lol, I will be glad to answer your questions pale rider. But, I will answer the questions after you answer some of the questions you have totally ignored.

Care to make a attempt.