• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Abortion

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Technically you'd be the one sounding like a slaver because you are going on about your rights to inhibit the rights of another living / breathing human being.

So, we're back to the question of whether or not a fetal child is living?
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.
And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.
Tom
There was nothing about their specific biological form that put them on the boats. Other people made a decision to take free humans, subjugate them, and put them on boats.

The decision to have an orgasm is not a decision "to have a child".
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.
And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.
Tom
There was nothing about their specific biological form that put them on the boats. Other people made a decision to take free humans, subjugate them, and put them on boats.

The decision to have an orgasm is not a decision "to have a child".

"Other people made a decision" is the key phrase here. You doesn't seem to understand that fetal children don't make any decisions. You think that they "walk up and implant themselves"

I've had lots of orgasms that didn't have any risk of parenthood. Even back when I was having sex with women, I knew that only one particular form of sex carried that risk. There are other ways to achieve orgasm. And plenty of people get pregnant without getting the orgasm, sadly enough.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.
And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.
Tom
There was nothing about their specific biological form that put them on the boats. Other people made a decision to take free humans, subjugate them, and put them on boats.

The decision to have an orgasm is not a decision "to have a child".

"Other people made a decision" is the key phrase here. You doesn't seem to understand that fetal children don't make any decisions. You think that they "walk up and implant themselves"

I've had lots of orgasms that didn't have any risk of parenthood. Even back when I was having sex with women, I knew that only one particular form of sex carried that risk. There are other ways to achieve orgasm. And plenty of people get pregnant without getting the orgasm, sadly enough.
Tom
You claim that fetal children don't make decisions, but I recognize that their activity is a function of their own form acting upon it's environment is the responsibility of such a thing acting as a function of it's form.

It does these things because it can and is configured in such a way that it will, and so it is responsible insofar as it does this thing for what it does.

It does not matter that the uterus is dressed provocatively or invitingly, it is owned by an administrator that says no, and who will act accordingly once the squatter is detected.

It is not innocent of the things it has done by its nature, and it is only by the mercy of others it may continue.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Do you even understand where babies come from?

Here's where babies come from:

View attachment 38764

Now you can explain why this little blob of protoplasm, invisible to the naked eye, now has more rights in some places than an actual living breathing human being with memories, preferences, pleasures, pains, friends, family and loved ones.
What a silly idea.

You claim that fetal children don't make decisions,

Jarhyn, do you and Elixir have the same understanding of fetal children? It looks to me like you're contradicting each other.

You think that they are in charge of the situation. Elixir doesn't seem to think so.

Lemme know when you come to an agreement.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.
And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.
Tom
There was nothing about their specific biological form that put them on the boats. Other people made a decision to take free humans, subjugate them, and put them on boats.

The decision to have an orgasm is not a decision "to have a child".

"Other people made a decision" is the key phrase here. You doesn't seem to understand that fetal children don't make any decisions. You think that they "walk up and implant themselves"

I've had lots of orgasms that didn't have any risk of parenthood. Even back when I was having sex with women, I knew that only one particular form of sex carried that risk. There are other ways to achieve orgasm. And plenty of people get pregnant without getting the orgasm, sadly enough.
Great... what does any of that have to do with your desire to usurp the self-autonomy of a woman?
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Great... what does any of that have to do with your desire to usurp the self-autonomy of a woman?
I don't have any more desire to usurp the self-autonomy of women than men. And I don't consider requiring parents to take responsibility for the choices they made usurping anything.

When competent adults make choices that involve other people they have a moral obligation to take care of the results.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Do you even understand where babies come from?

Here's where babies come from:

View attachment 38764

Now you can explain why this little blob of protoplasm, invisible to the naked eye, now has more rights in some places than an actual living breathing human being with memories, preferences, pleasures, pains, friends, family and loved ones.
What a silly idea.

You claim that fetal children don't make decisions,

Jarhyn, do you and Elixir have the same understanding of fetal children? It looks to me like you're contradicting each other.

