Defunding Planned Parenthood

[alwight]

What I have written, I have written.

Feel free to come to reason. Question-begging nonsense is no excuse for endorsing murder.

Fess up Stripe, you've lost it.

 

[alwight]

We're not talking about a "personality."

People have personalities, not a feature of zygotes imo.

And humans are conferred a thing called personhood. Thus there is evidential reason to say that at conception, we have a new person, for a human does indeed exist.

That is all still just an empty assertion.

You'll just try to keep arguing over terminology because you are desperate to maintain your pro-death agenda.

Vilifying me is also an empty assertion but also a stupid one since a pro-death position hardly helps me any.

Nope.

Personhood is conferred upon the human at conception. Evidence? Conception is when that life began.

Actually the sperm and the egg were already human and alive Stripe, so even that assertion isn't true.

You demand that personhood is not conferred until some unknown point into his life. Evidence? Your opinion that a nervous system at some unknown level of development defines personhood.

Pretty much, and I confer personhood as I see fit according to the CNS evidence I already outlined many times, so shoot me.

Your opinion is not evidence. Evidence is what I have to support my opinion.

Don't forget to tell me when the evidence you speak of will be presented.

Just your entire argument. You claim personhood is carried by a physical trait and when asked for evidence, you point to the trait. When asked to explain how the trait brings personhood, you return to your demand.

I told you that the CNS functioning is pretty well mapped out these days and that a predictable corresponding degradation will occur to that person if a part of the CNS is compromised.

Classic begging of the question.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Hogwash you have presented nothing to be ignorant about Stripe.

The being that grows the nervous system is the same one that began his life at conception. His nervous system is functioning well before the time most abortions occur.

That's another matter and isn't part of my case here.

You're a liar. You pretend to have some reasoning behind your position, but you're woefully uninformed and unwilling to accept correction.

I can accept correction when I am wrong, but you claiming I'm wrong and me actually being wrong are clearly not the same thing. I gave you my reasoning many times but you simply ignore it and continue to make more empty evidence-free assertions.

None of that is a major problem; the problem is that you use it all to endorse your pro-murder agenda.

Says the guy who doesn't seem to give a damn that billions of innocent "human beings" have all perished within hours of having his title of "person" conferred on them.

And your endgame is to allow the extermination of those who do not fit your definition of a person.

It is not important which one of us has the best reasoning; when push comes to shove, you endorse murder, while I oppose it.

Then you are a heartless and callous person who is content that billions of persons will perish under the terms of your dogma.

 

[Stripe]

That is all still just an empty assertion.

Nope. Evidence, remember? Moreover, it is evidence you concede. At conception there is a human being. You agree with this, remember? You quibble over my use of the term "being," but the point remains: At conception, what we have is a new human entity. This is rock-solid, undisputed. Since we have the first life of a new version of those things we call people, this is great evidence that what we have is — wait for it — another person.

However, you're so desperate to keep killing babies, you'll say anything to avoid the truth.

Vilifying me is also an empty assertion but also a stupid one since a pro-death position hardly helps me any.

You're defending the choice mothers make to terminate their babies. It's hardly my fault that you're vile.

Actually the sperm and the egg were already human and alive Stripe, so even that assertion isn't true.

Uh, nope. Major category error. The problem is, you're not even remotely interested in a rational discussion. Parts and pieces of people aren't people of themselves. Your hair and toenails aren't people. However, at conception, what we have is a new person.

Evidence, remember?

Pretty much, and I confer personhood as I see fit according to the CNS evidence I already outlined many times, so shoot me.

I have no problem with your nonsense assertions. The problem lies in that you hold rigidly to your opinions in the defense of murder. If it was just you insisting that you come from a rock, I might just laugh, but you're a vile sack of human waste when you delight in the termination of babies. :vomit:

I told you that the CNS functioning is pretty well mapped out these days and that a predictable corresponding degradation will occur to that person if a part of the CNS is compromised.

People with spinal cord damage are lesser persons. Gottit. lain:

 

[alwight]

Nope. Evidence, remember? Moreover, it is evidence you concede. At conception there is a human being. You agree with this, remember? You quibble over my use of the term "being," but the point remains: At conception, what we have is a new human entity. This is rock-solid, undisputed. Since we have the first life of a new version of those things we call people, this is great evidence that what we have is — wait for it — another person.

Evidence shows that eggs come before the chicken Stripe, so I'll call it a human being a human being when I think it is one and not when you do thanks. :thumb:

However, you're so desperate to keep killing babies, you'll say anything to avoid the truth.

