7 Tips for Arguing With a Chance of Changing Someone’s Mind

KKK

Daryl Davis is an African-American man who is fascinated by American hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In researching the Klan in America, he sought out members and met with them. And befriended them. And was the cause of some of them leaving the Klan. He can prove it with the Klan robes they gave him after they left.

He has advice for talking with people with a very different viewpoint (which I’m hoping will inform our approach to Christians), but I can’t resist first giving one anecdote. There are different approaches to dealing with hate groups, and engaging with and befriending (as in making a Klansman an invite-him-to-your-wedding kind of friend) is pretty radical.

Daryl got pushback from someone from the NAACP:

[The NAACP guy said,] “We’ve worked hard to get ten steps forward, and here you are sitting down with the enemy having dinner, and you’re putting us twenty steps back.” I pull out my robes and hoods and said, “Look, this is what I’ve done to put a dent in racism. I’ve got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who’ve given up that belief because of my conversations and sitting down to dinner and they gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?” And then they shut up. (Source)

Philosophy

Daryl’s focus is on members of hate groups, but I think the advice also informs the atheism/Christianity debate. He begins with general advice. (I’m pulling out highlights from the “How to Argue” interview on the Love + Radio podcast.)

First, give the other person the safe space to express themselves. Ask honest questions, but don’t attack. You’re having a conversation.

Respect their right to speak, even if you don’t respect what they’re saying. By engaging, by simply being there, they open themselves up to new ideas that might grow in their minds.

He gives dogs as a parallel. If you beat a mean dog, it becomes meaner. The same is true for a hateful or closed-minded person. Push back directly, and the backfire effect comes into play. You’re attacking who they are, so they dig in their heels and cling to their beliefs even more. Instead of hate, you should rely on logic, respect, and patience.

1. Know your opponent

Learn your opponent’s position. Know it as well as they do, so well that they would accept your statement of their argument. If you begin not knowing their position well, compensate with humility and listening.

What you hear may be hateful or illogical, but don’t overreact. When in doubt, listen rather than fight back. Remember that you’re playing the long game.

2. Make it a conversation, not a debate

A debate needn’t be angry, but it’s zero-sum. It’s a fight, and you can’t have two winners. Instead of a debate, you want a conversation. A conversation is an invitation for someone to share their position, and most people are happy to oblige. Create a welcoming environment.

3. Find common ground

Use small talk and look for overlap in your lives. Do you both have dogs? Are you in similar professions? Do you have similar attitudes about health care, education, or foreign policy? You’re finding common ground.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, so don’t think that chitchat is a waste of time—you’re working on a relationship, maybe a friendship. If Christianity comes up in conversation, that’s great. But if kids or pets or career comes up, that’s great, too.

4. Talking is better than the alternative

The conversation may occasionally get heated. It may seem like you’re getting nowhere. But the more conversation, the more common ground you’ll find. (In the case of Daryl Davis’s discussions with Klansmen, talking is better than violence, which can be the alternative, though that’s probably not an issue for those of us in discussion with Christians.)

5. Be patient

It takes time to learn Christian arguments (or the particular variants that this antagonist uses), especially when tangents can be wide ranging—the religions of Mesopotamia, Greece, or Egypt; the role of fiction during the time of Jesus; the history of Israel, including the forced exiles and invasions of Palestine; the religious movements in the Ancient Near East during the intertestamental period, such as Gnosticism, Apocalypticism, and Marcionism; and so on.

Knowing the material earns respect, but don’t get overwhelmed. Listen and learn. Let your antagonists teach you—you’ll get smarter, and they’ll appreciate your humility.

Put yourself in the way of a discussion. Attend an Alpha Course. Find an interesting Sunday school class at a local church. Find a local Reasonable Faith or Reasons to Believe chapter. You’ll learn far more by hanging out with Christians than with fellow atheists. And, while you’re learning about them, they can’t help but learn about you.

Put some effort into your first impression. A Christian acquaintance won’t say, “We’ve got an interesting class at my church—you should come” if you’re a jerk.

6. Watch your tone

Make your point, correct errors in logic or facts, or get annoyed at rhetorical gamesmanship, but don’t be insulting or condescending. State your correction, but don’t delight in their failure or make them feel stupid.

7. Give them space to make their argument

Give them their turn, and don’t cut them off when they make a point. Once they’ve made a point, look for authentic clarifying questions to ask. They will appreciate your interest, and your questions may force them to confront problems that they hadn’t been aware of when it was just an idea in their head.

Don’t put words into their mouth, and let them explain their point. Pay careful attention so that you’re responding to the strongest interpretation of their point, not a caricature or strawman version.

If this approach is useful for atheists talking to Christians, is the reverse also true? Perhaps. The shrewd Christian might try to make this an emotional discussion—wouldn’t you want for there to be a benevolent god looking out for you? Doesn’t it only seem fair for there to be an afterlife where the Hitlers of the world got justice? And so on.

Still, Christians engaging in a long-term relationship with the goal of discussing Christianity’s truth claims put themselves in the way of atheist ideas. And that has to be a good thing.

Related posts:

There is a cure for ignorance. The cure is called education.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupidity.
— Daryl Davis

Image credit: Adrianne Mathiowetz, used with permission of Love + Radio

"If God is omniscient, wouldn't that make his memory at least as complex as the ..."

Rebutting the “God is Simple” Argument
"what I am saying is that there is no biblical basis to think that the ..."

10 Questions Christians Must Answer
"True. Morality is a complex dance of intent, acts, consequences and judgment. Remove one of ..."

7 Tips for Arguing With a ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bob Jase

    A Smith & Wesson still beats four aces.

  • RichardSRussell

    4. Talking is better than the alternative

    “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”—Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) neurologist, founder of psychoanalysis

  • Halbe

    This reads a bit like the ‘X tips for effective evangelizing’ posts that are ubiquitous over at the Evangelical channel. “Befriending” people, but with a clear agenda is also their favourite MO nowadays. Not my cup of tea.

    • Cady555

      I’m pretty sure that members of the KKK are not being tricked when a black man wants to have a conversation. It appears he is being honest that this is about.

      This is different from christians tricking people and not being honest, which I agree is nasty.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        I’ve heard that the “love bombing” phase is short lived. You’re loved into the church, but then you’re expected to get out there and get more converts. Collection plates don’t fill themselves, y’know.

        But Davis is focused on a much longer timeframe.

  • igotbanned999

    It must be awkward when he has company over and they see all the KKK robes in the closet…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “Oops! Sorry–let’s use this other closet.”

  • masteradrian

    Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?
    I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!
    I accept their right to to have their opinion, their faith, their religion, and their attitude, BUT what I do not accept is that these people deny me the right to have my opinion, my faith, my religion and my attitude! When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the ight even to exist!
    These people should be well aware that when living according to the book we know as the bible, obviously being the guide to and of their existence, that same book tells us to live to the principle an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, and a life for a life…….. There will be a certain time and moment that I (and I do not speak for other people) will no longer accept being humiliated by individuals who claim to be speaking on behalf of someone divine and therefore are trying to kill me!
    When I follow that book I have the right to prevent being killed or to be harassed by individuals who claim I am doing wrong in the eye of their so-called higher power!
    In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!
    My opinion!

