If you support social disintegration, chaos, anarchy, and war--all of which proceed from disorganized, unstructured breeding practices, then YOU are pro-death or anti-life. The future of the born children of today takes precedence over the unborn children of tomorrow. From today into tomorrow is how we survive as a species and make our way across time, not the other way around.
Pro-death or anti-life doesn't fit because people who are pro-choice aren't saying everyone should have an abortion. They are just saying that everyone should have a choice. If you want to change a tag, you are going to want to change the pro-life tag to anti choice.
No, the blueprint for a house is not the same thing as a house. The blueprint for a human being is not the same thing as a human being.
I did read your quote. I suspect that you did not and do not know who you are quoting, but chose some self serving talking point from an anti-abortion web site. It is also apparent that you do not understand the quote or are unable to distinguish between what a human being is and what the "blueprint" for a human being is.
The same could be said about the term "Pro life". Humans need to kill life to survive so to some degree we are all "Pro death" Terms such as "Prolife, Prodeath" are ambiguous and not technically correct. A technically correct term would be "living human" Is it ok to kill a "living human" ? serving the angel of death ! No living human exists in the early stages of pregnancy. A living human does not exist without heart or brain, or veins or all the other requisite organs.
Ah -- you're right; he didn't admit the fact. I apologize. It's actually quite simple... Every human being has 46 chromosomes. The zygote has 46 chromosomes. Either the zygote is an individual or the pregnant woman is two human beings at once...
The zygote is a human cell. Every human cell has 46 chromosomes. The number of human beings is not dictated by the number of entities with 46chromosomes.
Except it is not nearly as simple. By that logic, those who have chromosomal anomalies are not human beings.
I have gone through the stuff point by point on this website and it is not valid science. None of the authors are "subject matter experts" (Biologists). They do not reference biology and they do not give "the why". If you want to claim something is "established biological fact" then you should at least reference a Biologist or a biology text. Here are the comments of a Ph.D biologist and Prof and the University of Miami. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm
you view human reproduction as 'breeding practices'? likening women to cows or sows? Granny...dear...here is another example!
Just as people who are pro-life aren't anti-choice. We don't care if a woman shaves her head, donates an organ, or cuts off her arm. We support her choice to do what she wants with her body. So "anti-choice" is just as ill-fitting. We're just saying that no one should have dominion over whether or not another innocent person lives or dies. It's wrong.
Just as people who are pro-life don't care if a woman shaves her head, donates an organ, or cuts off her arm. We support her right to do whatever she wants with her own body. So "anti-choice" is just as ill-fitting. We're just saying that no one should have dominion over whether or not another innocent person lives or dies. It's wrong. So if you disagree with pro-abortionists being called pro-death or anti-life, then by default you have to disagree with pro-lifers being called anti-choice.
Not true. Pregnancy has EVERYTHING to do with a woman's body, and you would force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. It's only your opinion that an embryo is an "innocent person," but even if it were, you would force a woman to donate her bodily resources to another. If you were in an accident, you would not be forced to donate your bodily resources to keep an injured victim alive, even if that accident were your fault. So why do you think you or the government should have dominion over women's bodily resources? Since Illegal abortion results in more deaths, it is actually the self proclaimed "pro-lifers" who are "pro-death."
It still fits better than calling pro-choice people "Pro-death", but I see where you are coming from. When you call someone Pro-Death, do you understand that that rating applies only to their thoughts on abortion?
And pro-abortion is still the exact same definition as pro-choice, meaning the two words are completely interchangeable. Definition of PRO-CHOICE : favoring the legalization of abortion http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice Definition of PROABORTION : favoring the legalization of abortion http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-abortion
Neither one is more "honest" than the other. They have the exact same definition. But I think it really detracts from the debate when people nitpick over titles for the opposing side. That's why I stick with the two widely accepted labels, pro-choice and pro-life. There is no reason to argue over titles because it's not going to change the opposing side's opinion. Unless you somehow think it will?
Well I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that those who are pro abortion stand up and say that they are instead of hiding behind a deceptive moniker like "pro-choice". BTW, have you seen anything here in the board since its inception that would change the opposing sides' opinion? I know I haven't! Well except maybe some of my posts insisting on honesty about abortion being a homicide!