More stupid nonsense.

You're defending the choice mothers make to terminate their babies. It's hardly my fault that you're vile.

Nothing I've said here has involved anything much past a zygote, not babies. Let's move on from your evidence-free conception dogma to a point where evidence indicates that a person may in fact start to exist. Let's at least consider the needs of women who perhaps didn't want to be pregnant, who were maybe rape victims and simply want to ensure that the rapist does not continue to blight their lives. You apparently care more for your mindless dogma than real extant people with an existing life to lead that they desperately want to keep on track. Let's consider the child that that woman may have wanted to have with the man of her choice rather than being cruelly forced to gestate a rapist's seed instead.

Uh, nope. Major category error. The problem is, you're not even remotely interested in a rational discussion. Parts and pieces of people aren't people of themselves. Your hair and toenails aren't people. However, at conception, what we have is a new person.

What we have is nothing but your empty assertion and no evidence that two human parts when put together make a whole.

Evidence, remember?

I at least do.

I have no problem with your nonsense assertions. The problem lies in that you hold rigidly to your opinions in the defense of murder. If it was just you insisting that you come from a rock, I might just laugh, but you're a vile sack of human waste when you delight in the termination of babies. :vomit:

I claimed to came from a rock? :liberals:
Are you nuts?
You seem to have gone AWOL here at least.

People with spinal cord damage are lesser persons. Gottit. lain:

Repeating this vacuous nonsense here doesn't somehow make it true. However the actual "person" would not be directly involved with a spinal chord injury but would have to deal with the physical loss of function. Evidentially that person is physically diminished at least and if the damage was instead to the brain then that person will possibly be a lesser functioning person for it than they once were, I don't think we can escape that. Clearly a "person" does not exist safe in some metaphysical or ethereal realm but is very much contingent on a functioning CNS.

 

[Stripe]

Nothing I've said here has involved anything much past a zygote, not babies. Let's move on from your evidence-free conception dogma to a point where evidence indicates that a person may in fact start to exist. Let's at least consider the needs of women who perhaps didn't want to be pregnant, who were maybe rape victims and simply want to ensure that the rapist does not continue to blight their lives. You apparently care more for your mindless dogma than real extant people with an existing life to lead that they desperately want to keep on track. Let's consider the child that that woman may have wanted to have with the man of her choice rather than being cruelly forced to gestate a rapist's seed instead.

You don't know when your personhood is "added." You just want to allow the killing of babies regardless of whether they are to be considered people.

Repeating this vacuous nonsense here doesn't somehow make it true. However the actual "person" would not be directly involved with a spinal chord injury but would have to deal with the physical loss of function. Evidentially that person is physically diminished at least and if the damage was instead to the brain then that person will possibly be a lesser functioning person for it than they once were, I don't think we can escape that. Clearly a "person" does not exist safe in some metaphysical or ethereal realm but is very much contingent on a functioning CNS.

It looks like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're equivocating between personhood and "quality of life" when you talk about injured people. Before you were equivocating on "personality" as if that was equivalent to personhood.

You have no clear grasp on what you believe apart from your determined adherence to maintain baby killing.

 

[glassjester]

In our society you remain a person until death.

You say "personhood" is only an agreement made, based on an individual's relation to society.
So, would it be unjust to deny a man personhood?
Let's say, for argument's sake, a useless man. He's completely useless to society. Does he cease to be a person?

 

[alwight]

Nothing I've said here has involved anything much past a zygote, not babies. Let's move on from your evidence-free conception dogma to a point where evidence indicates that a person may in fact start to exist. Let's at least consider the needs of women who perhaps didn't want to be pregnant, who were maybe rape victims and simply want to ensure that the rapist does not continue to blight their lives. You apparently care more for your mindless dogma than real extant people with an existing life to lead that they desperately want to keep on track. Let's consider the child that that woman may have wanted to have with the man of her choice rather than being cruelly forced to gestate a rapist's seed instead.

You don't know when your personhood is "added." You just want to allow the killing of babies regardless of whether they are to be considered people.

Your worthless commentary gets rather tedious Stripe.

Repeating this vacuous nonsense here doesn't somehow make it true. However the actual "person" would not be directly involved with a spinal chord injury but would have to deal with the physical loss of function. Evidentially that person is physically diminished at least and if the damage was instead to the brain then that person will possibly be a lesser functioning person for it than they once were, I don't think we can escape that. Clearly a "person" does not exist safe in some metaphysical or ethereal realm but is very much contingent on a functioning CNS.