    • TheNuszAbides

      Davis may be taking substantial risk, but what do the robes he’s been given represent? Tease out all the implications and you have the “why”. he’s not preaching that everybody has to follow his lead or anything, either. but the results are relatively indisputable.

      prevent these people to be procreating

      so, turnabout is fair play? that’s a damn sight heavier than mere opinion. at least Davis is fighting fire with water.

    • Ameribear

      Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? And who actually supports actions and practices that are out to throw me from a high building, or slice my throat?

      Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

      I may be wrong, but when I see people being kicked and murdered who are homosexual and are condemned by people who claim to be speaking on behalf of their god and claim to be acting on behalf of their god, then I see no reson to sit down with those people and discuss my orientation with them!

      Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

      When these people demand my death based on the fact that I am homosexual I feel these people have lost the right to open end about, these people in my opinion lost the right to respect, the right even to exist!

      What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

      In general I feel that those who consider themselves better then other people (because of skin, orientation, background, heritage or whatever) are the lowest of the lowest, and attempts should be made to prevent these people to be procreating, or even to exist in our communities!

      How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

      • Kodie

        Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change? Can you read, because I didn’t see masteradrian condemn all Christians, but you, you putrid, self-centered fuck, can’t help but make it about you.

        And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you. Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

        • Ameribear

          Poor illiterate victim Ameribear. Wouldn’t those kinds of Christians be the ones whose minds some people might be most interested in trying to change?

          Poor brainwashed victim Kodie. No cupcake, it would be your kind of atheist that so clearly demonstrates that you can’t think for yourself because you’ve so eagerly lapped up the BS atheist narrative you’ve been fed about Christians. It would also be your kind of atheist that by constantly repeating the aforementioned narrative clearly demonstrate that you really aren’t interested in actually talking to Christians because what you just said reveals that you haven’t ever done so. It would also be your kind of atheist that so robustly demonstrates that atheism is utter BS because it turns people into your kind of atheist.

          And by the way, you are an asshole, this has been determined by your stupidity and hatefulness, that you are the kind of Christian who thinks everything would be much better if we were all close-minded bigots like you.

          And by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Why would anyone want to sit and try to have a reasonable conversation with your kind?

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

        • Susan

          Poor brainwashed Kodie.

          You’ll have to demonstrate that Kodie is brainwashed. As far as I can tell, Kodie just exists outside of the cult you take for granted. You can’t show a distinction of any merit between your cult, islam, mormonism, alliens abducted me types or Elvis lives types.

          by the way you are the kind of atheist who is so full of yourself you’ll never realize you’ve just shown the world what a jaw dropping hypocrite you are.

          Sproing!

          You can’t follow through on A/T metaphysics. You abandoned the conversation when you realized that you can’t. You can’t show any knowlege of biology or personhood. You are the brainwashed person who just reiterates talking points that you haven’t questioned.

          Learn how to have a reasonable conversation and maybe you’ll find out.

          I would ask you what you consider a reasonable conversation and you would accuse me of being brainwashed for asking. Without demonstrating that I am.

          You make claims and when those claims are reasonably scrutinized, panic and accuse people of being brainwashed if they don’t accept them.

          You’ve NEVER supported a single claim.

          Never.

          Meh.

        • Pofarmer

          Meh, indeed.

      • Greg G.

        Seriously? Do you really believe all Christians wish you dead? Is that what you’re saying?

        Do you really believe that all Christians are out there acting this way?

        What leads you to believe this is actually being done by all Christians?

        There you go, straw-manning again. He did not say all Christians. There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

        How would you react if someone said exactly the same thing about you?

        He probably wouldn’t try to kill the person while quoting a Bible verse. It doesn’t have to be all Christians, just a few bad eggs, thinking they are doing God’s work.

        • Ameribear

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead. I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          There are too many Christians who would kill him as others in his situation have been killed by people because of religion.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian. Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

        • Susan

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          I think you mean “implying” and no, not necessarily. I don’t know. He’s new here (to me). But he didn’t say “someone christian”. He said “someone christian who wishes me dead”.

          That many christians across the world (and throughout history) wished homosexuals dead is basic. That they wished it based on religious belief is basic. That they carried it out is basic.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          They are if they say they are. It’s all made up. So, you can “infer” almost anything you’d like when you claim a deity backs you up.

          what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) strawmanning

          No. Real humans who claim they’re christians support violence, sometimes to the point of death, of homosexuals.

          and b) a hypocrite

          Nope.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I think you mean “implying”

          ugh. ‘bear has already proven itself incredibly dim on nuance, but i didn’t think it had that deep a vocabulary problem.
          i started out merely being fussy about infer/imply, but after a few years in the wider atheosphere i’ve noticed that confusion/conflation of them can be quite a marker for far more significant obliviousnesses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “ That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          Oh fer fuck sake…not more of your nonsense. It’s inferring nothing of the sort. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Masteradrian actually does sit down with Christian’s, just not bigoted ones that abhor his lifestyle and sexuality to the point of open persecution. So no, not any Christian he sits down with at all.

          I invite Masteradrian to clarify that himself ..

          Yeah, we can do that. But until he does, it is a reasonable position to assume he isn’t as daft as you are and is asserting all Christians, a word only you have used in your straw man characterisation. Furthermore, the most charitable interpretation of his comments is not the one you, a Christian, is affording him.

          …and until he does your putting words in his mouth.

          Spoooing!….the only words being put into his mouth are by you, ya feckin’ idiot.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Ah, the NTS…how typical. And you get to say this because? In the meantime…history is replete with fuckwit Christians wanting homosexuals put to death, you Catholics were at the forefront of it too…

          In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans decreed the death penalty for any male who “marries [a man] as a woman… [a situation in which] gender has lost its place”. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males “acting the part of a woman”, condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.

          ….

          “Go away! We know who you are. We don’t want you in our country. If we see you, we’ll burn you to death.” Melanie Kiwagama reads out the text messages she received last year, after Uganda’s notorious anti-homosexuality bill came into effect. Since then, she says the flow of threats towards her and her partner have been constant.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You don’t half come off with some asinine ballix.

        • Ameribear

          Your NTS fallacy is BS and I would expect nothing less from our favorite paid propagandist hack than bringing up crap that occurred hundreds of years ago as if it still mattered today. Your tactics are so predictable and so feckless.

        • Greg G.

          He wrote “Sorry, but why would I sit down with someone christian who wishes me dead? “

          The phrase “someone christian who wishes me dead” is a subset of all Christians. He made a qualified statement. If I say I hate all green apples, that does not mean I hate all apples or red apples.

          That’s inferring that any Christian he sits down with would want him dead.

          He isn’t “inferring” nor is he implying. You are making a biased inference as you typically do.

          First off anyone who desires the death of another person because of their sexual orientation is NOT a Christian.

          Some Christians read the Bible.

          Leviticus 20:13 (NAS)
          ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

          Secondly what you just stated proves you’re the one who’s a) straw-manning and b) a hypocrite.

          You apparently don’t know the meaning of either word you use. There are radical Christians. Here are some headlines from one incident:

          Westboro Baptist Church says, ‘God sent the Orlando shooter’ in hate-filled anti-gay rant

          Tempe Pastor Hails Orlando Massacre for Leaving ’50 Less Pedophiles in This World’

          New York preacher: Gays are a bigger threat to America than ISIS

          Pastor: Orlando Was ‘God’s Wrath’ On Gays

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christian-extremists-orlando-shooting_us_576ad4f7e4b0c0252e7805ba

        • Ameribear

          There are radical Christians.