You think that they are in charge of the situation. Elixir doesn't seem to think so.

Lemme know when you come to an agreement.
Tom
I expect that it's biological activity is in charge of itself. It would have a responsibility in fact to abort itself, were it to find it were imposing so. It does not, and throws itself on the mercy of the body which is gated in our ethics behind the mercy of the mind.

And so again, even were the fetus "TomC" and I tethered to you, and for you this a necessity for your survival, I would be within my rights to revoke this tether and leave you to die.

That the fetus does not know it is imposing is not a forgiveness of the imposition. Only the mercy of the mother is a forgiveness of it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Great... what does any of that have to do with your desire to usurp the self-autonomy of a woman?
I don't have any more desire to usurp the self-autonomy of women than men. And I don't consider requiring parents to take responsibility for the choices they made usurping anything.

When competent adults make choices that involve other people they have a moral obligation to take care of the results.
Tom
You are forcing a woman to have a baby regardless what she thinks. You want to call that making her "responsible", but it is nothing short of usurping the woman's autonomy over her own body because you think you are right.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
An orgasm is not a choice to be pregnant.

Absolutely true.
So why do you keep bringing it up?

And you do keep bringing it up. I don't.
Tom
Because you are saying that a woman's choice to have an orgasm (to be fair, often it doesn't get that far) is a choice to be pregnant.

It's not.

Quit pretending like this isn't what this is about.

The choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant, to let something implant and remain.

Something may, as a result, come across their genital tract seeking mercy of the owner as a result.

But to have sex is not to agree to take that thing in, nor to let it stay once it has, of its own mechaniations, deigned to implant.

It is an eviction and while cold, I am not going to expect people to give such mercy because it is not without cost.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Because you are saying that a woman's choice to have an orgasm

I stopped bothering playing around with your nonsense at this point.

I've never said any such thing. You keep changing the subject from what I've posted to your nonsensical strawman bullshit.

I'm sure I know why.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Because you are saying that a woman's choice to have an orgasm

I stopped bothering playing around with your nonsense at this point.

I've never said any such thing. You keep changing the subject from what I've posted to your nonsensical strawman bullshit.

I'm sure I know why.
Tom

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything that they didn't choose.
Having sex is not that choice. The choice to have a child is to say "I wish to get pregnant" getting pregnant, and bearing the pregnancy to the point of viability and birth.

The consent to remain pregnant is the choice, and the only choice here that matters ethically.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Having sex is not that choice.
No, it's not.
I've had tons of sex that had nothing to do with pregnancy.

It's only one particular kind of sex. Do you really not understand that?
Tom
No, it's not even "that kind of sex". Only the explicit choice to get pregnant is that choice. IF AND ONLY IF someone explicitly decides "I wish to be pregnant" is that choice made, and only insofar as they wish to continue to be, right up to the point where waffling would cause a living maimed child to fall on someone else's mercy.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
No, it's not even "that kind of sex". Only the explicit choice to get pregnant is that choice. IF AND ONLY IF someone explicitly decides "I wish to be pregnant" is that choice made, and only insofar as they wish to continue to be, right up to the point where waffling would cause a living maimed child to fall on someone else's mercy.
I see that as evil.

Like driving away after hitting a pedestrian with your car because you didn't choose to be the cause of a fatality. They walked into your car. Why should you bother with them? You got a right to drive your car. If they bleed out on the pavement that is their choice.

That's how I see your ethics.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You are forcing a woman to have a baby regardless what she thinks.
No I'm not.
You are forcing a pregnant woman to have a baby regardless what she thinks.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything that they didn't choose.
That is a very tortured and intellectually dishonest use of the word "choose". You are trying desperately to spin forcing a woman to endure pregnancy, birth, and the short/long-term issues because you believe you have a choice in the matter. You should have no say.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
That is a very tortured and intellectually dishonest use of the word "choose".
How is it different from using the word "choose" in the sentence, "If you choose to drive a car you are choosing responsibility if you hit a pedestrian"?
You are trying desperately to spin forcing a woman to endure pregnancy, birth, and the short/long-term issues because you believe you have a choice in the matter.
No I'm not. I'm trying to point out that potentially fertile sex is a choice with ramifications. Like driving a car is a choice with ramifications.

