Lol. The egg produced by the woman's own body is called an invader. So only the sperm is mentioned infertilazation. Talk about selectively ignoring something.
Only discuss/respond to what you can defend. Ignore the stupid things you say. Brilliant.
Siding with Death
Posts
Total:
327
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what happens after birth is irrelevant to the conversation, all that is relevant is 2 people/animals had sex and the female is pregnant.
Who said anything about after birth?
Please elaborate on your intended illustration.
PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTYSelf-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life.is that definition acceptable or would you like to provide a different one?
Sure.
-->
@ethang5
Lol. The egg produced by the woman's own body is called an invader. So only the sperm is mentioned infertilazation. Talk about selectively ignoring something.Only discuss/respond to what you can defend. Ignore the stupid things you say. Brilliant.
You just ignored my entire explanation.
Which is perfectly fine.
This is commonly referred to as "dialog".
-->
@3RU7AL
you did in post #234Who said anything about after birth?
Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.Not every single human is capable of and or inclined towards reproduction.
by that definition the object in question must be part of the woman's body and can not be it's own separate thing. "Personal" refers to self, like my, me, mine.
-->
@3RU7AL
I destroyed your "explanation".You just ignored my entire explanation.
It was easy, as your "explanation" was obtuse stupidity. Ethan doesn't do stupid.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?
Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Animals often abandon and or eat some or all of their young under a variety of circumstances.Not every single human is capable of and or inclined towards reproduction.by that definition the object in question must be part of the woman's body and can not be it's own separate thing. "Personal" refers to self, like my, me, mine.
Please make your point.
If you're trying to say an embryo has "personal sovereignty",
Number one, in order to possess personal sovereignty you must be a legally competent adult.
Number two, even if you want to declare an embryo "personally sovereign" it is still violating the the "personal sovereignty" of the host home/country/body/womb.
"Personal sovereignty" does not mean that you can curl up inside someone else's home/country/body/womb.
-->
@SkepticalOne
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?
the biological purpose, don't omit the words I use because it takes what I say out of context.
Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.
checks like starvation and disease? I don't see a point here.
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
point is, the embryo must be part of the woman/woman's body for the woman to have personal sovereignty over it right? If it's not part of her body, then it's something independent separate entity or unique individual (single; separate)
we've agreed earlier that in an abortion something is killed, so is what's being killed part of the woman or something foreign?
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?the biological purpose, don't omit the words I use because it takes what I say out of context.Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.checks like starvation and disease? I don't see a point here.
The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is wrong. Evolution is geared towards genes, not individuals. Survival is a tool used by evolution to ensure reproduction. If every individual merely survived, the species would quickly become extinct. Notice that in most species, evolution has no use for the individual after reproduction.The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.
This is the danger of political correctness. So that their narrative succeeds, the liberal will contradict clear reality. A baby will become a mutated sperm that is "invading" the mother and needs to be "deported". Or here, where they fear that the reality that all of life is geared towards reproduction will be used as anti-homosexualism, the very purpose of life is denied.
Science, even clear science, is subverted to their dogma. Everything must bend to fit their narrative, even reality.
-->
@ethang5
Under which branch of evolutionary science does "a lump of clay growing a dick and screwing a rib" come under?
-->
@SkepticalOne
who said anything about every conception? This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you, I clearly said there are too many exceptions to deal with so i'm not going there.The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.
-->
@ethang5
This is wrong. Evolution is geared towards genes, not individuals. Survival is a tool used by evolution to ensure reproduction. If every individual merely survived, the species would quickly become extinct. Notice that in most species, evolution has no use for the individual after reproduction.
remember that species that survived but didn't reproduce? Me either.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?who said anything about every conception? This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you, I clearly said there are too many exceptions to deal with so i'm not going there.
-->
@SkepticalOne
another poster was incorrectly using the term foreign invader, then comparing it to cancer or other abnormal things. I never said denying the right to abort a pregnancy (3rd time correcting you now) perhaps go back and read from the beginning as I don't wish to constantly repeat myself.Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
...but I bet you do know of a species in which not all individuals reproduce.remember that species that survived but didn't reproduce? Me either.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
point is, the embryo must be part of the woman/woman's body for the woman to have personal sovereignty over it right? If it's not part of her body, then it's something independent separate entity or unique individual (single; separate)we've agreed earlier that in an abortion something is killed, so is what's being killed part of the woman or something foreign?
