Defunding Planned Parenthood

[Jonahdog]

My claim is that God confers personhood at conception. Evidence? At conception we have a living human being. That which two people produce can reasonably be thought of as — wait for it — another person.

Nonsense. At conception there is a single cell. That is not a person.

What if there are identical twins? Are they 2 persons from the start, before the blastocyst divides?

You have no evidence that you so loudly proclaim.

 

[ok doser]

Nonsense. At conception there is a single cell. That is not a person.

it is a unique human life

 

[alwight]

You agree with this: At conception, what we have is a living human. This is great evidence that the product of two people is — wait for it — another person.

Again no, not a living human but a living potential human that may develop a "person" should it ever have a CNS.

Your demands are not evidence.

I haven't made any demands, you can be really tedious.

I don't care what nonsense you believe in place of the truth. What is important is that you endorse murder. That's what has to stop.

I don't care what you don't care Stripe, but I'm pretty sure that the truth is not true just because you say it is. Clearly persons we may know well from the past are diminished by damage to specific parts of the CNS. That is very reasonable evidence imo and that is why I believe it, I really don't care that you seem to be obliged to cling to your dogma instead.

You need evidence for this claim. Saying that nervous systems exist is not evidence for this claim.

Do you have to work hard to be this stupid? Why isn't the fact that certain parts of the CNS, when damaged, known to cause specific mental changes not reasonably good evidence of personality change? When a person's mind is altered by drink Alzheimer's diease or drugs, why should any of that somehow not be an intrinsic part of that person?

Because it is question-begging nonsense.

Because it is for you an inconvenient truth.

So you think personhood is diminished in a man who has a spinal injury.

No. Are you a robot? Perhaps you are without a personhood?

Equivocation again. We are not talking about quality of life. It's either equivocation, or you believe that people with impairments have diminished personhood.

I told you before that if it impairs the mind then imo their personhood function is obviously going to be impaired too. In your mind though a mere conferred title of "person" at conception probably won't allow for any such subtleties.

Which is it? Is a main with a brain condition a lesser person, or is his quality of life diminished?

Lesser than what?
Lesser than he was before the brain condition?
Has his quality of life diminished since before his brain condition?
Yes in both cases it most probably has, do you want to quibble that it hasn't?

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Why, should I be quoting from a doctrine instead of putting down how I as a free thinking person think? I don't think I'm wrong that the areas of the CNS have been mapped as to their function nor that all the various mental faculties add up to making a human person.

What parts of a nervous system "relate to the actual person" and what parts do not?

No idea at the moment, does it really matter which bit does what anyway? Shall we investigate or will it be deemed a logical fallacy or equivocation if you don't like the results?

As I recall with the right gear they can make certain areas of the brain "illuminate" according to the thought processes in progress.:think:

My claim is that God confers personhood at conception. Evidence? At conception we have a living human being. That which two people produce can reasonably be thought of as — wait for it — another person.

Even if God does or doesn't do that there is still no contingency that your first sentence is required before the second part can happen. IOW it's just a title and your assertion which can be dismissed by my assertion.

Your demands are not convincing.

My thinking here is about how I believe things are, I'm not convinced that God confers personhood at conception, in fact He probably would be with me if He exists, else what would he do with all those lost souls He creates only to perish so pointlessly in a few short hours?

You'd love the discussion to be on your terms. Then you'd have the whole world arguing over what physical trait carries personhood. Some would say a central nervous system, some would say a heartbeat, some would say brain waves, some would say birth, some would say a lack of certain diseases, some would say sex, some would say skin color, some would say nationality. You'd be right in your element.

You're still missing the point that my argument here is only that while there is no CNS an abortion is no big deal. That we can move our worries about the possible "personhood" of new foetus to a later time than conception. That we can indeed introduce at least an element of pro-choice thinking quite reasonably. Not that someone like you could ever refrain from screaming "murder" at every opportunity, even to a raped woman.

You arguing about the physical evidence is pointless because your determination to uphold murder is what you desperately seek to protect.

See.

 

[Crucible]

Equating a full human life to a single cell at conception is ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is stating that single cell has 'personhood'.