You should have no say.


I disagree. Just as I think I have some say in motorists choosing to drive but then choosing to drive off and leave a pedestrian to bleed.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
That is a very tortured and intellectually dishonest use of the word "choose".
How is it different from using the word "choose" in the sentence, "If you choose to drive a car you are choosing responsibility if you hit a pedestrian"?
You mean like a couple that used a condom that broke or the woman was on birth control, but still got pregnant. Choosing to have sex is not choosing to raise a child.
Just as I think I have some say in motorists choosing to drive but then choosing to drive off and leave a pedestrian to bleed.
You'd be describing a crime there. Having sex, not a crime (well gay sex may be again soon). Getting pregnant, also not a crime. So why are you bringing up parallels involving crime with getting pregnant? Some attempt to juxtaposition conception with a hit and run in order to provide cover for your dystopian view that pregnant women should be forced to have a child?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
No, it's not even "that kind of sex". Only the explicit choice to get pregnant is that choice. IF AND ONLY IF someone explicitly decides "I wish to be pregnant" is that choice made, and only insofar as they wish to continue to be, right up to the point where waffling would cause a living maimed child to fall on someone else's mercy.
I see that as evil.

Like driving away after hitting a pedestrian with your car because you didn't choose to be the cause of a fatality. They walked into your car. Why should you bother with them? You got a right to drive your car. If they bleed out on the pavement that is their choice.

That's how I see your ethics.
Tom
Because hit and run is illegal. You are under no legal obligation to render aid, nor ethical obligation. You are painting ethically neutral decisions as evil.

Your obligation is to be observed for the fact that you hit a pedestrian, and to call the authorities to say a pedestrian is hit.

But the driver is not obligated to get out, nor render aid. Their obligation is to report their reckless driving to society, and stay put. People present a desire and power to give mercy to the struck pedestrian and even if the driver refuses to give that mercy, it is the right of others to come in and offer it and to have the knowledge that it is there to offer.

It is not my responsibility to let a zygote grow, even if I make a billion of them.

The decision to have sex is not the decision to let a zygote implant in your body. It is not the decision to be pregnant. It is not ever the decision to be pregnant.

The only thing that is a decision to be pregnant is the explicit decision to be so. Even if that decision to be so might involve sex, the sex is still not the decision.

Anything else is being forced to be pregnant.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
No, it's not even "that kind of sex". Only the explicit choice to get pregnant is that choice. IF AND ONLY IF someone explicitly decides "I wish to be pregnant" is that choice made, and only insofar as they wish to continue to be, right up to the point where waffling would cause a living maimed child to fall on someone else's mercy.
I see that as evil.

Like driving away after hitting a pedestrian with your car because you didn't choose to be the cause of a fatality. They walked into your car. Why should you bother with them? You got a right to drive your car. If they bleed out on the pavement that is their choice.

That's how I see your ethics.
Tom
Because hit and run is illegal. You are under no legal obligation to render aid, nor ethical obligation. You are painting ethically neutral decisions as evil.

Your obligation is to be observed for the fact that you hit a pedestrian, and to call the authorities to say a pedestrian is hit.

But the driver is not obligated to get out, nor render aid. Their obligation is to report their reckless driving to society, and stay put. People present a desire and power to give mercy to the struck pedestrian and even if the driver refuses to give that mercy, it is the right of others to come in and offer it and to have the knowledge that it is there to offer.

It is not my responsibility to let a zygote grow, even if I make a billion of them.

The decision to have sex is not the decision to let a zygote implant in your body. It is not the decision to be pregnant. It is not ever the decision to be pregnant.

