Defunding Planned Parenthood

[Stripe]

The plain physical truth is there to examine.

Yip. At conception there is a new human being.

Denying personhood doesn't change reality.

I argue for personal choice.

By denying choice via your determination that some humans are not people.

A typical fascist trait. Jews aren't people, so it's not murder. Blacks aren't people, so slavery is OK. Babies aren't people, so abortion is fine.

I also argue that a zygote has little or no compelling attributes or value.

That's because you're a heartless fool who denies personhood to those you find inconvenient.

I deny that a zygote has any physical capacity to function in any way that a person can.

We know. You're wrong, but that is not the point. Even after the baby has grown enough so that even you would concede personhood, you would still back a mother who wanted to murder her unborn child.

Abortion laws are not arbitrary they are typically based around the physical evidence, such as the level of development and will restrict abortions accordingly.

What evidence? You invented a set of conditions to deny personhood that no nation has written into its laws.

The evidence is that at conception, we have a new human being.

 

[quip]

The evidence is that at conception, we have a new human being.

Though that "evidence" fails to designate personhood.

Personhood is a social construct...an active relationship between sentient, autonomous individuals; a mutual pact where I exercise my will in recognizing you as a likewise free-willed, self-aware individual (and - ideally - vice-versa).

You might ask why don't the unborn qualify for the above distinction. The first answer is that the unborn lack the specific capacities to form this sentient established, person-to-person relationship. Second, and in my opinion more important, is that society (yes, pro-lifers) simply does not place equal value upon the unborn to that of archetypical personages (idealistically motivated, political rhetoric aside.)

Take for example IVF clinics which within laboratories they create embryos in petri dishes - while charging customary fees - to couples seeking children. They commonly over-produce embryos (Success rates are highly prized in the industry), freezing and disposing of said embryos as "medical waste" (though I fail to consistently see pro-life protesters at such clinics.).

The unborn are simply a commodity...and only objectively valued as such; they exist as a means to and an end...a birthed infant i.e. a nascent person.

Pro-lifers tend to moan on about slavery...though may a "person" be laboratory created, bought and sold as a commodity, or rather is it the person which emerges from the process, exist as the successful and meaningfully valued end-product?

 

[alwight]

I note now that Stripe seems to be prematurely cutting off my sentences he quotes with a period where there isn't one and ignoring the rest including the context so that he can answer however he chooses, which is rather dishonest imo. lain:

Stripe's edit:

The plain physical truth is there to examine.

The whole sentence:

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.

Yip. At conception there is a new human being.

Denying personhood doesn't change reality.

I don't deny personhood where a meaningful application of the word exists and where it is not just used a title, which I tried to explain in the section Stripe removed and then presented as a complete sentence when it wasn't.

Stripe's edit:

I argue for personal choice.

The whole sentence:

I argue for personal choice which isn't a typical fascist trait.

By denying choice via your determination that some humans are not people.

A typical fascist trait. Jews aren't people, so it's not murder. Blacks aren't people, so slavery is OK. Babies aren't people, so abortion is fine.

This time for no genuine reason Stripe chooses to edit out the relevant part in response just so he can rant and call me a fascist again.
I don't think he wants to engage with what I'm actually saying.

Stripe's edit:

I also argue that a zygote has little or no compelling attributes or value.

The whole sentence:

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.

By denying choice via your determination that some humans are not people.That's because you're a heartless fool who denies personhood to those you find inconvenient.

If I reply here it will probably only get dishonestly edited to say something I didn't really intend as above. Perhaps Stripe is now feeling the terrible grief for billions of supposed "human beings" perishing in the name of his dogma, or maybe he is rather more heartless than I am and doesn't give a damn? :think:

I deny that a zygote has any physical capacity to function in any way that a person can.

We know. You're wrong, but that is not the point. Even after the baby has grown enough so that even you would concede personhood, you would still back a mother who wanted to murder her unborn child.

A complete sentence quoted at least, but followed by an irrelevant bald assertion intended to insult rather than to explain where I'm supposedly going wrong.

Abortion laws are not arbitrary they are typically based around the physical evidence, such as the level of development and will restrict abortions accordingly.

What evidence? You invented a set of conditions to deny personhood that no nation has written into its laws.

The evidence is that at conception, we have a new human being.

Evidence includes zygotes that clearly have no physical personality attributes at all, but I explained all that before.

The evidence is that at conception, we have a new potential human being.

(Couldn't resist a cheat myself )

 

[glassjester]

Take for example IVF clinics which within laboratories they create embryos in petri dishes - while charging customary fees - to couples seeking children. They commonly over-produce embryos (Success rates are highly prized in the industry), freezing and disposing of said embryos as "medical waste" (though I fail to consistently see pro-life protesters at such clinics.).

IVF is no good - dozens of abortions per one birth. The Catholic Church has been consistent on that point (against IVF), for the reason described above (among others).

You are pro-abortion because pro-lifers don't protest IVF? So be Catholic.

 

[patrick jane]

IVF is no good - dozens of abortions per one birth. The Catholic Church has been consistent on that point (against IVF), for the reason described above (among others).