          There are radicals who call themselves Christians. The WBC is a crackpot cult. They and anyone else who goes around spouting that kind of vitriol to their flock is in serious trouble.

          MT 7:19-21. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruit you shall recognize them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

        • Ameribear

          The WBC says the same things about Catholics and they can point to scripture to support their views.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          The word “Christian” is what people arbitrarily call themselves. It is not like there is some teleological meaning to it. The significance is mostly pretending.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

        • Greg G.

          The WBC like every other protestant sect selectively chooses
          the passages of scripture to support their views and ignores all the others that refute them.

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          That’s true only in atheist circles. Christ warns us numerous times that following him is going to come at a cost and those who are unwilling to accept that aren’t fit to be His disciples.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

        • Ameribear

          Will you abandon your position on when life begins or will you ignore Leviticus 17:11?

          I will never abandon my position on when life begins and Leviticus 17:11 does nothing to disprove it. This is another colossal fail on
          your part.

          The WBC is of the sola scriptura school of thought and they think the reliance on tradition and the words of church fathers by the Catholic Church is ignoring the Bible.

          Doesn’t matter because history and scripture refutes sola scriptura and supports Sacred Tradition. The church existed and thrived for 300 some years before the bible was even compiled. Sola scriptura contradicts the bible so it’s heresy.

          Christians of all stripes make those same claims. They are just as certain as you are that they are Jesus’ favorite disciples. You all look silly pointing at others as being the ones who are wrong.

          Another completely missed point or a stupendously weak attempt
          at a diversion. It doesn’t matter who is striving to draw closer to Christ. Christ made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that those following him had better be prepared to produce what he requires because ultimately getting into heaven is contingent on it. What one believes and how one acts has everything to do with being a Christian so the NTS fallacy does not apply.

        • Kodie

          They aren’t fake believers, you dipshit. If they believe something different than you believe is the “truth”, they believe it because they were sold the same way you were, and believe it as sincerely as you do, that what they believe is the truth, the true Christianity, and that they will be saved by Jesus Christ and you won’t. I don’t care, I really don’t give a shit what Christians think the bible says about that. We’re operating from a self-reporting perspective. They call themselves Christians because they feel themselves to be so, sincerely. You are not operating from any different perspective whether they are true Christians or not, you pretend to know for god, but that’s not even the subject here. It’s about using the bible to interpret whatever one believes to be the words god means to communicate to them, and sincerely so. Whether or not it is true? None of it is fucking true. God doesn’t have any part in this whatsoever.

        • Greg G.

          Here is a Christian who mostly agrees with you except for the part about the Catholics being correct.

          http://disq.us/p/1mnv9tf

        • Ameribear

          The only problem is that anyone who subscribes to any specific interpretation of scripture makes themselves a denomination. There’s
          no such thing as non-denominational.

        • Greg G.

          If John’s Jesus wasn’t the biggest prayer failure of all-time, there would not be different interpretations.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          For that to not be a prayer fail, Christians would have to agree so much that it would impress the rest of the world into believing. That has never happened. Paul had disagreements over circumcision with the “circumcision faction” even before his letters were collected.

        • Ameribear

          That prayer was said right after the last supper which was when Christ instituted the Eucharist, one of others He instituted before His ascension. That prayer was one act in the founding of the only Church that can legitimately claim Christ as it’s founder and is still unified to this day.

        • Greg G.

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead. Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies. Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

        • Ameribear

          Then why isn’t the rest of the world so impressed that they join it? That is part of the failure. The prayer is an obvious failure.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          It cannot be the Catholic Church. It was supposed to bring unity by impressing everybody but it used wars and inquisitions instead.

          Irrelevant. The church’s unity is still intact to this day and is not contingent on the behavior of its members.

          Martin Luther was right to call them out for their hypocrisies.

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          Did the Catholic Church ever refund the money they collected for indulgences?

          Indulgences are a legitimate thing in the church and they don’t have to involve money.

        • Kodie

          Because the rest of the world still has free will. Christ knew there
          were going to be divisions (See MK 9: 38-39) and you fail to take
          into account that He could allow them for other reasons.

          This is an example of why religion snatches up the gullible – the bible is not a magic book where Jesus said original things. I mean, of course the bible is going to use tactics to gain followers like any marketing scheme. Of course one of those tactics is “some people are not going to believe this bullshit, but they are the fools!”

          Yes, you’re right he was. He had no right to rewrite scripture
          and declare himself to be his own authority though.

          I have no idea why you think anyone can’t read the bible and interpret it to serve their own purpose just like the Catholic Church has. It doesn’t make his beliefs or interpretations any less sincere than yours. Believing you have the correct interpretation doesn’t make it valid, or more valid than any other interpretation. It just speaks to how much there is going on in the bible that fools people into thinking it is the word of god for having so much stuff in it! I’m not going to say none of it resonates, but like I explained to warped Fred Knight, it was written by humans, observing many angles of human life and human interaction. It’s not going to sound like it was from Mars – people are going to pick the parts they relate to and feel in agreement with, and if they think it’s a magical book from Jesus, they’re going to build a fucking religion out of it instead of behold it as just another compilation of human thoughts and ideas, some that work, others that are outdated or specific to the region or the culture, but not magical at all. It’s like, you could take Dark Side of the Moon to be a religion because it resonates with humans of all ages, does that make Pink Floyd magical? Some people probably would argue that it is their religion, but then get into arguments with people who think Pet Sounds is way better, and some people who have never heard of either one of them, and those people need some fucking culture, right?

          Religion, including your Catholicism, is just a matter of taste. There is no call to take it dead serious at all or pretend it’s an authority and Luther was just some hack. That’s your opinion, it’s not a fact.

        • Greg G.

          Because the rest of the world still has free will.

          That cannot be the reason. For the prayer to not be a failure, the agreement between Christians has to be enough to impress the world enough to believe. That belief has to be caused by the impressive agreement of Christians, not lack of free will. The prayer is a failure. Jesus’s faith must be less than a mustard seed.

        • Ameribear

          Are you saying that the agreement has to be between a sufficient number of Christians to impress the world?

        • Greg G.

          Read the passage. All I am saying is what the prayer says. Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          We have neither agreement among Christians, that is, they are not one, nor does the world believe the Father sent Jesus. The failure of either condition means the prayer is a failure. The failure of both conditions makes the prayer a great, big failure. If God doesn’t answer Jesus’ prayers, why pray in his name? Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

        • Ameribear

          Per separate statements in verse 21 and verse 22, Christians should be as one as the Father and Jesus are one. It is stated and restated in the passage.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that moment. Read verse 12. Those apostles were the original recipients of His authority and the moment He was praying for them was the beginning of a series of events that culminate on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. You’re also ignoring the context of this prayer which took place immediately after the last supper which was a Jewish Seder meal where Christ instituted the first Eucharist. You are tearing a couple of scripture passages out of the context of a pivotal series of very important events that established the first Christian church. This was the birthday of the Catholic Church which is still present today, still unified and still stands as proof that the prayers and promises Christ made regarding her clearly did not fail.

          Doesn’t that tell you why you have to make so many excuses to yourself for all of your prayer failures?

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t? If you conclude that prayers you may have prayed in the past that were not granted exactly as you made them failed, then you are the one who has failed, not God.