The only thing that is a decision to be pregnant is the explicit decision to be so. Even if that decision to be so might involve sex, the sex is still not the decision.

Anything else is being forced to be pregnant.

I find you as morally ugly as an 18th century slaver. It wasn't illegal to kill a non-white person then, either. Because "rights"!
Property rights.

Rights are rights.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
No, it's not even "that kind of sex". Only the explicit choice to get pregnant is that choice. IF AND ONLY IF someone explicitly decides "I wish to be pregnant" is that choice made, and only insofar as they wish to continue to be, right up to the point where waffling would cause a living maimed child to fall on someone else's mercy.
I see that as evil.

Like driving away after hitting a pedestrian with your car because you didn't choose to be the cause of a fatality. They walked into your car. Why should you bother with them? You got a right to drive your car. If they bleed out on the pavement that is their choice.

That's how I see your ethics.
Tom
Because hit and run is illegal. You are under no legal obligation to render aid, nor ethical obligation. You are painting ethically neutral decisions as evil.

Your obligation is to be observed for the fact that you hit a pedestrian, and to call the authorities to say a pedestrian is hit.

But the driver is not obligated to get out, nor render aid. Their obligation is to report their reckless driving to society, and stay put. People present a desire and power to give mercy to the struck pedestrian and even if the driver refuses to give that mercy, it is the right of others to come in and offer it and to have the knowledge that it is there to offer.

It is not my responsibility to let a zygote grow, even if I make a billion of them.

The decision to have sex is not the decision to let a zygote implant in your body. It is not the decision to be pregnant. It is not ever the decision to be pregnant.

The only thing that is a decision to be pregnant is the explicit decision to be so. Even if that decision to be so might involve sex, the sex is still not the decision.

Anything else is being forced to be pregnant.

I find you as morally ugly as an 18th century slaver. It wasn't illegal to kill a non-white person then, either. Because "rights"!
Property rights.

Rights are rights.
Tom
And I find your slavery Godwin droll. I will always find in favor of the person whose organs are being squatted upon.

To decide otherwise is already an evil step over the precipice to forced organ donation in general: we can force a woman to donate use of her organs to a fetus, how much more does it authorize us to force a meager donation of a kidney to save this person?

They have the power to help! They are the only one there.

Do I care that a chemical reaction started? No!

I don't believe in an afterlife. Why should I care that something died? I care that something not be forced to live miserably.

I do not care so much for anyone I would find their rights above that of someone being asked to, and refusing to, donate organs.

If I stabbed both of your kidneys and I was the only person who would be able to donate to you and you were the god king emperor of all creation or whatever, I don't think I would be obligated to donate you my kidneys.

I wouldn't obligate anyone to donate even if they were the cause of the failure.

I would try them for murder.

I might imprison them for life, in the knowledge that there is so little trust that might be had for such a person ever again, or even deign that we ought execute them.

I would still not allow, so long as I had the power to deny, the harvesting of organs even from such a person as stabbed someone else's.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If I stabbed both of your kidneys and I was the only person who would be able to donate to you
You'd still feel like a victim.

You'd still feel entitled to do whatever you feel like doing.

Empathy would still be beyond your cultural limits. Because you're woke.

And Wokesters don't care about anyone but themselves.

You could stab me in the kidneys and it wouldn't matter because no matter what you Choose, you're the victim. You're entitled to do anything you want. Anybody who disagrees with you is an enemy to be destroyed.

You are so American it makes me sick. But I'm stuck with people like you. Like Marjorie Taylor Greene, I can't do much about you and your opinions.
Tom
I empathize with people you refuse to even acknowledge as people despite your ostensible live of freedom. I would acknowledge the rights of a fucking machine to exist as itself, if it could outside my mercy.

I won't acknowledge anyone's right to force someone to providing such.

