Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Mr. Friscus]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

 

[pknopp]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

You say it has nothing do with the body of the woman and then note how it does.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.

In any way. I agree.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You say it has nothing do with the body of the woman and then note how it does.

I never said it has "nothing to do with the body of a woman". In fact, I said "The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do."

Did you not read the post?

I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another.

Well let's play that logic out. Do you:
1. Oppose all war? like, ANY war? Ever? WW2?
2. Oppose the death penalty?
3. Oppose self-defense?

 

[pknopp]

I never said it has "nothing to do with the body of a woman". In fact, I said "The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do."

Did you not read the post?

"nothing directly........" It does.

Well let's play that logic out. Do you:
1. Oppose all war? like, ANY war? Ever? WW2?
2. Oppose the death penalty?
3. Oppose self-defense?

100% against the death penalty and I've addressed this so many times I had hoped I wouldn't have to here.

You have the right to defend yourself. I have been against every single war since I've been alive.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

"nothing directly........" It does.

Ah, I see what you're referencing, and I can see the confusion. Let me clarify.

I was referring to the claim of "my body, my choice", and those that insinuate that the fetus is part of the woman's body. It isn't. I don't think I outlined that well.

100% against the death penalty and I've addressed this so many times I had hoped I wouldn't have to here.

On that we agree.

You have the right to defend yourself.

How can you claim that nobody has the right to take the life another but yet be okay with someone killing another in self-defense?

I have been against every single war since I've been alive.

You opposed WW2?

 

[pknopp]

Ah, I see what you're referencing, and I can see the confusion. Let me clarify.

I was referring to the claim of "my body, my choice", and those that insinuate that the fetus is part of the woman's body. It isn't. I don't think I outlined that well.

How can you claim that nobody has the right to take the life another but yet be okay with someone killing another in self-defense?

Simple. I'm pro-life but I would still allow for a woman in an actual life situation to end the pregnancy.

You opposed WW2?

I wasn't alive but I have in the past noted how WWII should have never been necessary.

 

[Lockback]

Simple. I'm pro-life but I would still allow for a woman in an actual life situation to end the pregnancy.

"Actual life"?

I wasn't alive but I have in the past noted how WWII should have never been necessary.

Yeah. Until it was.

 

[initforme]

Voters of each state decide. Best outcome. No losers.

 

[DennisPTate]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

For the record I agree with every point that you have made. I would challenge the pro-life community to research an option that will be extremely relevant for the next decade or so.

Zone1 Thread 'A Basic Minimum Income Supplement and the percentage of women who choose abortion?'

Nov 30, 2025

In a high percentage of cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, money and obtaining an education and getting a better career in the future are cited as being major reasons for choosing to have an abortion.

An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income for all citizens of the USA and Canada would almost certainly result in a significant percentage of women deciding instead to give birth to their baby, [even if they were to give their baby up for adoption, a less scary economy for the USA and Canada would impact pregnant women so that they would be less pessimistic about the...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Clean Debate Zone

Here is why these next ten years will be the perfect time for the Pro-Life Community to come together with the people who support an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income.

Thread 'Will robotics and Artificial Intelligence make an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement necessary?'

Nov 18, 2025

The rather brilliant Mo Gawdat does believe that B. M. I. is one of the only ways to prevent a pandemic of homelessness and poverty as robotics and A. I. make so many careers nearly obsolete.

I happen to believe that he is correct but I have some suggestions as to how this shift can be done in such a way that the greatest boom in PRODUCTIVITY of workers will be set in motion that will lead to the greatest economic boom that has ever been seen.

"Ex-Google Exec (WARNING): The Next 15 Years Will Be Hell Before We Get To Heaven! - Mo Gawdat"

2,997,802 views Aug 4...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 146
• Forum: Politics

 

[Lockback]

Voters of each state decide. Best outcome. No losers.

Actually, lots of losers (unborn children).
However, I think it's, sadly, the best solution at this time.

 

[initforme]

Actually, lots of losers (unborn children).
However, I think it's, sadly, the best solution at this time.

Contraception is a gift all should use.

 

[Lockback]

Contraception is a gift all should use.

I always did.
And it always worked.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Simple. I'm pro-life but I would still allow for a woman in an actual life situation to end the pregnancy.

I've not heard a pro-life person who opposes a procedure that is life-threatening situation to the mother. It's the one allowable instance, although many mothers might sacrifice themselves for their child.. which is Christ-like, but not expected. It's much like murder vs. killing in self-defense. Both end with the death of a human, but one is justifiable and the other is not. We may be largely in agreement.

I wasn't alive but I have in the past noted how WWII should have never been necessary.

Well that's a different claim, and I'm curious to know something about both claims you made:

1. Are you referring to the Treaty of Versailles as far as why WW2 shouldn't have been necessary?

2. Regardless of whether it should have been necessary, the rise of the Nazi party under Hitler happened, and he expanded. You said you opposed all war, and no human can kill another. So what do you expect the surrounding nations of Germany to do?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Simple.

Also, I'd like an answer to the question I asked:

How can you claim that nobody has the right to take the life another but yet be okay with someone killing another in self-defense?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Contraception is a gift all should use.

It's a red herring and has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[initforme]

Also, I'd like an answer to the question I asked:

How can you claim that nobody has the right to take the life another but yet be okay with someone killing another in self-defense?

You arent going to change minds. The key is to prevent conceptions. Imagine if everyone used contraception and prevented from having kids.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Voters of each state decide. Best outcome. No losers.

That's insane. That's like saying different states can define theft, rape, etc. how they want. There's federal law for a reason, and defining life should be step 1.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You arent going to change minds. The key is to prevent conceptions. Imagine if everyone used contraception and prevented from having kids.

Again, that's a red herring. Stop spamming the thread with issues that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[initforme]

It's a red herring and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Its not a red herring. Its whst respinsible christian couples do...prevent life.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Its not a red herring. Its whst respinsible christian couples do...prevent life.

Contraception has nothing to do with abortion in this debate. Stop spamming.