Defunding Planned Parenthood

[alwight]

Yeah? Let's see, 12 weeks:
View attachment 24034
Yeah, :sigh: "We are all going to die anyway, Lon. What's the big deal?"

Starting at the top of this obfuscation mess: It isn't love.

I think that in theory we should be able to agree that at some point in time between conception and (say) three or four months, as in your picture above, that there is indeed a point in development at which another person could reasonably be thought to possibly exist.
That is how I go about it anyway and I don't claim it to be easy or exact.

However I'm rather sure that despite whatever I say here you would never even dream of budging from there being some supposed magical moment at conception, from which a complete human person can somehow be represented by a small cluster of cells, enough to negate the choice of a woman to be pregnant or not, right?

I say that's just a dogmatic, perhaps emotional or spiritualistic stance quite unsupportable by any evidence.
You are of course absolutely entitled to believe that anyway Lon and act accordingly but at the end of the day you are not entitled to impose that view on those who don't agree with you.

 

[Stripe]

I think that in theory we should be able to agree that at some point in time between conception and (say) three or four months, as in your picture above, that there is indeed a point in development at which another person could reasonably be thought to possibly exist.

Atheists love to make arbitrary, meta-physical claims to distract attention away from the fact that they endorse the murder of children even after they concede personhood.

That is how I go about it anyway and I don't claim it to be easy or exact.

Nobody has any respect for what you think, nor should it be in any way considered sensible for policy.

However I'm rather sure that despite whatever I say here you would never even dream of budging from there being some supposed magical moment at conception, from which a complete human person can somehow be represented by a small cluster of cells, enough to negate the choice of a woman to be pregnant or not, right?

you mean the scientific fact that at conception a new human being is created? As opposed to your arbitrary claim that personhood is added sometime after that. What is scientific about adding personhood to a human being? Nothing. And it would be a disservice to the word to describe your notion as "magical," which is almost appropriate in a delighted description of what it must be like to become a parent. You pervert it by using it to promote your agenda of murder.

I say that's just a dogmatic, perhaps emotional or spiritualistic stance quite unsupportable by any evidence.

Apart from biology, you raving idiot. At conception, a new human being is created. Scientific, indisputable fact. It is your "addition" nonsense that is the stuff of cults.

You are of course absolutely entitled to believe that anyway Lon and act accordingly but at the end of the day you are not entitled to impose that view on those who don't agree with you.

We are absolutely entitled to impose our anti-murder stance on you. The government is obligated to protect the right to life. It is you who is unjustified in your insane opinion of the "addition" of personhood to people. Your side endorses murder, even after you concede personhood. Because you're a lying sack of feces.

 

[alwight]

Nobody has any respect for what you think, nor should it be in any way considered sensible for policy.

Stripe, I in turn have absolutely no interest nor respect for what you think, kindly butt out.lain:

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I in turn have absolutely no interest nor respect for what you think, kindly butt out.lain:

Nope. Your twisted notion of the "addition" of personhood after conception is a metaphysical invention of your own design that is made specifically to distract people from the fact that you endorse the murder of unborn children even after you concede their status as people. And you have the gall to question the scientific fact that at conception, a new human being is generated.

You're a lying toad whose sole interest is denying anything that you think might point toward justice and truth.

 

[alwight]

Nope. Your twisted notion of the "addition" of personhood after conception is a metaphysical invention of your own design that is made specifically to distract people from the fact that you endorse the murder of unborn children even after you concede their status as people. And you have the gall to question the scientific fact that at conception, a new human being is generated.

You're a lying toad whose sole interest is denying anything that you think might point toward justice and truth.

Utterly ridiculous. You're a grade A moron Stripe, someone who gives no thought to the needs of actual living extant people who are trying to live this life the best they can. Instead you cling mindlessly and dogmatically to a spiritual belief about conception despite the fact that most are aborted quite naturally long before they have any capability of functioning as a person.

 

[Stripe]

Utterly ridiculous.

Your words, in fact. You propose an arbitrary period where personhood is somehow "added," but deny scientific reality that at conception a new human being is created.

