How to refute Pro-Choice statements

  • Thread starter Thread starter RayDove12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RayDove12

Guest
“A seed isn’t a flower. An egg isn’t a chicken. An embryo isn’t a baby” how would you guys rebuttal this type of statement. What are good points that pro-life advocates have beside saying life starts when a zygote forms?
 
Last edited:
Do your friends know that people aren’t plants or birds?

Maybe they don’t know people aren’t plants or birds.

Do you think we should tell ‘em they’re not plants or birds.?
 
Last edited:
“A seed isn’t a flower. An egg isn’t a chicken. An embryo isn’t a baby” how would you guys rebuttal this type of statement. What are good points that pro-life advocates have beside saying life starts when a zygote forms?
A fertilized seed contains the same plant of the flower it becomes, a fertilized egg contains a hen, an embryo is a human being.
 
Last edited:
That’s the point that I was about to make! But I eventually got caught off from the conversation.
 
A seed and egg physically aren’t life but what’s inside them is. Those aren’t very good analogies to use to prove their point.

The difference is an embryo has the biologically programmed inherent ability to become an adult human being. A brick has no such ability to become a house. And so on.
 
Okay, really, maybe your friends need to cut the crap.
Abortion has been legal for 40 years.
In that forty years, we’ve learned SO MUCH about embryology and science that if they really wanted to know, there’s tons of resources to find out.

At this point, the question is no longer “is this a human being”.
The question is now “will we extend equal protections under the law for this category of human beings”
 
But just to play devils advocate, is a seed a flower? I am just asking because people will state that a seed cannot be classified as a flower because it does not contain the qualities of a flower, yet…
 
I’ve never witnessed a soul won by “soundbytes”

“A seed isn’t a flower”

“You are right!” is the logical answer.

By the same premise, an infant is not a teenager.
 
But just to play devils advocate, is a seed a flower? I am just asking because people will state that a seed cannot be classified as a flower because it does not contain the qualities of a flower, yet…
An embryo has all the biologically programmed inherent capabilities of a grown human being.
 
A seed and egg physically aren’t life but what’s inside them is. Those aren’t very good analogies to use to prove their point.
A fertilized egg means the mother’s and father’s DNA have combined to form a new and unique individual.

An unfertilized egg is a single cell that only has half of mom’s DNA. It’s not an individual organism in its own right.

I think a seed contains a plant embryo, but I’m not actually sure of this—I know you can plant a seed and it grows, but a botanist can explain it better than I can
 
“A seed isn’t a flower. An egg isn’t a chicken. An embryo isn’t a baby” how would you guys rebuttal this type of statement.
Its not illegal or immoral to kill flowers or chickens. Now if you do it simultaneously? I have a serious problem with that.
 
But just to play devils advocate, is a seed a flower? I am just asking because people will state that a seed cannot be classified as a flower because it does not contain the qualities of a flower, yet…
By flower, do they mean the same type of organism as the parent plant or do they mean if it has the part of the plant that has petals and the plant’s sex organs?
 
Last edited:
But just to play devils advocate, is a seed a flower? I am just asking because people will state that a seed cannot be classified as a flower because it does not contain the qualities of a flower, yet…
I’m jumping in 3 hours after the fact, so someone else has probably brought this up, BUT …

The seed contains all the genetic material to make a flower, a particular type of flower. A rose seed will not grow into a daisy. Likewise, the egg, assuming you’re talking about a CHICKEN egg, has the genetic material for a chicken. Not a duck or a goose or an eagle, a chicken.

TheLittleLady brought up that “an infant is not a teenager.” True, and yet, not true. You can have an infant named Mary, and we currently all agree that after 15 years that teen-aged Mary is the same as the infant Mary – pretty much the same color eyes and other genetically-programmed traits. Teen-aged Mary was not taken and replaced by a totally different entity in the process of aging, i.e. “growing up.” (I recognize that it might have seemed that way when Mary was 13 or 14, and this charming little girl was replaced by a cute, cuddly ball of evil, hell and hate, but no, she’s still your darling daughter.) The individual is still the same genetic human individual, not a koala or a bottle-nosed dolphin.

So, yes, the embryo IS the zygote IS the 13yo “cute, cuddly ball of evil, hell and hate.”
 
Another pointing out that a flower is the sex organs of the plant. It’s part of a bigger whole, not an independent entity wandering around.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So saying “a seed isn’t a flower” is true. But trying to use it in comparison with “an embryo isn’t a baby” is like saying “your fallopian tubes aren’t a baby” or “Your sperm isn’t a baby.” Which is also true, but doesn’t really make sense. You might as well argue “an acorn isn’t a 100-year-old oak tree.” Which is like, “Um… yeahhhh?” They’re the same organism, but at different stages of development. (Versus a flower, which is merely part of an organism, and is only in existence for a specific period of that organism’s life cycle.)

You can see it best with fruit trees. Plum blossoms in February turn into plums in July; orange blossoms in April turn into oranges in December; apple blossoms in March turn into apples in October. (Which isn’t to say they magically appear at those times---- they continue to develop throughout the seasons in the places where the blossoms fell, and are finally mature after a long wait.)

Plum blossoms aren’t plums— but you don’t get plums if they don’t survive the blossom stage, as happens with late freezes, or violent storms, or high winds, or whatever. And you don’t get cuddly Anne Geddes-type babies for calendar shoots if they don’t survive the embryonic stage. Life doesn’t just hopscotch across its development and go straight to cute and cuddly.

The same thing is true for “an egg isn’t a chicken.” Well… yeah. An egg isn’t a chicken. But the human equivalent of the egg isn’t the embryo, it’s the ovum. And if you have a fertilized chicken egg… a baby chick will grow inside of it, and eventually hatch, and eventually grow into a pullet or a cockerel, and eventually grow into a hen or a rooster.

The same process is roughly true for humans, although the details are different because we’re mammals— the fertilized ovum develops through its stages-- starting off as a diploid zygote-- continuing into a blastocyst, developing into an embryo, developing into a fetus, eventually being born as a full-term baby, developing into a toddler, developing into a schoolkid, developing into a preteen, developing into a teenager, developing into a young adult… The organism is the same, but we use different words to mark different stages of development. So, in one sense, yes, an embryo (implantation - 8 weeks post-conception) isn’t a “baby”, if you’re using “baby” to mean “a 45-week old human being who’s very cute.” But in another sense, an embryo is a “baby” if you’re using the word “baby” to mean “an immature human being who isn’t fully developed.” Which stage, for some people, lasts for about 30 or 40 years… 😉
 
Why is it illegal to destroy American bald eagle eggs?
Because for many years it was on the endangered species list. In 2007 it was removed from the list; however, because it’s the national symbol it can’t be hunted, its nests can’t be disturbed, and its feathers can only be used by certain Native American groups.
 
My question was rhetorical. It’s illegal to destroy bald eagle eggs because it’s recognized that bald eagle eggs are in fact bald eagles - which are protected. The fact that they are embryonic bald eagles doesn’t matter, they are still bald eagles.

The same logic applies to a fetus in the womb. It’s still a person and should have protections and rights as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top