I am not going to force someone to donate organs to anyone, even someone they have grievously wronged.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Then you have an undefined term: "a life".
I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.
If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.
I just did, but you missed it.
Huh? You said you didn't need to provide one, then you turned around and said you did provide one--but I see no definition here other than my reference to pornography. You know it when you see it is not a definition!
Okay, go back and read the part about baby tonsils. The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life. Tonsils, whether in my throat or in a bowl, cannot do that.

If you want your pornography claim to be taken seriously, please provide a few examples of things that are porn and things that are not.

Cancer can replicate itself--see Henrietta Lacks for an extreme example. Thus her tumor is a life.

As for my pornography bit--you have it backwards. I'm saying you're basically saying you recognize a life when you see it but you can't define it.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This stupid bickering match over "life" doesn't accomplish anything.

Perhaps we can acknowledge that we don't really care about "a life" or "life" in the first place.
It's the pro-life crowd that cares about it, never mind that they can't define it properly.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I find you as morally ugly as an 18th century slaver. It wasn't illegal to kill a non-white person then, either. Because "rights"!
Property rights.

Rights are rights.
Tom
And why doesn't the egg have rights?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
No I'm not. I'm trying to point out that potentially fertile sex is a choice with ramifications. Like driving a car is a choice with ramifications.
you've said this sort of thing many times before across multiple threads, and it always stuck out to me as odd if not slightly incongruous, that someone who is ostensibly not shackled to religious indoctrination still has such an ardent adherence to the notion that a sperm hitting an egg causes some kind of transcendent moment to occur.

so this isn't a trap and i'm not asking this rhetorically just to try to set you up:
can you explain that, even in a cliff's notes version?
what is your reason for finding fertilization so sacrosanct?
is it just a god thing? or is there some naturalistic/humanist hibbidy-jibbidy at play here?

your insistence that fertilization must be allowed to proceed is, to say the least, baffling. i would love some kind of reasoning for it.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,233
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.
Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.

All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.

Apparently.
The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.
Or an inescapable logical flaw in your definition, that you have no reasonable response to.

It’s OK; I have yet to see any adequate definition of life, and suspect that this is because life is an entirely fictional human construct, and not a characteristic of reality at all.
No, it's still an absurd false equivalency and now you've gone on to propose that life is something created from corporate memory.

You ask a chicken or the egg question, then claim it's not a chicken and there never was an egg.
I didn’t ask any such question.

Life has never been rigorously defined, and probably can’t be. It’s one of those ‘I know it when I see it’ things; An attempt to impose a strict dichotomy onto a spectrum of conditions, that always fails to both include everything that we want to include, and/or to exclude everything we want to include.

This isn’t something I still have questions about; I have put a lot of time and effort in to reach this conclusion, and I am highly confident in it.

Few people like it. That doesn’t make it wrong. Nobody seems able to refute it. That strongly suggests that it’s right.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,233
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Choices that are very well understood by competent adults
If you imagine that most adults are competent, particularly at the point where they are enjoying sexual behaviour, then you are very sorely mistaken.

People like to rationalise their behaviour as ‘well understood choices’ after the fact; But the observation that women have FAR fewer pregnancies when they have access to contraception that requires no action ‘in the heat of the moment’ is solid and undeniable evidence that choices made at that point are not reasoned or rational.

Humans aren’t good at thinking things through, nor are they competent at risk assessment, except in very rare circumstances when emotional states are particularly calm and stable.

Humans are VERY good at kidding themselves that whatever they just did, they thought through and did for sound (but often convoluted) reasons. Lying to ourselves is what humans do best.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,233
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
No I'm not. I'm trying to point out that potentially fertile sex is a choice with ramifications. Like driving a car is a choice with ramifications.
you've said this sort of thing many times before across multiple threads, and it always stuck out to me as odd if not slightly incongruous, that someone who is ostensibly not shackled to religious indoctrination still has such an ardent adherence to the notion that a sperm hitting an egg causes some kind of transcendent moment to occur.

so this isn't a trap and i'm not asking this rhetorically just to try to set you up:
can you explain that, even in a cliff's notes version?
what is your reason for finding fertilization so sacrosanct?
is it just a god thing? or is there some naturalistic/humanist hibbidy-jibbidy at play here?

your insistence that fertilization must be allowed to proceed is, to say the least, baffling. i would love some kind of reasoning for it.
He was indoctrinated by Catholics as a child.