But what's most ridiculous of all is claiming that abortion is murder, and by extension seeing these clinics as virtually concentration camps- and yet having little real problem knowing your taxes are going to it.
You aren't losing any sleep at night, so stop lying about how you really feel about these places.

 

[Stripe]

Not a living human.

Let's check your assertions against biology.

At conception, is the baby living? Yes.
At conception, is the baby human? Yes.

Living human. Seems your disagreement is in spite of the facts.

We know you'll cry a river over the fact that there is a baby in the mix, but with the evidence on my side, I am justified in asserting my beliefs against the evidence-free nonsense you present.

I haven't made any demands, you can be really tedious.

Sure, you have. You demand that there not be a person involved until you accept there is one. And even then you would allow his extermination on a "case-by-case" basis.

Clearly persons we may know well from the past are diminished by damage to specific parts of the CNS. That is very reasonable evidence imo and that is why I believe it.

Quality of life is not personhood. Equivocation is a fallacy no matter how many times you use it.

Why isn't the fact that certain parts of the CNS, when damaged, known to cause specific mental changes not reasonably good evidence of personality change?

Doubling down on your equivocation is not going to help you.

We are talking about personhood, not a personality.

Yes in both cases.

Nope. People do not lose personhood because their brains are damaged. They retain all of their personhood and all of the rights that go along with it.

Why, should I be quoting from a doctrine instead of putting down how I as a free thinking person think? I don't think I'm wrong.

That's nice.

Does it really matter which bit does what anyway?

Because you deny personhood based on your made-up ideas that you have no idea how to explain. On the back of this, you endorse the murder of people. Your ideas are insane, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you endorse murder and fob it off by saying: "I don't believe that."

One day you are going to have to face up to reality. People have intrinsic worth that is not diminished by accident or negated by size and age. Your demands that babies in the womb are not people are the insane ramblings of a madman.

As I recall with the right gear they can make certain areas of the brain "illuminate" according to the thought processes in progress.

With you, they'd need especially high-powered gear. lain:

Even if God does or doesn't do that there is still no contingency that your first sentence is required before the second part can happen. IOW it's just a title and your assertion which can be dismissed by my assertion.

Nope.

Evidence, remember? We know you hate it.

You're still missing the point that my argument here is only that while there is no CNS an abortion is no big deal.

Your demands are in no way compelling.

That we can move our worries about the possible "personhood" of new foetus to a later time than conception.

You'd love that, wouldn't you? To have the whole world judging people, not by their intrinsic value, but by their developmental stage and the damage to their minds. Sorry; not gonna happen.

People have value and worth from the moment they are conceived.

Equating a full human life to a newborn is ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is denying that a baby at conception has personhood.

Your demands are noted, and rejected.

Nonsense. At conception there is a single cell. That is not a person.

Because you've got a demand?

What if there are identical twins? Are they 2 persons from the start, before the blastocyst divides?

Dunno. However, there is definitely not no people.

You have no evidence that you so loudly proclaim.

Actually, I do. At conception there is a living human being. We know you're going to start the same song and dance about my use of the word "being," so let's just forego that by realizing that I'm talking about something else because I attribute to this being personhood.

When we have a living human who is the product of his parents — people — it is obvious and reasonable that the new life is also — wait for it — a person.

Evidence. :thumb:

It trumps your demands.

 

[Crucible]

What is even more ridiculous is denying that a baby at conception has personhood.

You quoted my post and replaced 'single cell' with 'newborn'. Who is really the one 'making demands'?

Your demands are noted, and rejected.

Because you've got a demand?

It trumps your demands.

 

[Stripe]

You quoted my post and replaced 'single cell' with 'newborn'.

I didn't think you'd notice.

 

[alwight]

Let's check your assertions against biology.

At conception, is the baby living? Yes.
At conception, is the baby human? Yes.

Stripe imagines a baby where there is none.
Tell us about this "we" thing that you do again Stripe.

Sure, you have. You demand that there not be a person involved until you accept there is one. And even then you would allow his extermination on a "case-by-case" basis.

Could it not be a "her" that you imagine me allowing the extermination of?