You're a grade A moron.

And you're desperate to endorse murder and remain an accepted member of society.

Someone who gives no thought to the needs of actual living extant people who are trying to live this life the best they can.

What? You mean babies at conception?

Instead you cling mindlessly and dogmatically to a spiritual belief about conception despite the fact that most are aborted quite naturally long before they have any capability of functioning as a person.

You're not functioning as a person. A normal person would accept the scientific fact that at conception, a new human being emerges.

You're a liar. Even after you would admit personhood, you would still endorse the murder of babies.

 

[alwight]

Your words, in fact. You propose an arbitrary period where personhood is somehow "added," but deny scientific reality that at conception a new human being is created.

Yours is but a bald spiritual assertion, mine is that a person cannot exist until it develops that capacity and that until then the existing person involved clearly takes precedence.

And you're desperate to endorse murder and remain an accepted member of society.

Emotive claptrap.

What? You mean babies at conception?

There are no babies at conception. You only have a care for your spiritual dogma, not the extant person involved and her right to choose what she thinks is is best for her.

You're not functioning as a person. A normal person would accept the scientific fact that at conception, a new human being emerges.

Then two thirds of humanity naturally gets aborted, washed away and you don't seem to care which must make you a heartless uncaring dogmatic fool.

You're a liar. Even after you would admit personhood, you would still endorse the murder of babies.

I have no interest in killing babies Stripe and you know it, so stop lying. lain:

 

[Lon]

I say that's just a dogmatic, perhaps emotional or spiritualistic stance quite unsupportable by any evidence.
You are of course absolutely entitled to believe that anyway Lon and act accordingly but at the end of the day you are not entitled to impose that view on those who don't agree with you.

By might OR right. Both? Even better. I will push for it. Wrong isn't up to a vote nor a shoddy SCOTUS ruling. We are across seas, so it won't likely mean much on your end.

 

[alwight]

By might OR right. Both? Even better. I will push for it. Wrong isn't up to a vote nor a shoddy SCOTUS ruling. We are across seas, so it won't likely mean much on your end.

I would guess that if your supreme court ruled against any abortions you would happily accept that might on your side Lon. Personally I wouldn't want the back street abortions going on near me that would surely follow. A majority of people in your country and mine accept that a rational case for responsible legal abortions exists but clearly those with perhaps a more spiritual mind-set have very strong contrary feelings and want them imposed on others. It's that imposition that I think is wrong, not that their belief actually is.

 

[Lon]

I would guess that if your supreme court ruled against any abortions you would happily accept that might on your side Lon. Personally I wouldn't want the back street abortions going on near me that would surely follow. A majority of people in your country and mine accept that a rational case for responsible legal abortions exists but clearly those with perhaps a more spiritual mind-set have very strong contrary feelings and want them imposed on others. It's that imposition that I think is wrong, not that their belief actually is.

I don't accept that a zygote at least is "another" Lon, that's your dogma not mine.
I will worry when I think that "another" person has perhaps developed, but not before.

Of course. And I said that it wasn't 'loving.' You are obfuscating. It isn't the 'loving' thing to do. That's why I said your morals and ethics are messed up. "I have a right to be unloving." Ah, do you? Do any of us? Is it really a right? Allowance, but wrong? Low-bar attainment? Callous-man's out?

 

[Ktoyou]

I don't accept that a zygote at least is "another" Lon, that's your dogma not mine.
I will worry when I think that "another" person has perhaps developed, but not before.

Then you draw ambiguous lines.

 

[alwight]

Then you draw ambiguous lines.

Yes I agree.
I'm simply saying that there is a line, not that I know where exactly it is.

 

[alwight]

Of course. And I said that it wasn't 'loving.' You are obfuscating. It isn't the 'loving' thing to do. That's why I said your morals and ethics are messed up. "I have a right to be unloving." Ah, do you? Do any of us? Is it really a right? Allowance, but wrong? Low-bar attainment? Callous-man's out?

I don't see that loving zygotes will do anything but give you grief Lon, but loving a person is a different matter in my book.