Even if you want to declare an embryo "personally sovereign" it is still violating the the "personal sovereignty" of the host home/country/body/womb.
"Personal sovereignty" does not mean that you can curl up inside someone else's sovereign home/country/body/womb.
By your proposed standard, a sovereign individual could never be incarcerated or deported or evicted.
If you are living in someone else's sovereign territory, and you are unwelcome, you must fend for yourself outside that territory.
The primary motive for abortion is not "killing".
The primary motive for abortion is deportation.
Just as the primary motive for taking a box of puppies to an animal shelter is not "killing", even though that is the most likely result.
-->
@SkepticalOne
irrelevant.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
With skep, that is the point.
-->
@ethang5
The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.This is wrong.
I agree. Evolution without some reproduction does not work. However, some reproduction is not the same as reproduction being required of every individual and this is certainly what we find in nature.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?another poster was incorrectly using the term foreign invader, then comparing it to cancer or other abnormal things. I never said denying the right to abort a pregnancy (3rd time correcting you now) perhaps go back and read from the beginning as I don't wish to constantly repeat myself.
If you don't want to provide clarification when asked, then perhaps you don't want to be understood. I have no correction for that. Best of luck to you!
-->
@3RU7AL
The primary motive for abortion is deportation.The primary motive for abortion is not "killing".
Ok so given your statements above, then you would agree if the pregnancy is far enough along that the child should be birthed alive and then adopted out or whatever. Because a baby of that size has to be delivered vaginally or via c-section whether it's killed or not. Even still born babies have to be delivered by either of those 2 methods.
To that end delivering the baby alive, via induction meets your requirements of "deportation" and there is no need to kill it, since that is not a primary motive.
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you don't want to provide clarification when asked, then perhaps you don't want to be understood. I have no correction for that. Best of luck to you!
when I have to constantly point out what you incorrectly claim I said that's beyond simple clarification. If me not wanting to clarify your assumptions and false claims frustrates you, that's all you buddy.
-->
@ethang5
I'm seeing a pattern.
-->
@SkepticalOne
No one said that reproduction was required of every individual. That is just the spin you need to put on it to keep your "homosexuals are natural" POV going.
The primary purpose of evolution is reproduction. That is not meant as an affront to homosexuality. It is just a fact. And even heterosexuals can be celibate.
Don't allow fear and politically correct groupthink to turn you into an irrational lemming. I know you, we always disagree, but you are nowhere as dumb as 3RU7AL.
Calling a baby an invader is stupidity of the highest order. 3RU7AL seems to think stupidity will work where emotion failed. Life is short, I have no time for deliberate stupidity.
Your justification for abortion is that you do not believe the embryo is a human person before a certain time. All that other stuff about immigrants, and invaders is just the stupidity of a progressive idiot thinking he can avert a loss by being an obtuse moron.
It actually weakens your core argument.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok so given your statements above, then you would agree if the pregnancy is far enough along that the child should be birthed alive and then adopted out or whatever. Because a baby of that size has to be delivered vaginally or via c-section whether it's killed or not. Even still born babies have to be delivered by either of those 2 methods.To that end delivering the baby alive, via induction meets your requirements of "deportation" and there is no need to kill it, since that is not a primary motive.
Finally, we agree.
This is the whole reason I've been trying to promote ectogenesis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Über liberals like 3RU7AL tend to be predictable.I'm seeing a pattern
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What an excellent point!Ok so given your statements above, then you would agree if the pregnancy is far enough along that the child should be birthed alive and then adopted out or whatever. Because a baby of that size has to be delivered vaginally or via c-section whether it's killed or not. Even still born babies have to be delivered by either of those 2 methods.To that end delivering the baby alive, via induction meets your requirements of "deportation" and there is no need to kill it, since that is not a primary motive.
If history is any indication, he will dodge or pretend to be obtuse.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is the whole reason I've been trying to promote ectogenesis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obtuse it is.
So a baby becomes a person now that technology can gestate it outside the womb? Is that on what personhood depends?
If there is a world wide catastrophe, and we fall back into the iron age technology, will babies stop being people again because tech has fallen?