Defunding Planned Parenthood

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nope, a potential human being at best.
Let's see.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Clade: Synapsida
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?

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.
Making things up won't save you.

Firstly you are entitled to believe that, while I am just as entitled not to.
I don't care what you think you're entitled to. It's what you say that cannot be justified.

You demand that personhood is "added" at some arbitrary time. You make these demands because you want to justify killing those who do not qualify according to your regime. My stance is different in that my endgame is not the death of the people you deny personhood 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.
Arguments from consequence are irrational.

But I don't believe you really do.
That's nice. You endorse the murder of babies even after you would concede personhood.

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.
Which just makes you an ignorant fool. Who are you to judge my response to the loss of a child? What do you know of my situation?

And there is a vast difference between the loss of a child and endorsing murder, as you do.

No you can't simply dismiss my argument.
Your argument is that personhood is "added" at some arbitrary and unknown point after conception. You present no evidence. You do not have an idea of even how to explain this process. It's a metaphysical piece of nonsense designed to give you cover from accusations — accurate ones — that you endorse murder. Furthermore, you deny the fact that at conception, what we have is a new human being.

I think we'll stick with me on the science, sonshine. :up:

Clearly imo a human person must first have the physical capacity and attributes to feel and react.
At conception, people do have that capacity. Just wait a few months and those things can be seen. Who are you to impose such a nonsense and arbitrary classification, especially when you endorse the murder of those who do not live up to your warped standards? Why should your silly notions be adhered to?

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.
We wish it had developed more in you.
 

alwight

New member
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

If you have a point then make it, I don't intend to play word games here.
At conception the seed for a potential new human life exists.

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,
 

alwight

New member
Nope, a potential human being at best.
Let's see.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Clade: Synapsida
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?
:yawn:
What do you think applies to an acorn Stripe, is it a tree?

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.
Making things up won't save you.
So you do grieve for all those supposed lost human beings then?

Firstly you are entitled to believe that, while I am just as entitled not to.
I don't care what you think you're entitled to. It's what you say that cannot be justified.
Your assertion that a person exists at conception is rather less justifiable than when I suggest that a person would first require the physical attributes of a person, say a rudimentary nervous system. But you are of course still very entitled to believe what you do, even though I can point to physical evidence against your otherwise empty assertions.

You demand that personhood is "added" at some arbitrary time. You make these demands because you want to justify killing those who do not qualify according to your regime. My stance is different in that my endgame is not the death of the people you deny personhood to.
I'm not making any demands Stripe, I am simply suggesting that a personhood will emerge as a fetus develops, at least as I understand a "person" to be. You seem to think that a "personhood" is something automatically applied at conception that requires no specific physical attributes, while I think the complete opposite is true.

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.
Arguments from consequence are irrational.
It's quite simple do you believe that the majority of human beings perish within hours or not?
Perhaps you think that obfuscation helps you to forget or ignore a perhaps horrible truth?

But I don't believe you really do.
That's nice. You endorse the murder of babies even after you would concede personhood.
Liar, I've never endorsed any such thing.

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.
Which just makes you an ignorant fool. Who are you to judge my response to the loss of a child? What do you know of my situation?
So you weep bitter tears for all that lost humanity?
It must be awful to believe as you do. :(

And there is a vast difference between the loss of a child and endorsing murder, as you do.
That's billions of apparently naturally lost children against a tiny number that are aborted for whatever reasons, perhaps arguably for good reasons. I wonder where your priorities lie Stripe?

No you can't simply dismiss my argument.
Your argument is that personhood is "added" at some arbitrary and unknown point after conception. You present no evidence. You do not have an idea of even how to explain this process. It's a metaphysical piece of nonsense designed to give you cover from accusations — accurate ones — that you endorse murder. Furthermore, you deny the fact that at conception, what we have is a new human being.

I think we'll stick with me on the science, sonshine.
Well, I'd say that a person requires certain physical attributes of a person, say a functioning central nervous system. And that would be something called "evidence"!:idea: Which seems that I have just presented rather more evidence than your somewhat empty spiritualistic assertions of conception. I'm rather sure Stripe that evidentially if your central nervous system stopped working that you would no longer be a person, regardless that your remains are still human.

Clearly imo a human person must first have the physical capacity and attributes to feel and react.
At conception, people do have that capacity. Just wait a few months and those things can be seen. Who are you to impose such a nonsense and arbitrary classification, especially when you endorse the murder of those who do not live up to your warped standards? Why should your silly notions be adhered to?
Do you have any evidence that a zygote has any such capacity or is this another empty assertion?