It looks like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're equivocating between personhood and "quality of life" when you talk about injured people. Before you were equivocating on "personality" as if that was equivalent to personhood.

You have no clear grasp on what you believe apart from your determined adherence to maintain baby killing.

I've tried to communicate with you using a variety of words but it's pretty clear that you don't want to understand and in desperation have resorted to obfuscation and random insinuation.

 

[Stripe]

Your worthless commentary gets rather tedious Stripe.

That's only because you're willfully ignorant — dumb on purpose.

You demand that a central nervous system be the determiner of personhood, but you don't even know when that would come about, leading to the scenario where you would concede personhood, but still endorse their killing. This is why we accuse you of being a baby killer.

I've tried to communicate with you using a variety of words but it's pretty clear that you don't want to understand and in desperation have resorted to obfuscation and random insinuation.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

At conception, we have a new human being. You admit this, remember? You quibble about my use of the term "being," but you are indeed a being at conception.

That there is a human being at conception is great evidence that what two people have made together is indeed — wait for it — another person.

You screech and moan because you want free reign to exterminate the most defenseless of people.

 

[alwight]

You demand that a central nervous system be the determiner of personhood, but you don't even know when that would come about, leading to the scenario where you would concede personhood, but still endorse their killing. This is why we accuse you of being a baby killer.

Once again then, I don't need to attempt to give an exact moment when "personhood" would come about, that is totally irrelevant to my argument here and just something that you choose to conveniently quibble about.
My argument was always that while a functioning CNS was absent I can comfortably assume that no human person could possibly be present. My argument is only that "personhood" was not something to do with conception and that it can safely be moved on to a later time since evidentially it is a function of the CNS. (Evidence!)

Nope. Evidence, remember?

Evidence is what you choose to ignore if you don't like it Stripe, such as the CNS.

At conception, we have a new human being. You admit this, remember? You quibble about my use of the term "being," but you are indeed a being at conception.

Codswallop, stop putting words in my mouth, I've never said there is a new human being at conception, a fertilised egg is what exists, nothing else. A potential human being that in all probability will not even get to first base, a human seed. An acorn is not a tree.

That there is a human being at conception is great evidence that what two people have made together is indeed — wait for it — another person.

That is just your bald assertion that it is something more than a human seed.

You screech and moan because you want free reign to exterminate the most defenseless of people.

I am rather more astounded that a person who claims to truly believe that each conception is a human being would be content that billions of them have perished, yet only quibbles, accuses and whines about a tiny few that are deliberately aborted.

 

[quip]

You say "personhood" is only an agreement made, based on an individual's relation to society.
So, would it be unjust to deny a man personhood?
Let's say, for argument's sake, a useless man. He's completely useless to society. Does he cease to be a person?

I supposed, if you held enough power and influence within a specific society (Re: Nazi
Germany) you could proclaim whatever you want. Though, there's no rational personhood/useless-to-society link.

Such protections are where the US Constitution/Bill of Rights comes into play.

 

[glassjester]

I supposed, if you held enough power and influence within a specific society (Re: Nazi
Germany) you could proclaim whatever you want. Though, there's no rational personhood/useless-to-society link.

Such protections are where the US Constitution/Bill of Rights comes into play.

If not utility, then on what basis does society grant personhood?

 

[quip]

If not utility, then on what basis does society grant personhood?

Good question.

Looking it up: personhood is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Seems apt to me.

 

[glassjester]

Good question.

Looking it up: personhood is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Seems apt to me.

Hm...

Is someone a person because they have rights and responsibilities, or do they have rights and responsibilities because they're a person?


I'd assume the latter. And if so, we still haven't determined the basis for granting personhood.

 

[quip]

Hm...

Is someone a person because they have rights and responsibilities, or do they have rights and responsibilities because they're a person?


I'd assume the latter. And if so, we still haven't determined the basis for granting personhood.

I don't see any difficulty here. You're granted personhood status much like citizenship or a surname...at birth.

 

[Stripe]

Once again then, I don't need to attempt to give an exact moment when "personhood" would come about, that is totally irrelevant to my argument here and just something that you choose to conveniently quibble about.
My argument was always that while a functioning CNS was absent I can comfortably assume that no human person could possibly be present. My argument is only that "personhood" was not something to do with conception and that it can safely be moved on to a later time since evidentially it is a function of the CNS. (Evidence!)

Your opinions do not constitute evidence.

Evidence is what you choose to ignore if you don't like it Stripe, such as the CNS.