        • Susan

          How do you know which prayers fail and which don’t?

          The claims, on their surface, don’t bear out. If you define “prayer” to be unverifiable, then you might as well be reading tarot cards.

          You mistakenly believe that Christ is praying for all christians.

          It’s a story, Ameribear. You can claim authority over the story all you’d like. You can’t show it. No reason to call an itinerant preacher “Christ” and assume that you know what he meant.

          It’s as convincing as someone claiming they understand the real significance of the Moon being in the 7th house.

          Provide something better than bluster about castles on clouds.

          And personal attacks when that bluster is questioned.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I heard a remark on the telly last night in reference to Trump fuckwittery on praying for the victims of Las Vegas and his attitude to weapons control…the claim is…

          “Guns don’t kill people, people do”

          …the reply….

          “prayers don’t help people, people do”

          That fuckwit Trump also implied that it is the mentally ill that is the problem. When they get their hands on weapons there is not much one can do about it.

          When Mr Trump was asked if the shooting was an act of domestic terrorism he replied: “He was a sick man, a demented man.”

          “Lots of problems, I guess, and we’re looking into him very, very seriously, but we’re dealing with a very, very sick individual,” he said.”

          This is the same arsehole that the NRA spent over $30 million to get elected and who revoked plans to make it harder for very, very sick individuals, to get their hands on weapons.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Not that there is any evidence implying that Paddock was mentally unstable…apart from the fact that only a lunatic would do such a vile thing.

          *BTW, those that know, guns are artillery pieces.

        • Greg G.

          “DONALD Trump revoked plans that made it harder for mentally ill people to get access to guns just seven months before the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it has been revealed.

          The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year.”

          Trump also wants to roll back access to mental health care.

        • Pofarmer

          I’d just like to note that if the Catholic Church were unified, there wouldn’t be an Orthodox Church, or a protestant Church. Was “You will know them by their dishonesty” ever used in a parable?

        • Greg G.

          You mistakenly believe that
          Christ is praying for all Christians at that moment and He is not. He
          is specifically praying for the apostles present with Him at that
          moment. Read verse 12.

          I am not the one who is mistaken about who the prayer is for. Haven’t you read the passage? Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word. I have explained to you that for the prayer to not be a failure:

          1. All Christians must be “as one”.
          2. The rest of the world must believe because of all Christians being “as one”.

          You have neither so it’s a failure. You can’t even read it correctly. Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say? Even if you had been correct, the prayer was a failure because the whole world didn’t believe at any point because of it.

          Other Christians should be as one knowing you are a failure.

        • Ameribear

          Verse 20 explicitly says it is not just those present but also those who come to believe on their word.

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic. All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY! Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Is that how you read the whole Bible? Just making up what you want it to say?

          I can’t read it correctly? You gotta be joking! You are tearing a tiny fraction of scripture out of context of much bigger picture. You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture. You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying. The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All those who came to believe on THIER word would have been instructed and united to the only Christian church that existed at the time which was and still is Catholic.

          Demonstrating either your ignorance or stupidity. Either you don’t know what you are talking about, making you ignorant, or you know you are talking shite, which means you are being stupid….and lying. There was never one Christian sect that can be verified.

          What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day Adventists pale by comparison.

          Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be written by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed they had been forged.

          This book is about these texts and the lost forms of Christianity they tried to authorize. Bart Ehrman,”Lost Christianities”, Introduction, pp. 2-3.

          All those who today still come to believe on THIER word are still being instructed and united to the SAME CHURCH BY THE SAME WORDS that were used two centuries ago AND ARE STILL ONE TO THIS DAY!

          Two centuries ago?

          Wise up and learn something.

          Christians who come to believe on the basis of all the protestant heretics out there are the ones who by their own ignorance or pride or both have NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THIER WORD so are still separated. The prayer didn’t fail, you did.

          Just as many others would’ve said about those who held orthodox beliefs during the first, second, and third centuries…it took the power of an emperor under the influence of the African Christian teacher and apologist, one Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, in order for one group out of the plethora of competing Christianites to gain control. But even then there was never one Christianity.

          You are also failing to use all the other guides Catholics have been given for over two thousand years to correctly interpret scripture.

          Math is not your strong point, is it? Try doing some sums. Which scripture are you talking about? What other guidelines did the proto-orthodox use…no Catholics back then a have to inform you.

          You are also failing to recognize that it was the Catholic church that gave us the bible to begin with…

          Which buybull?

          Technically, it was the Reformation that gave us the Catholic buybull and that didn’t happen until the 16th century. Look up the Council of Trent.

          …so I’m sure as hell not going to believe what some 21st century half-assed atheist BS artist says he thinks the bible is saying.

          That’s the problem with the buybull. It is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that it makes everyone a bullshit artist in the end. Catholics are the biggest bullshit artist of the lot of us. The fucking stupid book wasn’t available to everyone for starters. Folk just had to soak up the bullshit that all those Catholic clerical bullshit artists pumped out. I think you are jealous that Greg knows more about your bullshit buybull than you do.

          Btw, “21st century half-assed atheist BS artist” is an ad hominem fallacy you stupid clown. And Greg wasn’t always an atheist. It was learning the contents of the buybull that was somewhat instrumental in abandoning his faith afaicr.

          The evidence that you’re dead wrong stares you and the rest of the world in the face every day but your either to brainwashed or dimwitted (or both) to acknowledge it. No, it’s you that can’t read it correctly.

          Spoiiiing!

          The irony meters are exploding on this forum like they are going out of fashion ffs.

          When are you going to dispense with the No True Scotsman fallacious arguments, that’s what I wanna know? It is mindwankery of the highest order. Catholicism was not the first Christianity.

          Catholicism grew out of Pauline Christianity. Paul himself related to the problems of divisions in the faith. First Corinthian’s 1:10-12.

          I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas (Peter)”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

          Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

          Paul’s advice failed miserably…as did the prophecy put into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers. You really need to brush up on current scholarship in these areas, it seems to me that you have been sold a pup.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure. The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed. You have not shown the least bit of success but your brainwashing won’t let you think through your stupid apologetics. It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          Oh, wait! You are using all caps… I guess that convinces me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          It never even got started.

          Judas Iscariot gets all the bad press, but he was the hero of the day in the yarn.

          Have you read Ehrman’s, “The Lost Gospel of Judas”….or even listened to it, as my copy is on audio book?

          Here’s a lecture on it…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXwSjyxe88

        • Ameribear

          Ha ha ha! Even with your twisted reading, Judas Iscariot didn’t believe so the prayer was a failure.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          The whole world was not impressed and the whole world never believed….It’s like you are trying to make Jesus the second greatest failure of all time.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          If the Catholic Church was supposed to be the whole world, that ended with the first schism.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank.

          What? Before being ordained?

          And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, ~Mark 3:14

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          https://gerardnadal.com/2012/03/19/were-the-apostles-the-first-deacons/

          Judas died by hanging?

          Did he now?

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas.html

          Or maybe Papias had the correct manner of death?

          http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/07/28/papias-on-judas-iscariot-as-reported-by-apollinaris-of-laodicea/

          Or maybe Judas was just a fictional character in a book as a literary device.

          How can anybody know? Paul knew fuck all about a Judas Iscariot.

          Damn are you dense.

          Yeah…you really are.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture.

