I didn’t want to debate, I was just being polite when you responded to my post (twice).

Go and take a look at the record above. I responded ONCE to you and then you took it upon yourself to butt-into my exchange with Richard. I think it’s your pride that led you to convince yourself (TWICE) that I was talking to you when I clearly wasn’t.

I’m done with you.

Yet, despite saying that I didn’t want to debate it, the first thing everyone wants to do is convince me that I’m wrong.

I didn’t want to debate, I was just being polite when you responded to my post (twice). I believe you engaged with me because of your pride. I said that the issue of abortion is that faith and theology has authority in the publics eye when it deserves none. I also said that if anti-abortion atheists ever cared to have a debate they’d be ripped a new one so fast (intellectually) that they wouldn’t know where their elbow was. Then suddenly you wanted a debate.

I predicted that you wouldn’t be willing to explain what you mean by the terms “life”, “life begins”, “human”, etc… Anyone not willing to have a debate either a) doesn’t have the time or they don’t care enough b) doesn’t think the opposition will be honest, or c) doesn’t think they can defend their position, or think their position is indefensible.

Yet, despite saying that I didn’t want to debate it, the first thing everyone wants to do is convince me that I’m wrong.

Well, I don’t want to convince you that you’re wrong, Polly, so… uh, you’re wrong about that. Right?

I want you to continue thinking that you’re right. Not that I think you are, but I don’t want to convince you otherwise. I mean how can anybody actually be right or wrong about that question, instead of just thinking what we think and doing what we do? Personally I think life starts at 60, so I’m still dead. When I start life if I don’t like it I might decide that life starts at 70 and give myself more time being dead.

If we decide that life begins at conception and potential life is life, then we will start down a slippery slope toward much more serious and even terrible problems, like then when I order a chicken dinner, the chef could bring me a fertilized egg and say it’s a potential chicken dinner, and that’s just as good. Or if I order a truckload of two-by-fours the lumber guy could hand me a pine nut and say it’s a potential truckload of two-by-fours, and that’s just as good.

It could get even worse. Eggs and sperms are potential zygotes, blastocysts and so on, so a ham sandwich could be put on my plate in the form of some wheat pollen and whatever the heck the wheat female part is, some pig sperm, (eewww) a test tube with a pig egg, same stuff to make a cow (for potential milk) so that with some yeast cells I can have potential cheese with it, and hold the potential mayo: Too complicated. I’m not gonna eat all that. I want my money back. We could all starve!

It could get even worse. Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Phosphorus are potential DNA so I could get a plate full of five elements.

It could get even worse. Let’s jump ahead of those potential elements made from protons, neutrons and electrons, and imagine my plate has nothing on it but quarks. I hate quarks. Mom made me eat them as a kid, and I’ll never eat ‘em again.

This is a very slippery slope indeed.

but we may be able to get people to come to view us as being worthy of respect.

Except that my POV (and me personally in this instance) gets little to none in the atheosphere (with exceptions of course). My fellow atheists seem to regard my POV on this one issue with contempt that they are too ready to express in most posts.

…think the MO that you noticed springs from a group of people who recongize that we’re not likely to convince people to change their beliefs,

Yet, despite saying that I didn’t want to debate it, the first thing everyone wants to do is convince me that I’m wrong. I really don’t care what anyone believes, my original point was that there are atheist pro-lifers. That’s it. But, NO, nobody can let it go. There are always those who have to prove they’re right. The insinuation from the very first post is that if you’re in the least “anti-choice”…well, now I’m just ranting.

I will not be able to post here for a few days…and I’m rather glad about that.
Have a good weekend.

That seems to be the MO of everyone here.

Well, it’s a safe way of interacting. I’m not here to have a discussion about stem-cell research or abortion, or for that matter I’m not here to convince people that God doesn’t exist.

I think most folks here are beyond trying to convince people of stuff in the standard way. (Which in our society today seems to involve lots of shouting.) I think the MO that you noticed springs from a group of people who recongize that we’re not likely to convince people to change their beliefs, but we may be able to get people to come to view us as being worthy of respect.

I said I wasn’t interested in joining that argument. I’m merely pointing out flaws in yours.

That seems to be the MO of everyone here.
I suppose I should be glad for the feedback. (no sarcasm intended)

Did I say a blastocyst was a person? No.

You did call it a potential person worthy of protection. You have not explained why these potential people are worthy of protection. 100 cells containing human DNA aren’t granted automatic human protection in our society… so you’ve got some convincing to do, as well as explaining why that should be the case.

I did say that it’s human life and I explained why even varying chromosome counts don’t change that.

You said it, but did not support it. You merely asserted it and then told us the burden of proof was on us to prove you wrong.

You seem have a different definition of “human life” than perhaps a majority of people, who do not see a collection of 100 cells as a human life, but rather as a step toward human life. You might recognize that and incorporate that point of view better when attempting to convince other people who hold a different view from you.

You have yet to demonstrate how science proves that a blastocyst is not a human life.

I said I wasn’t interested in joining that argument. I’m merely pointing out flaws in yours.

Seeing as how in the majority of cases if left in the womb it will develop into a person, I think the burden of proof is to show why we should treat it as anything else.

When talking about using discarded blastocysts from fertility clinics, we are NOT talking about anything that was left in the womb. So you are assuming the existence of a willing healthy womb.

That turns your argument on its head, now doesn’t it? I’ll use your argument back at you:

Seeing as how in the majority of cases if left in the petri dish it will not develop into a person, I think the burden of proof is to show why we should treat it as anything else.

Kind of a useless argument. You will not convince people until you learn that you need to be able to explain WHY your point of view is correct, not merely assert that it is so.