Nope. This is you begging the question. You have to show evidence of how the central nervous system carries personhood. Demanding that it does is not evidence. And since you have shifted your argument to now say that the absence of a nervous system necessitates non-personhood, the presence of a nervous system has no part to play in this discussion.

Codswallop, stop putting words in my mouth, I've never said there is a new human being at conception, a fertilised egg is what exists, nothing else. A potential human being that in all probability will not even get to first base, a human seed. An acorn is not a tree.

At conception what we have is human. We know you will quibble about the term "being," but that is only because you are desperate to avoid a rational discussion.

However, you being unreasonable is not the problem. The problem is that you endorse murder.

That is just your bald assertion that it is something more than a human seed.

At conception, what we have is a new human being. You admit this, remember? You quibble about the use of "being," but that's only because you're desperate to avoid a rational discussion.

I am rather more astounded that a person who claims to truly believe that each conception is a human being would be content that billions of them have perished, yet only quibbles, accuses and whines about a tiny few that are deliberately aborted.

It's called justice. We live with the fact that everyone dies, but we are furious when people are murdered.

Only a sociopath would not understand that dynamic. Only someone desperate to justify their pro-death stance would make such a nonsense accusation.

 

[alwight]

Your opinions do not constitute evidence.

The CNS being there or not is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

Nope. This is you begging the question. You have to show evidence of how the central nervous system carries personhood. Demanding that it does is not evidence. And since you have shifted your argument to now say that the absence of a nervous system necessitates non-personhood, the presence of a nervous system has no part to play in this discussion.

I have been consistent all the way through. The evidence that human persons are contingent on a functioning CNS has been given to you, I can't help it if you choose to ignore it.

At conception what we have is human. We know you will quibble about the term "being," but that is only because you are desperate to avoid a rational discussion.

However, you being unreasonable is not the problem. The problem is that you endorse murder.

You are an idiot.

At conception, what we have is a new human being. You admit this, remember? You quibble about the use of "being," but that's only because you're desperate to avoid a rational discussion.

I don't admit it is a human being.

It's called justice. We live with the fact that everyone dies, but we are furious when people are murdered.

Only a sociopath would not understand that dynamic. Only someone desperate to justify their pro-death stance would make such a nonsense accusation.

So it seems that you are content that billions of what you believe to be human beings/persons apparently pointlessly perish.

 

[glassjester]

I don't see any difficulty here. You're granted personhood status much like citizenship or a surname...at birth.

That presents a big difficulty, doesn't it?

First, why does being born make someone a person?

Our current abortion laws are unjust then, in your eyes, because an 8-month-old pregnant woman should be able to kill the non-person she has inside her, right? Or do you believe otherwise?

 

[Stripe]

The CNS being there or not is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

You are required to show how a central nervous system carries personhood — this is the demand you make that has no possibility of accompanying evidence.

However, you're about to equivocate on this claim.

I have been consistent all the way through.

:darwinsm:

Consistently wrong.

The evidence that human persons are contingent on a functioning CNS has been given to you, I can't help it if you choose to ignore it.

Your demands do not count as evidence.

I don't admit it is a human being.

You quibble about the term "being." We know. However, the fact remains: At conception, there is a new human entity. And that which is produced from two people is great evidence of — wait for it — another person.

 

[quip]

That presents a big difficulty, doesn't it?

First, why does being born make someone a person?

Review the argument over what constitutes a person. Likewise, how does a zygote qualify for personhood? :idunno:

Our current abortion laws are unjust then, in your eyes, because an 8-month-old pregnant woman should be able to kill the non-person she has inside her, right? Or do you believe otherwise?

That doesn't reflect our current abortion laws.

 

[alwight]

You are required to show how a central nervous system carries personhood — this is the demand you make that has no possibility of accompanying evidence.

Except that demonstrably the CNS carries the person as we know them and that when the CNS is damaged clearly that person is invariably correspondingly impaired too.
You may choose to wave that evidence away, perhaps because it is inconvenient to what you prefer to believe but it's nevertheless much more evidence than you have presented or baldly assert happens at conception.

You quibble about the term "being." We know. However, the fact remains: At conception, there is a new human entity.

I won't quibble too much about "entity" other than to say it's really an amalgamation of two existing human entities and evidentially now potential human being.
However you seem to give it the full value of a complete human being from conception while I tend to conclude that it is certainly more than expendable enough (as a sperm and an egg are expendable) to allow a choice as a convenience to an extant woman who didn't choose to be pregnant at this time.