Decrease wrote:Well, essentially, I think I was just citing you. You said that there is a distinction between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. That may be so, but in the debate about Pro-life, both the pro-abortionist and the pro-choice person would still have to argue the same arguments against the pro-life people. Namely, they would have to say the baby is not a human life or that there is no intrinsic human value in life that should be protected for all human beings.
I was saying they are not one in the same because those who are pro-life tend to use the terms interchangeably--as if they were one in the same. When in reality, one doesn't even exist--it's a made up label.
You keep using terms intended to incite in an attempt to validate your point (again, in vain), but it's not very effective because what it comes down to is what I've already said:
Your trying to convince someone who is pro-choice that they need to feel guilty and stand up for an innocent human being when they do not view a zygote as a human being is pointless and very likely frustrating for you--hence, the inflammatory and fomenting (yet illogical, inaccurate, and irrelevant) references.
What people don't seem to understand is while attempting to rile someone into a good debate, these tactics result in being taken less seriously and often put an end to the debate. And what is even more interesting, is that when the debate comes to a halt, the person using the illogical and irrelevant terminology mistakenly believes that they somehow "won" the debate.
