Actually it is up to men to control woman in some ways because women can't be happy unless they are controlled by men in some way — Gregory

Oaky-dokey. As the kids would say "Peace, out, Bro. LOL!

Well if you like miserable women and them to stay that way, how can you say you are pro-women

I don't know how to solve all these problems in society, but proper principles about pregnancy are essential

I don't know how to solve all these problems in society, — Gregory

I do. Let the woman decide.

but proper principles about pregnancy are essential — Gregory

Yep. Let the woman decide.

I'm not trying to be insulting, it sounds from your response that you do not know what a blastocyst is.

The morning after pills - which you have stated are equivalent to murder - prevent the blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterine wall - and thus prevents pregnancy.

Why is preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus murder, but thawing out an embryo and letting the life slowly (or quickly) seep out of it acceptable. What is the difference?

Once a zygote is formed human DNA is activated as a human being. Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. There really wouldn't be confusion on this issues if biologists all desired to understand when DNA is activated. But the abortion people try to misword things in order to cause confusion and more abortions. There will be debate about the details as long as people don't want to see the issue with clear conscience

Biology is not relative

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Biology is not relative — Gregory

Actually, it is. In fact, it is you that seems to be considering biology in relation to morality.

You had an example that has no bearing on abortion, fool. It's like your saying you'd kill a child if he invaded your house

We can understand biology's relation to ethics through reason, but not pro-choice sterile reason

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Self defense is not like abortion and even is Jesus used it as an example it's wrong. A person’s value is not defined by her abilities, by what she can or can’t do. The age of the being does not define whether they have the right to life. Everyone has different capabilities. A 3 year old is still developing but it has the right to life. An unborn entity always has active DNA, and it has a heart beat at 5-6 weeks, and brain waves brain waves at 5-6 weeks? You are being selective as to who is human

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's not about logic on paper but real life reality (existential reality). Hitler said Jews weren't people. The president of Poland said gays aren't people. Pro choicers are doing the same thing with a group of individuals because the littler persons are invisible to the eye without ultrasounds, etc. Everyone is a person and deserves their human rights, including life. DNA is how life is encoded. Your opinions are dangerous not just for babies's rights but for everyone's

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's there for everyone to understand. DNA is the activity of life. If you are disconnected to this, there is nowhere practical events won't lead you in taking away others' rights. Would you, I ask, if you had the proper know-how, perform a regular everyday abortion if you were asked?

We can understand biology's relation to ethics through reason, but not pro-choice sterile reason — Gregory

Sure we can. I have done just that.

Pro choice people debate when before birth a child can be aborted. All their reasonings on this are arbitrary though. No safer place should there be than in the womb, but pro-abortion folk don't even have the presence of mind to say "maybe it is a person so I won't support this". This issue can cause you to lose in life in general

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

All their reasonings on this are arbitrary though. — Gregory

No they are not arbitrary. It can be killed so long as it is inside the mother. Not after. That's not arbitrary. It's based on a morality that places the mother's decision making over and above the life of the baby. Two competing values: Life vs Choice. I place choice over life. You place life over choice. One is not more arbitrary than the other.

"maybe it is a person so I won't support this" — Gregory

I say it is a person, and yet I support it anyway. The mother too is a person, and she's carrying the baby. Her house, her rules.

This issue can cause you to lose in life in general — Gregory

Or win.

The mother has the right and duty to be a mother and her offspring is her child not her enemy. Your reasoning is bizarre, but I can't work this out for you because people can always find ways to avoid what is for them a hard truth

The mother has the right and duty to be a mother and her offspring is her child not her enemy. Your reasoning is bizarre, but I can't work this out for you because people can always find ways to avoid what is for them a hard truth — Gregory

One need not be an enemy to rate killing. My reasoning is sound. The hard truth is killing.

Maybe you're trying your best but I feel like the discussion has continued long enough. I don't quite understand how you can hold your position or if you can without seeing its flaw eventually, but thanks for your friendly contribution

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills to not destroy the blastocyte. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyte from impanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyte gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. The woman is respectfully putting the blastocyte somewhere to die It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyte) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyte from implanting in a woman's womb. As you put it

Or maybe not. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?

Stopping a normal process while killing the live creature is abortion. If it's outside the mother the natural process has already stopped. You're trying to force something in your reasoning and your argument is stretched out nonsense

You're trying to dissect pregnancy with a Nazi-like mind. It's not about logic but reality. You don't understand what pregnancy even is in its essence

People have brought up in vitro and contraception, but those aren't abortion and I'm not against those

Pregnancy is the accepting of life within life.

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills do not destroy the blastocyst. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyst from implanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyst gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyst) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's womb. From the perspective of the blastocyst/embryo it's the same thing.

Or maybe not. There are alternate explanations. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little IVF embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?