          Says the man that thinks the 12…sorry, 11…got ordained after Judas, ahem, hung himself…ya plank.

          Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          What is it with you dumb as fuck christers and dumb as fuck analogies?

        • Ameribear

          It was my understanding that the 12 were ordained at the Last Supper…and at least one well placed Roman Catholic agrees with me.

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for. The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

        • Greg G.

          They were all sanctified three verses before the prayer failure:

          John 17:17-19 (NRSV)17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

          I guess the sanctification didn’t take, which is another prayer failure, but not as great of a failure as the next four verses.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You fail to take into account John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 neither one of which Judas was present for.

          Nope…irrelevent.

          You are failing to take into account First Corinthians 15:5 & 7…

          And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

          After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

          Now I have no problem with Paul’s version of the “appearances” being visions, but you then you can’t eat yer cake and have too.

          The Apostles ordinations took place in stages (just like they do today) and culminated at Pentecost.

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process? You have to ignore what the first gospel writer makes plain in order to contort your square apologetic peg into a round hole.

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          The Bible says that Jesus made a number of appearances after His death. They were to a number of different people over a forty-day period. The Bible specifically says that on Easter Sunday Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, the women that came to Jesus tomb (Mary the Mother of James, Salome, and Joanna), Peter, and two disciples on the Emmaus road. He also appeared to the remainder of the Twelve Disciples with Thomas absent. Later he appeared to them with Thomas present. There was also an appearance to seven disciples on the Sea of Galilee. On another occasion he appeared to over five hundred people at the same time. There is also an appearance to James. Finally Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus – the man who became the Apostle Paul.

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it. When is Judas alleged to have died…vague…was it after the crucifixion…well after, according to the early Christian patriarch Papias.

        • Ameribear

          Even if you could demonstrate that was the case, why was the Lord’s Supper not the culmination of the process?

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place. Duh!

          You see, by your logic we can definitively say only a couple of apostles were “officially” ordained, because only a few of them are mentioned by name who seen Jesus post resurrection.

          No, that’s by your logic. Your attempting to make a false connection between the ones Jesus ordained and the ones that are named.

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS. Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it. You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS. Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless, the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all. Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus is still the greatest prayer failure of all time. You haven’t addressed that. All you do is point at squirrels.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because there are two more instances of the imposition of the Holy Spirit that happened after the last supper took place.

          Well, even if ya are such a dumb cunt that you believe every bit of bullshit in the buybull, The Acts, seriously, so fucking what?

          The “imposition” for ordination is a later doctrine.

          Duh!

          Let’s see if you can be hoist by yer own petard?

          Rather than pull made up bullshit from my arse, I’ll stick with what the texts say…Mark 3…

          13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. 14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 and Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddæus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

          But let’s see what real Roman Catholics believe….not ignorant imbeciles like you…

          The answer, according to the Council of Trent, lies in Jesus’ command, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The Council fathers declare:

          Council of Trent, session 22, ch. 1

          Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.

          Why? Here’s the explanation given by Catholic Answers…

          Did Jesus Make the Apostles Priests at the Last Supper?

          https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-make-the-apostles-priests-at-the-last-supper

          According to your beloved Church, you are anathema…ohhhhps, a bet ya didn’t see that coming ya stupid fuckwit?

          You don’t get it. You are attempting to impose own your personal interpretation of scripture which is complete BS.

          Haaaa haaaa haaaa….am pishing myself laughing here…two armadillo’s…ya fucking Dime Bar.

          The irony is rank.

          Your doing exactly what you criticize all the other denominations of doing and you don’t even realize it.

          I’m playing devil’s advocate ya stupid Coco…as far as I’m concerned…it’s all made up bullshit in order to sell snake oil to gullible knuckle dragger’s like you.

          You have no idea what a colossal ass you make of yourself by actually believing that all Christians get the bible wrong so it’s got to be up to the atheists to set them straight and then insulting our intelligence in the process.

          Ameribear, history is cluttered to fuck with Christians interpreting their religious texts in contradictory ways, even within the denominations. So if some can be wrong, which they must be by definition, then they can all be wrong. Atheists are merely trying to point out this fuckwittery. It’s pretty hard to insult an intelligence not on display. I’ll leave it to those looking on to decide who it is that is making the colossal ass of themselves…you are in no position to make that judgement.

          No, I don’t have to listen to a dumb-ass hypocrite who gets paid to copy and paste atheist BS.

          Ah…yes…the strawman fallacious method of argumentation.

          Yet, here you are, “listening”, so whose the dumb-ass? Demonstrate hypocrisy, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that someone you don’t have to “listen” to, is getting paid to copy & paste atheist BS, or shut ta fuck up. Demonstrate that what you are being provided here, is indeed atheist and/or bullshit, or shut ta fuck up.

          Your personal interpretation of scripture is worthless,…

          Not once have I expressed a personal interpretation of scripture, you’ve been doing that as far as I can determine. I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field. If it doesn’t gen with your personal interpretation…take it up with them.

          …the mountains of crap you post here have more errors in it than I can count and I don’t have the time and energy to refute it all.

          And yet, in the few that you attempt to refute, you fail miserably. What is one to deduce from your complete and utter failure to refute anything? That you are a gullible ignorant dolt that thinks he knows more than actually does and can’t even do the basic due diligence before spewing shite? Yeah, we do.

          Thank you once again for demonstrating that atheism is a pathetic joke.

          Au contraire, thank YOU once again for demonstrating what pathetic joke that defenders of religion that come onto places like this turn out to be. Believers with a wee bit of sense steer clear, because getting a new arse tore at every hands turn gets painful after a time and they have the gumption to realise their nonsense is indefensible.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult. That even on this issue there is no agreement, ergo, no unity…you have been right royally pwned. Try again.

        • Ameribear

          No kidding He intended to make them priests, show me where I denied that. Your presuming the ordination was completed at the last supper and you haven’t proven that. You missed my point again. If ordination was a one time event then why did Christ ordain them on the mountain, then at the last supper, then in the upper room and then again in Acts chapter 2? All the time and effort you spent copying and pasting this mound of manure and you still haven’t answered the question of why there are so many instances of ordinations taking place including the two that took place after the resurrection.

          On this occasion, you have shown that you are ignorant of the teachings of your own cult.

          On this occasion you’ve show that you are an aptly named lying sack of crap.

        • Kodie

          Everyone interprets the bible. You have your personal interpretation of it, but you bought the idea from the Catholic Church that their interpretation is the only correct one. That doesn’t set you or your beliefs apart from other denominations. It’s a popular book and a popular religion because the way you can read it is so malleable. You can make it mean anything and support any belief, and you all get to go to heaven, according to all Christians. Nobody thinks they’re believing the wrong way.

        • Pofarmer

          The whole yarn is so ambiguous that any amount of nonsense can be pulled out of it.

          Welcome to Catholic Theology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Something Ameribear is not grasping…either through ignorance, stupidity, or both…I’m opting for the later, given the evidence on display here.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m going with Catholic brainwashing, combined with Dunning Krueger. Let’s face it, the great thinkers aren’t in the Catholic Church any more.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That prognosis fits the evidence well also.

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, do you have that link for the late dating of the Gospels handy?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry Po…Disqus is not playing ball, so I’m getting notifications as old as a few days at the same time I’m getting one a few hours.