You are pro-abortion because pro-lifers don't protest IVF? So be Catholic.

It's NOT a baby until it is implanted in the uterus wall and begins there.

 

[glassjester]

It's NOT a baby until it is implanted in the uterus wall and begins there.

Oh goodness

 

[glassjester]

It's NOT a baby until it is implanted in the uterus wall and begins there.

Please explain.

 

[Stripe]

Couldn't resist a cheat.

We know you're not interested in truth and justice, only in trying to justify your rejection of humans as people so that murder will remain "legal."

 

[quip]

You are pro-abortion because pro-lifers don't protest IVF? So be Catholic.

No, pro-lifers don't protest IVF because the unborn aren't worth the trouble.

Are you one of them?

 

[glassjester]

Are you one of them?

Pro-life? Yes, certainly.

 

[patrick jane]

Please explain.

Under normal circumstances, fertilization occurs in one of the Fallopian tubes, then the fertilized egg begins to make its way to the uterus. By about the fifth day after conception, the embryo finally reaches the uterus, where it implants itself in the endometrium, or uterine lining

 

[glassjester]

Under normal circumstances, fertilization occurs in one of the Fallopian tubes, then the fertilized egg begins to make its way to the uterus. By about the fifth day after conception, the embryo finally reaches the uterus, where it implants itself in the endometrium, or uterine lining

I understand implantation.

Please explain why you believe that a pre-born human is not a human until implantation occurs.
Or maybe I have misunderstand your earlier post. Not sure.

 

[alwight]

We know you're not interested in truth and justice, only in trying to justify your rejection of humans as people so that murder will remain "legal."

We think that you should stop referring to yourself in the plural. lain:

 

[Stripe]

We think that you should stop referring to yourself in the plural. lain:

You should stop endorsing the murder of unborn children by demanding that they not be considered people.

 

[alwight]

You should stop endorsing the murder of unborn children by demanding that they not be considered people.

You should perhaps express some regrets for the lost billions of what you suppose to be "people" and I do not. :sherlock:

 

[Stripe]

You should perhaps express some regrets for the lost billions of what you suppose to be "people" and I do not.

Those who endorse murder will seek any nonsense to keep the spotlight off their insane ideas.

You propose the "addition" of personhood at some point after conception. You can never provide any evidence that would back up your metaphysical invention, while you reject the facts of science: At conception, there is a new human being.

 

[alwight]

Those who endorse murder will seek any nonsense to keep the spotlight off their insane ideas.

You may think that billions of new human beings all perishing is trivial nonsense and nothing to worry about, but I wouldn't, which makes you about as heartless and callous as it is possible to be. Murderers are nice people compared to you Stripe. lain:

You propose the "addition" of personhood at some point after conception. You can never provide any evidence that would back up your metaphysical invention, while you reject the facts of science: At conception, there is a new human being.

Nonsense, yours is just a bald assertion but clearly and evidentially a central nervous system actually is a later addition and therefore logically so would be the person that would seem to inhabit it. And if it were damaged or shut down entirely then so would that person be, what better evidence do you expect?

 

[Crucible]

Those who endorse murder will seek any nonsense to keep the spotlight off their insane ideas.

You propose the "addition" of personhood at some point after conception. You can never provide any evidence that would back up your metaphysical invention, while you reject the facts of science: At conception, there is a new human being.

You think 'personhood' begins at the microscopic level.
Which is ridiculous.

The trinity of a person does not come together all at once. First, the soul preexisted, and then the body is made, and then they are animated by spirit.
It takes all three to make a person, and begin 'personhood'. This happens, most logically, at labor.

 

[Stripe]

Nonsense.

Your words, in fact. You propose — sans evidence, you will never be able to gain any — that personhood is "added" sometime after conception. This is an unsupportable, metaphysical claim based on your desire to endorse murder.

Yours is just a bald assertion.

Biological fact, as it turns out. And something you concede. At conception, there is a human.

You agree with this, remember?

Clearly and evidentially a central nervous system actually is a later addition and therefore logically so would be the person that would seem to inhabit it.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You cannot establish that personhood is added without assuming the truth of your notion that a somewhat-developed CNS is required. Not to mention the problem of exactly how developed the baby has to be before you'll concede personhood.

If it were damaged or shut down entirely then so would that person be?

Dead.

Thanks for defeating your own argument.

What better evidence do you expect?

We expect you to support your ideas. However, your notion is that an intangible trait — personhood — is added at some time after conception. You can never gain evidence for such a notion. You've just invented a concept to provide cover for your pro-death agenda.

 

[Stripe]

You think 'personhood' begins at the microscopic level.
Which is ridiculous.

The trinity of a person does not come together all at once. First, the soul preexisted, and then the body is made, and then they are animated by spirit.
It takes all three to make a person, and begin 'personhood'. This happens, most logically, at labor.

Evidence, remember?

At conception, we have a new human being.

Making up stuff where there is no possibility of offering evidence is just noise, which confuses the personhood agenda.