IGX

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:LOL "death cultists", says the guy who's defending abortion.

Pretty sure that early-term abortion opposition is tied exclusively to being a certain subset of religious.

...of religions representing a pretty wide majority of Christians.

Which suggests that the position is based on religious adherence, not reason. People not in the club aren't going to share that position.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:LOL "death cultists", says the guy who's defending abortion.

Fish in a fucking barrel.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:LOL "death cultists", says the guy who's defending abortion.

Pretty sure that early-term abortion opposition is tied exclusively to being a certain subset of religious.

...of religions representing a pretty wide majority of Christians.

Which suggests that the position is based on religious adherence, not reason. People not in the club aren't going to share that position.

I don't disagree with you. As we both know, the position (that life begins at conception) is not based on reason; it is based on logically answering a reasonable question. Life with independent value has to begin at some point and for some reason, and traditional Christians define their position much better than their opponents. The anvil holds up well against the hammer.

Approach it from the opposite end:

What condition is considered reasonable for removing a living being from life support?

When regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity has ceased.

When does regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity begin in a fetus?

Testiclaw wrote:Approach it from the opposite end:

What condition is considered reasonable for removing a living being from life support?

When regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity has ceased.

When does regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity begin in a fetus?

More to the point....when will IGX faux Xtians shows signs of consistent brainwave activity?

Christian a la carte

Testiclaw wrote:Approach it from the opposite end:

What condition is considered reasonable for removing a living being from life support?

When regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity has ceased.

When does regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity begin in a fetus?

Between 12-25 weeks (depending on how you define it-- I briefly looked at several sources). So is your position that life begins when regular, normal, repeated brainwave activity begins?

If that's when, legally and medically, life is considered to end, it would follow that, yes, that is the beginning.

Testiclaw wrote:If that's when, legally and medically, life is considered to end, it would follow that, yes, that is the beginning.

So you consider the unborn fetus to have independent value at that point? Does a pregnant woman have a responsibility to protect that life at that point? Does society have a responsibility to protect that life at that point?

Even if I did, which I don't, I'd say no.

And the reason for bodily autonomy is comparable to organ donation, that I posted previously.

Even if a dead body has the resources to save a life, or two lives, or ten, unless the deceased opted to be a donor ahead of time, their bodily autonomy is protected, even after death.

With that in mind, I believe it's a violation of bodily autonomy to force a living being, even a mother, to use her body's resources to promote a life if she chooses not to.

Testiclaw wrote:Even if I did, which I don't, I'd say no.

And the reason for bodily autonomy is comparable to organ donation, that I posted previously.

Even if a dead body has the resources to save a life, or two lives, or ten, unless the deceased opted to be a donor ahead of time, their bodily autonomy is protected, even after death.

With that in mind, I believe it's a violation of bodily autonomy to force a living being, even a mother, to use her body's resources to promote a life if she chooses not to.

Fair enough. When does the mother's obligation to protect the child begin, or does it? And why does a human life have value?

When the child is born, when it becomes its own autonomous being.

Why does a human life have value? That's going to be a different answer for everybody.

For some people, psychopaths, it doesn't.

One point of clarification;

I don't reason myself into the abortion issue with a lot of ease. I do see it as an entity, and I struggle with the question, entirely.

My reasoning leads me to my position, but it isn't something I believe because I don't care or don't see it as anything but a clump of cells.

*Of course* it's more than that.

So, for what it's worth, I'm not calloused to the topic.

Testiclaw wrote:One point of clarification;

I don't reason myself into the abortion issue with a lot of ease. I do see it as an entity, and I struggle with the question, entirely.

My reasoning leads me to my position, but it isn't something I believe because I don't care or don't see it as anything but a clump of cells.

*Of course* it's more than that.

So, for what it's worth, I'm not calloused to the topic.

I agree that it's not an easy issue, and to your point, I think it's an issue that reason can't fully answer. But re the value of human life, that is a question that each society must answer.

Turdacious wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:One point of clarification;

I don't reason myself into the abortion issue with a lot of ease. I do see it as an entity, and I struggle with the question, entirely.

My reasoning leads me to my position, but it isn't something I believe because I don't care or don't see it as anything but a clump of cells.

*Of course* it's more than that.

So, for what it's worth, I'm not calloused to the topic.

I agree that it's not an easy issue, and to your point, I think it's an issue that reason can't fully answer. But re the value of human life, that is a question that each society must answer.

Completely agree, although I don't think any society really can.

They'll come to different determinations at different times, in different contexts, and I imagine the "line" will go up and down, well, forever.