          Is it this one ya mean?

          http://commonpaine.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/dating-gospels.html

        • Pofarmer

          Yep. That’s it. Thanks!

        • Ignorant Amos

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron.

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Schisms

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/30/catholic-church-schism-pope-francis-liberal-conservative

          It didn’t disappear after the first schism.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball. Do you know what schism means?

          schism:- a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.

          You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Spoooiiiinnnng!

        • Ameribear

          But it wasn’t there from the get go, it was never united, and it is not united today ya moron.

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          And there is the risk of more schisming…

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister. Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          But it isn’t a unified Church ya fucking doughball.

          Yes it is meathead. There’s still only one Catholic church.

        • Kodie

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ. You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs, but you don’t have an explanation why they are just as brainwashed as you are with a different flavor of Christianity than you are, and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon either. I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else, but you have yet to explain it, you only make excuses for how your church didn’t dissolve into nothing (yet), and pretend over and over that those other Christians aren’t really Christians, and whatever the other people all over the world who failed to be impressed to this day with Catholicism.

          None of this shit is sinking in for you yet.

        • Ameribear

          You have still never answered any of my posts that explain to you how other Christians who are not Catholic are nevertheless “true Christians” by the fact that they sincerely believe an interpretation of the bible and the salvation of Jesus Christ.

          Becoming a Christian is not a one time event. It is a lifelong process that requires believing and practicing everything Christ and His apostles taught. There are dozens of times in the bible that Christ made it very clear who the true Christians are and aren’t.

          You can keep repeating your dumb self about how they are not really Christians according to your personal Catholic beliefs…

          And you can keep displaying you acute ineptitude involving anything having to do with Christianity which is the main reason I’ve been ignoring your posts.

          I thought the original idea was that the world was supposed to be so impressed with the unity of the Catholic Church they couldn’t believe anything else,

          No Tinkerbell, you aren’t thinking. You’re repeating BS atheist talking points just like you always do. None of this is sinking in for you yet.

        • Kodie

          No, it just went over your head again. How can people believe they are true Christians but you don’t understand that? They are as Christian as you, not by the way they follow, but in the sincerity of their beliefs. I don’t care who you judge to be a true Christian, or even if there were a god, who he decides is a true Christian. Anyone who has fallen for any of the garbage in the bible, no matter which brand of cult they belong to, considers their interpretation correct, and can find dozens of times in the bible where Christ makes it very clear to them that they are the true Christians and you’re not.

          You keep avoiding this! Answer it!

          And B, you are settling for a mediocre outcome and making excuses. I know that’s what all Christians have to do in order to maintain their beliefs. The Catholic Church didn’t wow everyone, and in fact, many are disgusted by their “true” interpretation of the bible, especially making up shit like saints, stealing infants, raping children, and harboring criminal rapists. The “true” interpretation led to this. Believing that you act in righteousness leads all in any religion to perpetrate awfulness. Trying to please god, a fictional character, leads all people in any religion to justify violence and cruelty. Hiding behind god when someone accuses you, pretending well god said I’m better than you, look the bible says I’m living correctly because I believe this version of the horseshit. You’re not better than me. I’ve seen the things you write, how up your own ass you are, how hateful you are, how ugly you are on the inside, poisoned by your religion.

          You’re not responding to me because you can’t. I don’t think you’re smart or sensitive enough to be avoiding me because you realized all you had to offer was bullshit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes it is ya moron. The Catholic church is still unified under one Pope with one teaching authority and is the only one that can legitimately trace it’s practices and teachings back to the time of Christ. It’s also the only one that can prove Christs promise that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” is true.

          I know you believe that pup you’ve been sold, but it is unfortunate that the evidence just doesn’t support your nonsense. So bang the drum as load as ya like, it is just gonna make the same noise ad nauseam. Be a god boy, go do some research and learn something.

          First of all that article you linked to gets so much wrong it makes my teeth hurt…

          That might well be true, but since you don’t demonstrate your assertion with support, I can ignore it as nonsense, so pah!

          …which is what I’ve learned to expect from our resident propaganda minister.

          Seriously? You are a funny guy. I’m not so sure you know how propaganda works, or what the word even means.

          Because Christianity has never pushed propaganda, and of all the Christian propaganda bullshit artists, the Catholic Church is not the worst offender, historically? //s

          Oh, wait a wee minute….what’s that? It means a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Ya don’t say?

          Propaganda is a modern Latin word, the gerundive form of propagare, meaning to spread or to propagate, thus propaganda means that which is to be propagated. Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic church (congregation) created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity was aimed at “propagating” the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries.

          Wise ta fuck up Ameribear and go take your head for a shite, because it is constipated.

          Secondly it doesn’t matter how many schisms occurred because no schism throughout history has ever done away with the original church.

          Try reading for comprehension Ameribear, ffs.

          In the first place, the Roman Catholic Church was not the original Church, that is the propaganda you’ve sucked out of the tit you imbibe from. Insisting that it is in the face of the scholarship is just embarrassing yourself.

          Secondly, those that schismed claim they are the original Church of Jesus and what you believe is not. That’s why a schism happens ya ignorant fuckwit. You can’t demonstrate why they are wrong, because just like all the rest of their nonsense, you lot make it up as you go along too.

          The argument here is whether the Christian faith is united as per the prayer in John. No it’s not.

          You tried to pass it off as a prayer for the apostles alone…but your reading comprehension and apologetics are so contorted and fucked up, nobody can take you seriously anymore. Verses 1-19 do focus on the apostles. But then the prayer fucks you right up the arse and you need all the excuses.

          Jesus Prays for All Believers

          20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:6-26

          Now, in your mindwankery you are hinging on the premise that the word “THEIR” saves yer arse. That the only believers the “all” refers to is the believers who were preached to by the disciples. It doesn’t, because straight away the Christology of the different “apostles” diversify. But even then, we are using the modern canon. There were many texts used as scripture during the first few centuries…supposedly, with apostolic authority. The Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter were used as scripture at least until the 6th century, even though they where proscribed as heretical by Serapion and known to be pseudepigraphal. Like many other texts used as scripture in the early century,including those that are in the NT.

          It is clear that there were conflicting Christianities from the get-go. The orthodox version cobbled together in the fourth century was not one of them. Talk about buying into the propaganda…stupid is, as stupid does.

          The Diversity of Early Christianity

          From the beginning, early Christians struggled to define for themselves the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

          ETA sarcasm icon…//s…just in case.

        • Greg G.

          Judas Iscariot hung himself before the first apostles were even ordained you plank. Damn are you dense.

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew. The prayer was a failure from the beginning because of Judas Iscariot. Ordainment is irrelevant.

          No that’s what your trying to do with your half-assed, failed attempt at interpreting scripture. Atheists attempting to interpreting scripture is as ridiculous as my cat attempting to drive. Oh wait, you’re not even as smart as my cat.