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.
We wish it had developed more in you.
Gee thanks Stripe, but who is this "we" you often seem to use rather than "I", are you the Borg?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We notice you're unwilling to answer the question. I even put it in the wording of your scriptures:


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?


What do you think applies to an acorn Stripe, is it a tree?
It fits into the exact Darwinist categories of organisms as the thing it came from, just as a baby at conception fits into the same category as his parents. Science dictates that organisms reproduce after their kind. You have invented an arbitrary and uncertain time when personhood is "added." This is unscientific, untestable, metaphysical nonsense designed specifically to give you camouflage, even as you would still endorse the murder of those after you would concede personhood.

So you do grieve for all those supposed lost human beings then?
Please shut up, you ignorant fool. :up:

Your assertion that a person exists at conception is rather less justifiable than when I suggest that a person would first require the physical attributes of a person, say a rudimentary nervous system.
Begging the question is another logical fallacy.

And who are you to deny people their rights based on a physical trait? You're the new fascist. In the past, people were denied rights based on their skin color, nationality or religion. Today you use the stage of development of their nervous system. And you're still a liar. You endorse the murder of babies in the womb who have a fully developed nervous system.

I'm not making any demands Stripe, I am simply suggesting that a personhood will emerge as a fetus develops.
With your endgame being demanding that mothers have the right to exterminate those who do not meet your standards. And even if they did have a nervous system, you would still turn a blind eye to murder.

The best anyone could say about your stance is that you're an unstudied, unqualified idiot with no inclination to undo his ignorance. In truth, you are simply determined to reject everything that points to goodness and truth.

You seem to think that a "personhood" is something automatically applied at conception that requires no specific physical attributes.
Madmen and tyrants look at physical traits to deny personhood, endorsing the murder of those who do not qualify in their book. Personhood is conferred by God at conception. My stance is safe and reasonable. Yours relies on a vague notion of the "addition" of personhood, something you would ignore anyway.

It's quite simple do you believe that the majority of human beings perish within hours or not?
Irrelevant. You endorse murder.

Perhaps you think that obfuscation helps you to forget or ignore a perhaps horrible truth?
You're an ignorant fool.

Who is this "we" you ... use.
Look around you, fool. You're severely outnumbered.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
If you have a point then make it, I don't intend to play word games here.

but that's exactly what you are doing, by refusing to recognize existing definitions, by playing with the terms "person" and "being"

At conception the seed for a potential new human life exists.

see, you've done it again

at conception it is human and it is alive




oh, i see stripe's already covered this :thumb:
 

alwight

New member
We notice you're unwilling to answer the question. I even put it in the wording of your scriptures:


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?

The stupidity of your question rather requires no answer, of course a human zygote has a human origin, my toenail clippings are of human origin, so what?

Note: In his mind Stripe is still speaking for the assembled masses.

It fits into the exact Darwinist categories of organisms as the thing it came from, just as a baby at conception fits into the same category as his parents. Science dictates that organisms reproduce after their kind. You have invented an arbitrary and uncertain time when personhood is "added." This is unscientific, untestable, metaphysical nonsense designed specifically to give you camouflage, even as you would still endorse the murder of those after you would concede personhood.
Utter rubbish, do you even know what a central nervous system is Stripe?
Do you know that a zygote doesn't have one?
If your body was still being kept alive but your CNS had permanently stopped functioning I can assure you that your albeit feeble "personhood" would be no more, you would have left the building, joined the choir invisible, gone to meet your maker, shuffled off this mortal coil etc.
Clearly and evidentially, if "personhood" actually means something rather than just an honorary title you have chosen to bestow at conception then "personhood" requires the development of the necessary relevant physical attributes not present at conception; to feel, remember, react and be self aware.

So you do grieve for all those supposed lost human beings then?
Please shut up, you ignorant fool. :up:
Touchy? Sorry, no I don't want to shut up, I realise that you don't want to think about it and perhaps the cognitive dissonance is very troubling for you, but tough luck, try to address reality for once Stripe. If all conceptions are indeed human beings then most human beings will perish without getting a sniff at life and this doesn't seem to bother you.
The truth is imo that you probably know as well as I do that no actual persons are involved because they haven't developed yet. That is why you don't particularly care. You just don't have the honesty to admit it nor to step away from a dogmatic adherence to traditional faith based beliefs.