What you're talking about is really what IS Human life...not what's its value.

That's where there is fundamental disagreement between the the crazy Pope Paul extrusions and the 3rd trimester All Abortion All the time crowd.

There's sound science upon which reasonable people can make a reasoned judgement that a barely fertilized egg is NOT human life and a nearly surviving outside the women fetus probably IS human life. What gets in the way if this discussion is not rationality, it's doctrine and dogma. As Turd so ably demonstrates, when all your answers are based in Dogma, all conclusions are impervious to critique.

And THAT"s where the comparison between genital mutilation and abortion is absolutely coherent and correct. Some death cults are more susceptible to enlightenment, others not so much.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:What you're talking about is really what IS Human life...not what's its value.

That's where there is fundamental disagreement between the the crazy Pope Paul extrusions and the 3rd trimester All Abortion All the time crowd.

There's sound science upon which reasonable people can make a reasoned judgement that a barely fertilized egg is NOT human life and a nearly surviving outside the women fetus probably IS human life. What gets in the way if this discussion is not rationality, it's doctrine and dogma. As Turd so ably demonstrates, when all your answers are based in Dogma, all conclusions are impervious to critique.

That would require ignoring the central Christian dogma.

I know Xtian-Dogma requires you suspend disbelief in all things useful and true...but just play along. Reason and inquiry can be so damn effective.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I know Xtian-Dogma requires you suspend disbelief in all things useful and true...but just play along. Reason and inquiry can be so damn effective.

Because my religion doesn't believe in reason and inquiry?

A Slippery fuck like you? No idea what flavor of dogma you favor. You revise your narrative and dodge the point at every turn, it's impossible to say. You've such a gift for obfuscation that I can only assume you worship a golden phallus of Reagan while flagellating yourself with reproduction cat o' nine tails.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:A Slippery fuck like you? No idea what flavor of dogma you favor. You revise your narrative and dodge the point at every turn, it's impossible to say. You've such a gift for obfuscation that I can only assume you worship a golden phallus of Reagan while flagellating yourself with reproduction cat o' nine tails.

Mark 12:29-31.

It doesn't get more central than that; that's Christianity 101. If you're going to criticize Christianity, you might want to learn some of the basics first.

Turdacious wrote:Because my religion doesn't believe in reason and inquiry?

I think you just invented the oxymoron sentence.

Oh I know that one. Turd.

I wonder what tools of rationality you used to stretch that paltry summary of love your neighbor and your god to extend "Human Status" to a thimble full of ooze, while fucking over the neighbor carrying said ooze? Sounds like you're ready to dole out some love and kindness with irrational judgement based on a slim assumption of the totality of the 12th Chapter of Mark. But then.... I still don't buy that YOU love your neighbor or your god. Lets not forget you're the good Xtian boy who argued in favor of torture.

Yeah...um. No. I'm pretty much convinced you are all in on the Reagan Phallus Dogma.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Oh I know that one. Turd.

I wonder what tools of rationality you used to stretch that paltry summary of love your neighbor and your god to extend "Human Status" to a thimble full of ooze, while fucking over the neighbor carrying said ooze? Sounds like you're ready to dole out some love and kindness with irrational judgement based on a slim assumption of the totality of the 12th Chapter of Mark. But then.... I still don't buy that YOU love your neighbor or your god. Lets not forget you're the good Xtian boy who argued in favor of torture.

Yeah...um. No. I'm pretty much convinced you are all in on the Reagan Phallus Dogma.

You use phrases like 'thimble full of ooze' and expect to be taken seriously?

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Oh I know that one. Turd.

I wonder what tools of rationality you used to stretch that paltry summary of love your neighbor and your god to extend "Human Status" to a thimble full of ooze, while fucking over the neighbor carrying said ooze? Sounds like you're ready to dole out some love and kindness with irrational judgement based on a slim assumption of the totality of the 12th Chapter of Mark. But then.... I still don't buy that YOU love your neighbor or your god. Lets not forget you're the good Xtian boy who argued in favor of torture.

Yeah...um. No. I'm pretty much convinced you are all in on the Reagan Phallus Dogma.

You use phrases like 'thimble full of ooze' and expect to be taken seriously?

The best part about my being largely correct on the science and utterly consistent in the rationale is that I can be both funny and dismissive of your incredibly weak position without needing you to take me seriously. It's been years since you engaged in good faith on anything. But if we're BEING SERIOUS>>>>I'm a little concerned you didn't take issue with the Reagan Phallus. On that front, I was (perhaps mistakenly) kidding.

is it really gold?