          I thought maybe the Bible had changed in the last two days but, no, verse 21 still says, “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” and verse 23 still says, “so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          That makes no sense (typical) and the Catholic Church is still here and still united moron. It didn’t disappear after the first schism. You suck at the bible, go find something else to monumentally fail at.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions. All or them have changed over the centuries with the invention of “progressive revelation”. Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

        • Ameribear

          You are grasping at straws. That happened after Jesus was arrested and only in Matthew.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          You can’t read so it is no wonder that you are having so much trouble with Bible interpretation.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Which one is the Catholic Church? There have been many splits with each side believing they had the correct superstitions.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          Adopting Augustine and Aquinas superstitions have dispelled many of the old superstitions.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          Jesus anticipated Judas’ betrayal in chapter 12. The prayer failure was in chapter 17. Judas Iscariot asked Jesus a question in John 14:22, then Jesus talks almost continuously, taking only a few questions from the disciples until the end of chapter 17, which ends three verses after the prayer failure. Then Jesus crossed the creek to go to the garden while Judas then goes to get the soldiers and officers. So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession. But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many. Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots. It’s kind of like how Hebrews 7 justifies the Levite priests as being part of Abraham when he tithed to Melchizedek:

          Hebrews 7:9-10
          9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

        • Ameribear

          So Judas was there when Jesus spoke three and a half chapters including the prayer failure.

          Judas was not there when Christ appeared to the apostles in the upper room which happened after the resurrection. He also wasn’t there on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

          So, it is a failure under your interpretation that he meant only the disciples because they all didn’t believe

          No it isn’t. The apostles were in a period of preparation the entire time they followed Christ. That preparation wasn’t completed until Pentecost which was after Christ ascended and that means Judas failed to complete the preparation and missed out on two more imputations.

          and under my interpretation that it means all Christians as “those who hear their word”, which seems to imply that their word does not have to be heard directly from them. I would expect a Catholic to agree with that due to apostolic succession.

          “Their word” means starting at the original disciples and proceeding through their successors.

          But no matter how that part is interpreted, the latter half fails, also, as the whole world does not believe because of their agreement.

          This is more of your own personal interpretation which means it’s still baseless.

          Really? Why do I have to point out to you what the Bible actually says?

          You aren’t. You’re trying to tell me what you think the bible says and failing miserably at it.

          The original churches were house churches that were separate entities. The Catholic Church was one Christianity of many.

          The original church was founded by Christ himself on the authority he gave to St. Peter, the original apostles and their successors. The writings of the early church fathers show that the church in the first centuries was united in distinctly Catholic beliefs and practices that are still taught today.

          Any branches from a schism have the same history as your branch and would be able to claim the same history and roots.

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          BS. Christ established His Church with Peter and his successors as it’s visible head for all time. When the others separated they broke off from apostolic succession and the Holy see. No valid priesthood, no valid sacraments, no Magesterium, no unity.

          And your fuckwittery continues.

          We know you think it is bullshit. We know you are biased on the issue. We know other flavours of Christianity believe different things and think yours is bullshit. We know those other flavours claim the right to call your flavour bullshit for various authoritative reasons including apostolic succession too. We know that apostolic succession was invented to give your flavour of the nonsense, and those others, a false authority.

          You can rattle on about this until you are blue in the face…it is the No True Scotsman fallacy epitomised. The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim. Apostolic succession is made up Catholic bullshit and being a Catholic, you’ve invested in the snake oil.

          One aspect of Apostolic Succession that is frequently ignored by those who trumpet it is the issue of how exactly did this succession begin? One book that discusses this issue is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, by Francis A. Sullivan, a Catholic priest and theologian. While I have not yet finished reading this book (which I will review at a later date), it is clear to me that Sullivan rightfully believes that Apostolic Succession is something that is not readily provable in conception, and therefore must be accepted as a matter of faith. Sullivan concludes in the first chapter:

          “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today…such scholars (me: Catholics convinced that there is evidence of apostolic succession) agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles “by divine institution”.“

          https://cath2lds.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/the-problem-of-apostolic-succession/

          Here we come across yet another Roman Catholic fantasy. (Also read article on Peter). The idea of apostolic succession is built on nothing more than liberal guesswork, as a basis for persuading loyal Catholics (and others) that popes are descended spiritually from Peter. Or (forgive the jocularity), “Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it!”

          http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/heresy-and-error/1291-apostolic-succession

          The Second Vatican Council therefore affirms that apostolic succession was put in place by “divine institution”. The question is, where is this “divine institution” recorded? As Father Sullivan states in his book, “Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish”.

          https://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Bishops-Development-Episcopacy-Church/dp/0809105349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266093842&sr=8-1

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal, but even Roman Catholic clerics know it is not.

          Even the Wiki page on the subject makes a nonsense of your asinine claims.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

        • Ameribear

          The problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

          http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

          https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/as-the-father-has-sent-me-so-i-send-you

          https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic-authority-succession/

          http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_apostolic_succession.htm

          I take the interpretation I post from your fellow believers, or scholars in the field.

          You take interpretation from the first dissident hack you come across without ever bothering to find out if it’s true because you’re a lying intellectual slug.

          For some inexplicable reason you think your bullshit is a done deal.

          For a very explicable reason I think your bullshit is a done deal. Thank you once again for demonstrating that you and atheism are pathetic jokes.

        • Greg G.

          It happened before John chapter 20 and Acts chapter 2 which is where Peter and the Apostles were given the final authority to begin their mission. The apostles ordinations had to take place in stages just like they still do today.

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          I can read it and I also can and do take into consideration everything else you failed to.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          The one that’s still here after 2000 years. The one no schism nor persecution, nor corruption has ever nor will ever be able to destroy.

          You are worshiping the church. You be you. I don’t care.

          Adopting what Augustine and Aquinas taught has helped catholic doctrine develop through the centuries and has done nothing to compromise the unity of the church or undermine the magesterium.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

        • Ameribear

          This is still irrelevant. The prayer is still a failure in every way.

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          You can bring in all irrelevant passages you can find, but the prayer is still a failure.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument. You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are. You interpretation carries zero authority so
          you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          You are worshiping the church.

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          If the doctrine has developed, it is not the same as it was before. The church has changed. All the different off-shoots have changed. None are the original church.

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only in the context of your screwed up personal interpretation.

          Spooiiiing!…..and there goes another one.

          Those passages were completely relevant and you failed to refute them just like you failed to refute the personhood argument.

          Ballix.

          You cannot stand there and criticize all the other Christian denominations for having so many different interpretations of scripture and then turn around and try to impose your own. The moment you do, you’ve once again exposed yourself as the hypocrite you are.

          More asinine mindwankery.

          You don’t understand the concept of playing Devils Advocate, do ya?

          Greg’s personal view on this is that it is ALL a loada made up ballix, but for the sake of this particular interaction with you, he is taking a particular line for the sake of argument. In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles. He thinks it’s worth the effort, but at this stage I think he should stick to the “it’s all a loada ballix” line with you.

          You interpretation carries zero authority so you can stick it right back where you pulled it out from.

          Ohhhh noes, there goes another meter up in smoke.

          Around here, ya know, the place where you are trying to peddle your bullshit nonsense? Your interpretation carries less than zero authority, so you can stick it right back where you pulled it from. You are a cretin. Furthermore, in many other circles not non-believing, your bullshit nonsense also carries zero authority, so pah!

          Another one of your personal opinions I have no use for. I worship no one but Christ.

          Liar!

          Go find something else to suck at understanding.

          Spoooiiing! Fuck sake, the irony meters are going thick and fast here. How can you be so asinine with just the one head? You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

        • Ameribear

          In doing so, he is trying to do the impossible in trying to get you to look objectively, not through those biased Roman Catholic spectacles.