Your assertion that a person exists at conception is rather less justifiable than when I suggest that a person would first require the physical attributes of a person, say a rudimentary nervous system.
Begging the question is another logical fallacy.
Nonsense, the role of the various parts of the central nervous system are pretty much well mapped out and evidentially supported from real life. Damage to it can result in personality changes or a complete dysfunction, there can be no doubt that personhood requires a CNS and doesn't exist without it.

And who are you to deny people their rights based on a physical trait? You're the new fascist. In the past, people were denied rights based on their skin color, nationality or religion. Today you use the stage of development of their nervous system. And you're still a liar. You endorse the murder of babies in the womb who have a fully developed nervous system.
What? You are confused, I don't deny anyone anything, I'm the pro-choicer here, you apparently are the one who would deny a raped woman the choice not to be pregnant by him.
I really don't care if you want to declare "personhood" at conception, that's your prerogative, but I prefer to wait for some evidential support such as a functioning nervous system. The evidence suggests to me that the death of a zygote does not involve the death of a person. If you want to believe that billions of human beings have all needlessly perished then be my guest, I don't.
I have restricted myself here to only where there is no CNS, a clear cut scenario for free choice imo. If I can manage to persuade a staunch pro-lifer to budge, ever so slightly, away from the dogmatic conception based adherence then I feel that my work here will be done.:)
After I have recovered from that shock I will be delighted to examine any specific case of later term abortions and examine its specific circumstances as to whether I can personally accept it or not. What I will not do is ally myself with any and all abortions, I do have my own standards, not that I'd seek to impose them on anyone. I may even agree that some abortions are tantamount to murder.

With your endgame being demanding that mothers have the right to exterminate those who do not meet your standards. And even if they did have a nervous system, you would still turn a blind eye to murder.
Try to be more rational and less emotive Stripe and then I might want to respond. Words like "exterminate" and "murder" aren't particularly helpful or reasonable imo.
And you accused me of begging the question above. :doh:

The best anyone could say about your stance is that you're an unstudied, unqualified idiot with no inclination to undo his ignorance. In truth, you are simply determined to reject everything that points to goodness and truth.
That would be goodness and truth according to Stripe presumably? The guy who doesn't seem to care that billions of "human beings" perish soon after conception without any prompting from abortionists.


You seem to think that a "personhood" is something automatically applied at conception that requires no specific physical attributes.
Madmen and tyrants look at physical traits to deny personhood, endorsing the murder of those who do not qualify in their book. Personhood is conferred by God at conception. My stance is safe and reasonable. Yours relies on a vague notion of the "addition" of personhood, something you would ignore anyway.
I don't believe in God so I make my conclusions from the evidence as I find it, having compassion for real people in their specific situation and circumstances, without any predetermined catch-all dogma. I believe that "personhood" would normally negate abortion, but it requires a functioning CNS. However I will consider all the specific circumstances from a pro-choice perspective.

It's quite simple do you believe that the majority of human beings perish within hours or not?
Irrelevant. You endorse murder.
As you endorse the death of billions of "human beings".

You're an ignorant fool.
Perhaps.:think:

Look around you, fool. You're severely outnumbered.
The law suggests that you are outnumbered in the real world Stripe not me.


FTR: I wouldn't normally enter into a protracted dialog with Stripe but since this isn't about Young Earth Creationism and all the usual YEC daft things he comes out with, why not. :)
 

alwight

New member
but that's exactly what you are doing, by refusing to recognize existing definitions, by playing with the terms "person" and "being"



see, you've done it again

at conception it is human and it is alive




oh, i see stripe's already covered this :thumb:
My toenail is human and alive, so what?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The fact that Planned Parenthood is so well funded says a lot about our 'Christian' society.

People will come up with any convenience in the book, right down to 'giving to Caesar what is his'- even though that was speaking directly of those who live in an autocracy.
And you'll find a commensurate flaw with all other excuses as well.

If this country were really 78% Christian as it reports to be, than PP should only be getting 22% of what it gets. And yet, a single state refuses and it's supposed to be some glorious thing. Or outcry. Whatever side of the fence you're on :idunno:

Christians had the power of keeping it coming into existence in the first place, but now she can't even be bold enough to confront it honestly- instead of stating what is actually wrong with it, she has vouched to make things up and lie about their practices :doh:

Because of that, I'm really just done with it altogether. Let it be kindle when the end times come.
 

alwight

New member
is it a distinct unique human life?
I could perhaps bestow the honorary title "person" to it and it is unique, but I don't think it will ever develop any more than it has, but like billions of zygotes it will no doubt soon disappear forever without trace.
What exactly do you mean by "distinct unique human life" bearing in mind that most (zygotes) are doomed to fail?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course a human zygote has a human origin.

