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".
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.