He will claim that this isn’t a current element of his position; And I have no doubt that he honestly believes that.

But oddly, the arguments he presents have an almost exact correlation with Catholic upbringing - people who were raised Catholic often make them, while people who were not never do. Which is utterly inexplicable, unless we accept that a Catholic upbringing breaks the ability to reason (it is of course not alone in that; But it’s the largest and most successful such organisation, at least in the Western world).

Having spent over a thousand years perfecting their brainwashing techniques, should we be surprised that they are very effective? Even to the point of still driving the beliefs of people who honestly think they have broken free?
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
what is your reason for finding fertilization so sacrosanct?
That's not it.
It's human beings that are sacrosanct(whatever that means).

I know enough elementary biology to know when an individual human being comes into existence. I value all of them. We are all somewhere on the trajectory from fertilization to death. People feeling entitled to choose death for other people is anathema to morality.

At least my morality. Obviously, not everyone agrees. Plenty of people don't see that as a moral issue. Jarhyn and Putin and the Uvalde shooter come to mind. Some people feel entitled to choose death for other people.

I don't. That's why I'm a ProLifer.
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
He will claim that this isn’t a current element of his position; And I have no doubt that he honestly believes that.
Back in early 2003 the Pope declared Bush's Invasion of Iraq a crime against humanity. I agreed with him.

Do you think that's because I was brainwashed by the RCC?
Tom
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
It's human beings that are sacrosanct(whatever that means).
i'm not sure if you meant "whatever that means" to suggest "broadly speaking by whatever metric you choose" or you don't know what the word sacrosanct means - so i'll assume for the moment you meant the former.

either way, i don't want to be nit-picky or obtuse here because i appreciate you taking the time to reply about your personal stance on an issue, but i'm afraid i don't feel like you answered my question.
you just stated what i already know... that you find human life transcendent from the moment of fertilization. what i asked is why, what your functional rationale is for this position.
what's the underlying philosophy that causes that viewpoint?
i ask because in every other instance of that point of view i've ever encountered, the answer is 'god' but you keep claiming that is not your reason, and i can't possibly imagine what it could be otherwise.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
that you find human life transcendent
You could stop right there.

Because I do.

Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, useful or not, American or not, white or not,

Yeah. I value human individuals. All of them. More than I value people's rights to do whatever they want to do.

To me, this is the grand sweep of moral improvement and sophistication. Leaving people out of the Human Family is the old, primitive, ethics and moral principles. Including everyone, including fetal children, is better. Same as including women and black people improved the USA. The more people we include in the Family of Humanity the better off we are as a whole.

Like the genocidal slavers of yore, you might disagree.

So, it's not that fertilization is sacrosanct. It's that human beings are. And while you might think that fetal children are unimportant, like 18th century Christians thought that indigenous people were unimportant, I disagree.
I probably won't change my mind.
Tom
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,296
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.
If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.

Everything is invariably fatal. And couldn't a sterile be cloned?
/extreme contrarian ludicrousity

There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.

The only clear fact to me, is that humans bandy words like "life" around without a second thought as to what it means. It is far more nebulous than say, "car". But to most folks, it's all plain to see; a cow is alive, a rock is dead. Slime mold is ... well, never mind. Nobody really has to deal with slime mold in real life.

Invincible ignorance is gong to kill us all. :)
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
And so again, even were the fetus "TomC" and I tethered to you, and for you this a necessity for your survival, I would be within my rights to revoke this tether and leave you to die.
And if you ever tether me to you I will consider it my right to kill you and your whole family.