Quality of life is not personhood. Equivocation is a fallacy no matter how many times you use it.

Except that you only have a point if I am equivocating so therefore you don't. There is no quality of life unless there is a person who can experience it, experience is based in physics and a person is based in a functioning CNS.

We are talking about personhood, not a personality.

There really isn't any difference, a personality is just someone being a person.

Nope. People do not lose personhood because their brains are damaged. They retain all of their personhood and all of the rights that go along with it.

But they might well lose some of their personality, right? What do you think is lost then? Nothing?

Because you deny personhood based on your made-up ideas that you have no idea how to explain. On the back of this, you endorse the murder of people. Your ideas are insane, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you endorse murder and fob it off by saying: "I don't believe that."

No, murder is the unlawful killing of a person, I see no reason to conclude the existence of the original personhood until the existence of a CNS because extant humans who lose theirs are evidentially no longer extant human persons.

One day you are going to have to face up to reality. People have intrinsic worth that is not diminished by accident or negated by size and age. Your demands that babies in the womb are not people are the insane ramblings of a madman.

What babies are these? I've never suggested killing any babies.

With you, they'd need especially high-powered gear. lain:

That's very droll Stripe lain:

You'd love that, wouldn't you? To have the whole world judging people, not by their intrinsic value, but by their developmental stage and the damage to their minds. Sorry; not gonna happen.

If just one raped woman is not stupidly compelled to gestate a rapist's seed by those like you and perhaps who then becomes free to choose to have the child she wants with the man she chooses then I'd love that. That's because I value the intrinsic personhood of that extant woman with her own functioning CNS rather more than that of a zygote without one.

People have value and worth from the moment they are conceived.

Why? Because you and God say so?
Why then don't you grieve for the majority of those you think have intrinsic value but nevertheless get snuffed out within hours of their conception?
Your double standards are showing again big time.

 

[jgarden]

Defunding Planned Parenthood

The last time I checked, birth control and abortion were still legal in this People's Republic.

Conservatives, who are constantly proclaiming their love for the Constitution, have made a "cottage-industry" of supporting measures that they know are blatantly unconstitutional!

 

[Jonahdog]

I didn't think you'd notice.

Stripe is a consistent liar for Jesus. He has no problem changing other people's words to fit his needs.
Perhaps he should run for office?

 

[Stripe]

Could it not be a "her"?

Sure. Half the time there is a baby girl whose death you would endorse.

And, remember, we were assessing your assertion that at conception there is "no living human."

Your assertions versus biology.

At conception, is the baby living? Yes.
At conception, is the baby human? Yes.

So much for your demands.

It's obvious why you're so desperate to avoid science.

There is no quality of life unless there is a person who can experience it, experience is based in physics and a person is based in a functioning CNS.

We're not talking about "experience"; we're talking about personhood.

There really isn't any difference, a personality is just someone being a person.

There's a vast difference. Personhood is a metaphysical concept conferred upon people. A personality is a combination of the genetic and environmental situation working with choices to produce a set of characteristics in a man. We are not talking about personality, we are not talking about quality of life; we are talking about personhood.

What do you think is lost then? Nothing?

Your laughable attempt to make this a challenge to me is not going to work. You're the one who has equivocated on two entirely separate concepts while dehumanizing babies to justify their extermination.

I see no reason to conclude the existence of the original personhood until the existence of a CNS because extant humans who lose theirs are evidentially no longer extant human persons.

Except people who lose their central nervous systems are dead. Babies are not dead.

If just one raped woman is not stupidly compelled to gestate a rapist's seed by those like you and perhaps who then becomes free to choose to have the child she wants with the man she chooses then I'd love that. That's because I value the intrinsic personhood of that extant woman with her own functioning CNS rather more than that of a zygote without one.

Exposing your ignorance shows that you do not care about personhood. Many babies are killed because of their father's crimes well after they have developed a central nervous system that you would recognize, yet you would still endorse their murder. This shows that everything you say about personhood is meaningless; you ignore the concept and just go ahead with the killing when it suits you.

As I said from the beginning; even after you would concede personhood, you still endorse murder.

