[Michael]

jimmyjet wrote

this is not a believer/non-believer issue, although many people try to make it out to be one.

In general I agree with this.

biology 101 - each of our lives starts with the joining of a sperm and an egg.

Not so much with this. But I can certainly see why some might argue this.
However, society disagrees. We don't celebrate our 'conception day' and say "I am 30 today because today was the day my sperm joined with my egg". No. Society says our life begins the day we're born, and if you count your age by that measure, so do you.

people make the ridiculous mistake of thinking that it is not a human being because it has not formed a head, a foot, etc.

that is so not the point. this is how each and every one of our lives start. we dont look the same as an 18-year-old adult. but just go to some hospice for a day, and take a look at a shriveled up 50 pound person waiting to die, and they dont look very much like an 18-year-old adult either.

it is even more ridiculous to think that one can pinpoint an exact microsecond when the non-human-being becomes a human being.

This is fallacious, as your argument first assumes that we even need to pinpoint an *exact* moment. Who ever said we did?
Can you pinpoint the exact generation that was the first homo sapiens sapiens and does that mean diddly squat for evolutionary purposes?

the only exact point is at conception.

i have a highly atheistic friend who gets very irate when he hears that only theists are pro-life. he remarks very sarcastically "do they think that they are the only ones who know what is fair ?"

many people do think that atheists are all pro-choice, and theists tend to be all pro-life. that just aint true, by a long shot.

Except We're yet to hear a good secular argument against it, so most that argue most passionately for it tend to be theistic in nature.
Beyond "imagine if you had been aborted", that is. If I had, I wouldn't know the difference, as i wouldn't exist, or have ever really existed.
And if you are going to make that argument, than any wastage of potential life can be looked at similarly, and periods and masturbation suddenly become a lot more deadly. "Imagine if you had been ejaculated into a tissue instead".

in polls taken, christians dont have much greater a percentage of being pro-life than non-christians or non-believers.

i did not listen to the bindi url, cuz i got the drift of what was said from saturday's post.

what ridiculous logic !! the ends do not justify the means. by using that exact same logic, i could say lets just go kill 75% of the population. that too, would solve the population problem.

Took longer than I thought, but I totally called someone equating this with genocide.

just cuz we can solve a problem by a particular means, does not justify the means being used.

Okay. No general argument here on that, except that the context in which you're saying it is faulty, since you just wrongly equated abortion with genocide.

the unborn child has done nothing wrong. it is their parents who are 100% responsible for their actions.

And the unborn child is perfectly welcome to gestate outside of it's mother's body then. Until then it is a trespasser in someone else's body, and if it is a human being, then it is forcibly inside a woman's uterus without permission.
We wouldn't accept a human being forcing themselves on a woman's body like that at any other time so you're saying that a child has more rights to a woman's body than the woman does?

why not just cut off the guy's penis, and sew up the vagina for people who can not be responsible for their sexual actions ?

That's a little excessive. And disturbing.