Possibly your whole city.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
that you find human life transcendent
You could stop right there.

Because I do.

Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, useful or not, American or not, white or not,

Yeah. I value human individuals. All of them. More than I value people's rights to do whatever they want to do.

To me, this is the grand sweep of moral improvement and sophistication. Leaving people out of the Human Family is the old, primitive, ethics and moral principles. Including everyone, including fetal children, is better. Same as including women and black people improved the USA. The more people we include in the Family of Humanity the better off we are as a whole.

Like the genocidal slavers of yore, you might disagree.

So, it's not that fertilization is sacrosanct. It's that human beings are. And while you might think that fetal children are unimportant, like 18th century Christians thought that indigenous people were unimportant, I disagree.
I probably won't change my mind.
Tom
ah, ok... so you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with, but you won't or can't give any kind of explanation or rationale for it, and you assume it means you are smugly superior to anyone who doesn't instantly abdicate to your authority on the matter.

thank you for laying that out for me and showing how utterly pointless it is to even attempt to engage with you intellectually, it'll save me a lot of time.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with,

It is:
"I value human individuals."

Humans have never been very good at that. We've gotten a little better over the last few centuries. But we're still not great at it.
Tom
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with,

It is:
"I value human individuals."

Humans have never been very good at that. We've gotten a little better over the last few centuries. But we're still not great at it.
Tom
no, it is:
"i claim to value human individuals. i can't or won't explain what 'value' means, nor how it applies to the real world. however, the fact that i have this random and ill-defined zeal means you must instantly capitulate to whatever judgment i have about a given situation or else i'll just resort to throwing out childish insults"
pretty big difference there.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,746
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
you have this belief that you use to verbally crucify anyone you disagree with,

It is:
"I value human individuals."

Humans have never been very good at that. We've gotten a little better over the last few centuries. But we're still not great at it.
Tom
no, it is:
"i claim to value human individuals. i can't or won't explain what 'value' means, nor how it applies to the real world. however, the fact that i have this random and ill-defined zeal means you must instantly capitulate to whatever judgment i have about a given situation or else i'll just resort to throwing out childish insults"
pretty big difference there.

Got it.
You don't value humans. You don't even know what value means.
 

pood

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
1,051
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
To compare pro-choice people to Putin, the Ulvade shooter, the genocidal salvers of yore, and to say they don’t value humans or even know what value means, is really sick, sick stuff.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Life has never been rigorously defined, and probably can’t be. It’s one of those ‘I know it when I see it’ things; An attempt to impose a strict dichotomy onto a spectrum of conditions, that always fails to both include everything that we want to include, and/or to exclude everything we want to include.

Yeah. Challenge to the pro-life side:

Define exactly what deserves protection and why.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I know enough elementary biology to know when an individual human being comes into existence. I value all of them. We are all somewhere on the trajectory from fertilization to death. People feeling entitled to choose death for other people is anathema to morality.

Identical twins, chimeras. At the moment you say an individual human being comes into existence you don't know whether that's actually going to be an individual human being or not.

At least my morality. Obviously, not everyone agrees. Plenty of people don't see that as a moral issue. Jarhyn and Putin and the Uvalde shooter come to mind. Some people feel entitled to choose death for other people.
Note that you are making a jump to "people". What exactly defines a person?

What property does the zygote possess that a brain dead "person" does not? (And, yes, there have been cases of brain dead people who were "alive". So long as some of the lower functions survive the body can continue on for a while (I've heard of over a year) even though there's no higher brain function. Family hauls the dead person to doctor after doctor looking for a different answer.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,003
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
that you find human life transcendent
You could stop right there.

Because I do.

Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, useful or not, American or not, white or not,

Yeah. I value human individuals. All of them. More than I value people's rights to do whatever they want to do.
Henrietta Lacks. She no doubt lives on in laboratories around the world. Person or not? And if not, why not?
 
Top Bottom