 

[alwight]

Sure. Half the time there is a baby girl whose death you would endorse.

I've noticed that it's usually a "him" with you even though a specific gender is not required.

And, remember, we were assessing your assertion that at conception there is "no living human."

No, you are just trying to trip me up with words.
After conception there is a human zygote.

Your assertions versus biology.

At conception, is the baby living? Yes.
At conception, is the baby human? Yes.

So much for your demands.

After conception there is a human zygote, no babies.

It's obvious why you're so desperate to avoid science.
We're not talking about "experience"; we're talking about personhood.

There's no point in being a person without experience, zygotes don't experience anything

There's a vast difference. Personhood is a metaphysical concept conferred upon people. A personality is a combination of the genetic and environmental situation working with choices to produce a set of characteristics in a man. We are not talking about personality, we are not talking about quality of life; we are talking about personhood.

You what? :liberals:

Your laughable attempt to make this a challenge to me is not going to work. You're the one who has equivocated on two entirely separate concepts while dehumanizing babies to justify their extermination.

That's one way of not answering I suppose.

Except people who lose their central nervous systems are dead. Babies are not dead.

So you agree that without a functioning CNS a former person is clinically dead, that people are contingent on a CNS, good.
Btw there are no babies at conception.

Exposing your ignorance shows that you do not care about personhood. Many babies are killed because of their father's crimes well after they have developed a central nervous system that you would recognize, yet you would still endorse their murder. This shows that everything you say about personhood is meaningless; you ignore the concept and just go ahead with the killing when it suits you.

I realise that you are very keen to get on down the line to later term abortions but here I simply want to move "personhood" on and away from conception at least.
Even if any of what you say here were true it pales into insignificance compared to your heartless and callous complete disregard of billions of supposed "persons" who apparently perish without trace pointlessly without any human intervention, according to your beliefs.

As I said from the beginning; even after you would concede personhood, you still endorse murder.

Whatever, but that would be for another discussion, not this one.

 

[Stripe]

A specific gender is not required.

Actually, the baby at conception is either a male or a female. Your ignorance exposes you.

No, you are just trying to trip me up with words.

Nope.

Living and human. Facts. We know you hate them.

There's no point in being a person without experience.

If you would give them a chance, they could tell you all about their experiences. But you'd prefer them dead.

I simply want to move "personhood" on and away from conception at least.

We know. You want to exterminate babies and sleep easier at night.

However, the evidence won't let you sleep. You have to deal with it.

 

[alwight]

If you would give them a chance, they could tell you all about their experiences. But you'd prefer them dead.

Nonsense, under your "reasoning" most of them will never have the chance to gain any experiences quite naturally, but we know you don't care about them of course. :nono:

 

[Stripe]

Nonsense.

Well, we've seen how poor your grasp on reality is. Let's try a little thought experiment. Find a mother who has a child growing inside her who you would call a non-person and ask if you can talk to the child in 20 years.

Guaranteed she would say no if she knew your intentions.

 

[alwight]

Well, we've seen how poor your grasp on reality is. Let's try a little thought experiment. Find a mother who has a child growing inside her who you would call a non-person and ask if you can talk to the child in 20 years.

Can we also assume that she is a rape victim and that was how she became pregnant?

Guaranteed she would say no if she knew your intentions.

That guarantee is about as worthless as everything else you utter Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

Can we also assume that she is a rape victim and that was how she became pregnant?

No, because a person is a person no matter who his father is.

Your desire to see babies murdered for the crimes of their father does not justify your demands.

 

[alwight]

No, because a person is a person no matter who his father is.

Your desire to see babies murdered for the crimes of their father does not justify your demands.

Then we only need to agree on what is a "person".

 

[Stripe]

Then we only need to agree on what is a "person".

No, we don't.

It doesn't matter overly much what we believe. The problem is that you endorse murder and are not willing to budge from your pro-death stance.

 

[alwight]

No, we don't.

It doesn't matter overly much what we believe. The problem is that you endorse murder and are not willing to budge from your pro-death stance.

It does matter to me because if I don't think it is a person then I don't value it as being of any more worth than one of the billions of zygotes you are happy to ignore as they disappear forever.