Are You A Good Man....

[Zymologist]

Nothing "arbitrary" about it at all. A potential person is not an actual person. If brain function is a criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning. Some would argue that this does not occur until self awareness.



Ah, back to the good old-fashioned shock/horror rhetoric so beloved of the pro-birthers.

Fetal brain activity only begins to exhibit regular wave patterns at around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons. There's no pain. How can be pain when there's no functioning brain, dummy?

Just the other day, you said to seer:

And I find it extraordinary that you have the arrogance to tell shunya what he should be believing about his own faith when it is his belief system not yours.

Seriously, what is it with you and telling people their "real" reasons for believing and arguing something? You do this all the time on this subject.

I'm pro-life. I oppose abortion. I do not do it for the sole reason you ever attribute to pro-lifers. The only side I ever see bring up personhood in this debate is the side that wants the freedom to kill something.

[Jedidiah]

The only side I ever see bring up personhood in this debate is the side that wants the freedom to kill something.

There are, or have been, some semi pro life folks who tried to use that concept as justification for early abortions. But even then it was only an argument which would support abortion. Pro abortion people are indeed the almost exclusive users of the idea, and then normally as a straw man to make fun of anti abortion people.

[Tassman]

I'm pro-life. I oppose abortion. I do not do it for the sole reason you ever attribute to pro-lifers.

Indeed! Statistically, the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons.

The only side I ever see bring up personhood in this debate is the side that wants the freedom to kill something.

That is the majority of people and not in order "to kill something" but because the woman has the right to choose...within certain legal parameters. .

[lilpixieofterror]

This puzzles me: Do you know you are lying here, or are you literally that stupid and that ignorant that you think you're telling the truth? Even an average person who'd spent 5 minutes studying the abortion debates would know this was totally untrue, so I don't understand what you think you are gaining by making statements that absolutely everyone knows are false and wrong.

In other words you're too stupid to refute it and hoping that the rest of us buy into your denial. Sorry, but Bill is right and your attempts to poison the well will not change that reality. Now refute the argument or admit that you can't.

[Sea of red]

In other words you're too stupid to refute it and hoping that the rest of us buy into your denial. Sorry, but Bill is right and your attempts to poison the well will not change that reality. Now refute the argument or admit that you can't.

Why? All you're going to do is call him a baby killer for ten pages.

[Starlight]

Now refute the argument or admit that you can't.

Go boil your head. I'm not interested in talking to you, ever. Go troll someone else.

I would have you on ignore, but this site is so crappy that that feature is too broken to work on you.

[Roy]

Indeed! Statistically, the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons.

I suggest you investigate the correlation / causation fallacy.

[seer]

Why? All you're going to do is call him a baby killer for ten pages.

If you support killing babies, well....

[seer]

Nothing "arbitrary" about it at all. A potential person is not an actual person. If brain function is a criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning. Some would argue that this does not occur until self awareness.

Of course it is arbitrary you just demonstrated that in your quote. When does one become a person - when she has brain waves or when she becomes self aware? And what degree of self-awareness? Does the new born have to pass the mirror test before she has human rights and is allowed to live?

[lilpixieofterror]

Why? All you're going to do is call him a baby killer for ten pages.

When someone continues to try to attack others for moral failures while advocating for the slaughtering of infants, it's perfectly reasonable to point out the giant log jammed firmly in their eye. If you want to continue to make excuses for someone advocating killing infants though, King Herod could use your defense. Does your hatred of me really matter so much that you'll make excuses for child killing? Wow, that tells me all I need to know about you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Go boil your head. I'm not interested in talking to you, ever. Go troll someone else.

I would have you on ignore, but this site is so crappy that that feature is too broken to work on you.

What's the problem, tired of having your moral failures pointed out before all?

[Zymologist]

Indeed! Statistically, the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons.



That is the majority of people and not in order "to kill something" but because the woman has the right to choose...within certain legal parameters. .

So you're going to double down on your arrogant claim (I'm using your own words, here) that you know what people believe better than they do? Or are you just calling the "majority" of pro-lifers liars?

[Sparko]

Nothing "arbitrary" about it at all. A potential person is not an actual person. If brain function is a criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning. Some would argue that this does not occur until self awareness.

your criteria for determining that a human being is or is not an "actual person" is arbitrary and not scientific. It is emotional claptrap that you try to rationalize your nonscientific views with. "Personhood" is not even a scientific term. It is a legal one. Your entire argument for abortion is emotional not scientific.

[Jedidiah]

Indeed! Statistically, the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons.

I am a Christian and I oppose abortion. The problem with this from your perspective is that I was still an atheist when I realized that abortion is actually the killing of a child. At that point, years before I became a Christian, I rejected abortion. I am inclined to think the Bible opposes abortion, but my real rationale is the scientific facts - and the purely arbitrary excuses of the pro abortion side.

That is the majority of people and not in order "to kill something" but because the woman has the right to choose...within certain legal parameters. .

What does the "woman" have the right to choose? She has the right to kill something, nothing else.

[Leonhard]

Indeed! Statistically, the majority of those who oppose abortion are Christian (i.e. Catholic or Evangelical) and hence they oppose it for presumably religious reasons.

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've heard out of you in a long time.

Of course we've asked for those 'religious reasons' for a long, long, long time. And all the time you find other threads to post in instead. Catholics base their ethics on natural philosophy, from which you it is shown that killing is immoral, and terminating an abortion is likewise.

The reason Christians are a bit more neutral and clear in their head about these issues is because their number one concern isn't how to have sex with as many different kinds of things and people as possible, with abortion as a prevention to stop consequences from getting in the way of that freedom.