Answering a question I did not ask is a typical Darwinist tactic. It's called the non sequitur.


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?



We know why you do not want to answer.
 

alwight

New member
Answering a question I did not ask is a typical Darwinist tactic. It's called the non sequitur.


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?



We know why you do not want to answer.
Stripe, your loaded question applies to species not specific individuals and whether they are fully developed or not. :plain:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your ... question applies to species not specific individuals.

Nope. You can look at a single organism and classify it according to the Darwinist model:


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?



We know why you do not want to answer.
 

alwight

New member
Nope. You can look at a single organism and classify it according to the Darwinist model:


Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.
Which of those do you think does not apply to a baby at conception?



We know why you do not want to answer.
Repeating your loaded question doesn't make it any less of a devious ploy Stripe.
I don't think that any of that does not apply to human zygotes, never suggested otherwise, does that help?

Are you still content that the majority of:

Kingdom — Animalia; Phylum — Chordata; Clade — Synapsida; Class — Mammalia; Order — Primates; Suborder — Haplorhini; Family — Hominidae; Genus — Homo; Species — H. sapiens.

human beings you say, perishes within hours of conception?
Are you heartless and uncaring or a liar Stripe?
 

alwight

New member
Then why do you argue when we say it is scientific fact that at conception there is a new, living human?
Firstly I'm talking to you Stripe not a "we", I don't think you can honestly claim to represent anyone else here unless they step forward.
I never said that it isn't human as you like to imply, of course it is, but that evidentially it can only be rationally imo considered more than a potential human being/person when it has developed some physical capacity and attributes to function as one.
If you don't like my conclusions fine, but secular laws usually get passed with respect to the evidence not a spiritual belief.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Firstly I'm talking to you Stripe not a "we."
We feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it.
I never said that it isn't human.
Yet you argue and argue.
It can only be rationally imo considered a potential human being/person when it has developed some physical capacity and attributes to function as one.
You've invented a metaphysical condition defined by physical traits for an established term that is based on conferment, not characteristics.

You've joined the fascists, declaring that some humans are not people because of their state. In the past it was skin color, race, religion — today it is a heartbeat, a central nervous system, brainwaves.

Science says that at conception, we have a new human being. You deny that human being personhood based on an arbitrary set of conditions that you would ignore in certain circumstances, fully endorsing a mother who wants to murder her child even after your conditions for personhood are met.

If you don't like my conclusions fine, but secular laws get passed with respect to the evidence not a spiritual belief.
What evidence? You have invented a set of conditions that no nation has written into law or used as the basis for its laws.

You're just making things up, pretending that you're right because you have some regulations on your side.
 

alwight

New member
We feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it.
Yet you argue and argue.
We suspect that you and Queen Victoria have a lot in common Stripe.

You've invented a metaphysical condition defined by physical traits for an established term that is based on conferment, not characteristics.
The plain physical truth is there to examine whatever title you choose to confer on it, I simply try to explain how it seems to me while you apparently don't really want to understand so you'd rather quibble. Bestowing a title to something doesn't change the reality, but if I should be using other words then by all means you or one of your followers might suggest some.

You've joined the fascists, declaring that some humans are not people because of their state. In the past it was skin color, race, religion — today it is a heartbeat, a central nervous system, brainwaves.
I argue for personal choice which isn't a typical fascist trait. I also argue that a zygote has little or no compelling attributes or value that would compel a reasonable woman to remain pregnant against her wishes, so shoot me.

Science says that at conception, we have a new human being. You deny that human being personhood based on an arbitrary set of conditions that you would ignore in certain circumstances, fully endorsing a mother who wants to murder her child even after your conditions for personhood are met.
Citation please. I deny that a zygote has any physical capacity to function in any way that a person can.

What evidence? You have invented a set of conditions that no nation has written into law or used as the basis for its laws.

You're just making things up, pretending that you're right because you have some regulations on your side.
Abortion laws are not arbitrary they are typically based around the physical evidence, such as the level of development and will restrict abortions accordingly. You may not agree with them but that's your problem since I think they are about right.
 
Top