 

[Stripe]

Yours is but a bald spiritual assertion.

Nope. Biological fact. At conception, there is a new human being.

mine is that a person cannot exist until it develops that capacity and that until then the existing person involved clearly takes precedence.

Which is just something you made up in a vain attempt to justify killing people who do not qualify as people in your book.

There are no babies at conception. You only have a care for your spiritual dogma, not the extant person involved and her right to choose what she thinks is is best for her.

Nope.

At conception, there is an extant person. You're the one demanding — sans evidence — that personhood is "added" sometime after conception, remember?

Then two thirds of humanity naturally gets aborted, washed away and you don't seem to care which must make you a heartless uncaring dogmatic fool.

Arguments from consequence are irrational. We should expect more like that from you.

I have no interest in killing babies.

Then why are you so desperate to deny them personhood?

 

[Lon]

I don't see that loving zygotes will do anything but give you grief Lon, but loving a person is a different matter in my book.

You 'could' say the same thing about babies, or especially 2 year old toddlers. I'd reckon seeing a video of a developing prenatal doesn't bring a smile to your face, like it does mine.... Forgive me for being extremely angry and horrified when the serene is interrupted by a blender that tears the thumb not only from the mouth, but from the entire body. I don't care what you 'call' him/her. That's never going to be okay with me simply because you say 'zygote.' That was my name (and your's) before my grandmother changed it...

 

[alwight]

Nope. Biological fact. At conception, there is a new human being.

Nope, a potential human being at best, assuming it even manages to get to first base.

Which is just something you made up in a vain attempt to justify killing people who do not qualify as people in your book.

I have no reason to want to kill people but it's perhaps something that makes you more comfortable to believe. Yet you have no apparent concerns or remorse at all for the two thirds of humanity that you believe to be actual human beings that have simply perished naturally. So clearly you don't really regard them as any more than potential human beings than I do.

Nope.

At conception, there is an extant person. You're the one demanding — sans evidence — that personhood is "added" sometime after conception, remember?

Arguments from consequence are irrational. We should expect more like that from you.

Firstly you are entitled to believe that, while I am just as entitled not to. Given it's just an assertion and that I couldn't bear the thought that majority of human beings never gets a sniff at living life if I actually believed as you do. But I don't believe you really do.

Clearly you are a heartless and uncaring person Stripe since you don't shed a tear for so many supposed "human beings" that perish within hours of coming into existence.
No you can't simply dismiss my argument and the biological facts that easily just so that you can ignore the hard truth. Yet you seem quite happy to believe that in your view most human beings will perish before they can be born or even begin a personhood, shame on you Stripe.

Clearly imo a human person must first have the physical capacity and attributes to feel and react. Zygotes otoh are simply the seeds, seeds are not trees while most seeds will never be trees, it's generally how nature works Stripe.

Then why are you so desperate to deny them personhood?

I don't, personhood afaic is not something that is simply deemed to exist regardless of any capacity to function as a person, it must develop.

 

[alwight]

You 'could' say the same thing about babies, or especially 2 year old toddlers. I'd reckon seeing a video of a developing prenatal doesn't bring a smile to your face, like it does mine.... Forgive me for being extremely angry and horrified when the serene is interrupted by a blender that tears the thumb not only from the mouth, but from the entire body. I don't care what you 'call' him/her. That's never going to be okay with me simply because you say 'zygote.' That was my name (and your's) before my grandmother changed it...

Your emotional reaction doesn't really apply to zygotes Lon. A foetus developing in the womb is another matter.

 

[ok doser]

Nope, a potential human being at best...

what part do you struggle with?

do you agree that it is human?

do you agree that it is alive?

do you agree with the fact that at conception an new, unique human life is created?

 

[alwight]

what part do you struggle with?

do you agree that it is human?

do you agree that it is alive?

do you agree with the fact that at conception an new, unique human life is created?

I don't struggle, yes it is unique and that it represents a potential human person.

 

[ok doser]

so your struggle is with the undefined term "person"

let's leave that aside

do you agree with the following?

at conception a unique human life is created