[sitetest]

Dear tpaine,

"'Do you accept the fact that the instant after conception, a woman still has basic human rights, and that her just fertilized human egg arguably does not?

"I accept the first clause, not the second.'

"Your rejection of the reality that the argument exists is irrational. We have no way to resolve it, so would you lose by default."

No, you are asserting the second clause as fact, that unborn human beings have no rights.

I don't accept your assertion. Rights inhere to humans. The unborn human has rights.

If you wish to deny that the the conceived human being within the woman is not an individual member of the human species, unique from any other human being that ever existed, that is a point of philosophy or theology that you may wish to debate.

If you wish to debate when a member of the human species is sufficiently cognitively or psychologically developed to be granted status as a person, that is a philosophical debate. Within that argument is the hidden assumption that rights are not inalienable and do not inhere to human beings.

If you wish to argue about when "ensoulment," if you believe in such a thing, occurs, that is a theological debate.

Similar philosophical and theological arguments were made about the humanity of Africans, to justify slavery.

From a scientific point of view, each human being came into existence at conception. Only pro-aborts deny the obvious. With these, there is no rational argument.


sitetest

[Paperdoll]

>The unborn human has rights<

Rights schmites! Let's hope the Peterson conviction of second degree MURDER of his unborn son sets a MIGHTY PRECEDENT AGAINST ABORTION.

Amen

[tpaine]

Do you accept the fact that the instant after conception, a woman still has basic human rights, and that her just fertilized human egg arguably does not?

I accept the first clause, not the second.

Your rejection of the reality that the argument exists is irrational. We have no way to resolve it, so would you lose by default.

No, you are asserting the second clause as fact,

Read 'arguably' again. It means my second assertion is open to question.

-, that unborn human beings have no rights.

Straw man.. That's simply not true. At later stages of pregnancy the unborn child has rights, -- as Scott Peterson just found out.

-- We're done. Take the last word. Feel free to shoot down yet another position I haven't made.