          Now it’s the meters on my side that are going up in smoke. I can think of a lot of ways to describe the lot of you but one word I would die before I used is objective. Holy crap, after the mountain of BS you posted here over the last couple of days, you’ve got to be putting me on with that one. I guess it really is true about getting the last laugh in because I’m certainly enjoying myself right now. What a gobshite!

          You have come here, made a complete prat of yerself by talking out of yer arse, and because you failed miserably, this is your reply…what a Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

          Yeah, it sure as hell looks like you did.

        • Greg G.

          The prayer is that all the world would believe. That has never happened. Therefore the prayer is a failure. The world coming to believe would have to believe because of the agreement of Christians but you are trying to parse it down to an unimpressive number of select Christians. But the point of the prayer is still a failure. The question becomes “why would someone try to defend that?”

          The answer would be that you have been brainwashed by Catholicism:

          We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.
              –Ignatius of Loyola

          That is the kind of thinking that rational people find repugnant. It makes you defend sexual abuse of children, the covering up by the hierarchy, and allowing the spread of AIDS in Africa with a campaign against condoms. You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

        • Ameribear

          The prayer is that all the world would believe.

          https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120125.html

          “The third part of this priestly prayer extends to the end of time. In it Jesus turns to the Father in order to intercede for all those who will be brought to the faith through the mission inaugurated by the Apostles and continued in history: “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their world”. Jesus prays for the Church of all time, he also prays for us (Jn 17:20).”

          http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9T.HTM

          “Jesus fulfilled the work of the Father completely; his prayer, like his sacrifice, extends until the end of time. the prayer of this hour fills the end-times and carries them toward their consummation.”

          The answer would be that you are an intellectual garden slug.

          You see horrible things as good because it is the Church. You see lies as truth because the Catholic Church tells you to.

          Once again I remind you that you who defend the intentional ending of innocent human lives in the womb have absolutely zero grounds for criticizing the behavior of any other institution. You are the one who see’s and defends horrible things as good and that makes you the most egregious hypocrite because you are so brainwashed you don’t even realize it when you make statements like this. There are no words to adequately describe your level of hypocrisy.

          Your crap is what repels people and ensures that Jesus is a prayer failure.

          Your crap is what ensures your worldview gets exposed as utter BS and reinforces the extreme likelihood that it is rapidly headed straight for the garbage dump of history. I personally can’t wait to see that.

        • Greg G.

          So now you repudiating all your other bullshit explanations about the prayer being directed at the (ordained) disciples. You are just punting to the future. Your claim is now, “Sure, the prayer has been a failure for two thousand years, but just you wait another ten or twenty thousand years, then you’ll see.” It’s a perfect scam. They never have to produce results and the scammed are too stupid to wise up.

          In the meantime, the Church is going to keep taking your money.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

        • Ameribear

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          The one’s He prayed for are indeed still united and Jesus never put a time limit on how long He expected it take for the world to come to believe. There is no repudiation of what I said earlier.

          The Bible tells us that Paul was telling everyone that the Messiah was coming any second now. He fully expected to be alive when it happened. That was two thousand years ago but still believers keep believing that Jesus is coming within their lifetime.

          We believe we should live as though His return is eminent but also reminded that no one knows when that will actually take place. This teaching is intended to prevent us from becoming lazy or complacent.

          https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/12/07/second-coming-still-coming/

        • Greg G.

          Your objection has two parts. A) The ones being prayed for remain united and B) the world would come to believe God sent Jesus.

          That is a rather sociopathic view of it. The ones being prayed for would be the unsaved of the world. Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion? The means of their salvation is that the believers should agree in order to impress them enough to join up.

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure. It was done by the Son of God for everyone in the world and published in the best selling book of all time. If you disagree that it is the greatest prayer failure of all time, then present a greater one. If it is a prayer by anyone not worthy of unbuckling Jesus’ shoe, then it will be unlikely to make the case.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened. Therefore, the prayer was a failure. Either it was because some significant number of Christians didn’t agree enough to impress the world, which would be a secondary failure, or the idea that the agreement of Christians would impress people enough to become believers was wrong, which would be a major fault in the construction of the prayer that caused it to be a failure.

          The world population has been roughly a half billion or so on average from the first century until recent centuries and, being generous to make the math simpler, let’s say the average life span was 50 years so there were roughly a billion deaths per century so close to 20 billion since the prayer was supposedly made. Most of them were not Christians and fewer were Catholic. Now there are about 7.5 billion people and let’s put the life span at 75 years meaning there will be about 10 billion deaths in the next century, mostly non-Christian and non-Catholic.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t you have some kind of Christian love for everybody or is empathy not part of your religion?

          I’m going to assume that’s rhetorical.

        • Ameribear

          Why are you still banging on this? The prayer is a failure.

          You’re the one who keeps banging. The prayer is a failure only by your personal imaginary criteria.

          The prayer was for the whole world to become believers. That never happened.

          Or it could be that the game hasn’t ended yet.

          If everybody at some imaginary time in the future finally believes because there is agreement among Christians, all those deaths before that time makes it a failure, unless you want to be so sociopathic that the prayer was not intended to save everybody from the time of the prayer forward.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

        • Greg G.

          You cannot presume all those deaths resulted in all those who died going to hell either.

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell. That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure. Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

        • Ameribear

          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          That means that if your future wet dream happened, it would still be a failure.

          Only by your contrived personal interpretation of the issue.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

        • Greg G.
          If there was any substance to your superstition, most of them would have gone to hell.

          On what basis?

          Most people are not Christian, let alone Catholic.

          Do you think Jesus just prayed for a rhetorical victory or was he praying for everybody?

          He was most certainly praying for everybody.

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          This should be obvious to you. Why bother to ask such stupid questions?

        • Ameribear

          Since many people died without believing because they never got the chance to be convinced by the unity of Christians.

          You are presuming that most or all those people went to hell
          because of that. You’re saying they ended up in hell because they weren’t catholic. Sorry, that is about as separated from church teaching as it gets. The Church does not teach that only Catholics are going to heaven.

          This is what happens when people who have no business trying
          to interpret scripture attempt it anyway. The crap you come up with isn’t any different than the WBC or any other crackpot cult. There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it. You cannot simply rip scripture passages out the many different contexts necessary to correctly interpret them and then base some hair brained dogma on it.

        • Greg G.

          Can you prove they wouldn’t go to hell? Can you prove there is a hell? If people don’t need to be Catholic or Christian to not go to hell, then why bother with it?

          There are over two centuries of material the Church has drawn on to develop the correct understanding of scripture and you haven’t availed yourself of any of it.

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time. You are no better off from it than the Egyptians were 4000 years ago. See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          *Whether or not LaPlace actually said that, the quote has been quoted many times since at least the 1820s.

        • Ameribear

          Two centuries trying come up with a self-consistent fairy tale is a waste of time.

          Then stop trying to impose your ridiculous interpretation of scripture on me.

          See what happens with two centuries of effort is given to understanding reality with “no need of that hypothesis*”, by comparing the science of 1800 with the science of 2000.

          Science is never going to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is more of your BS atheist dogma.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          There’s a huge difference between a sentient 10-year-old boy and an 8-week non-sentient embryo. If you think that is hypocrisy, you’re still stalling on explaining why they are the same. You can’t keep giving emotional answers like “innocent”.

        • Ameribear

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it? At what point does an unborn human become sentient? Hint: It’s well before birth.

          What level of sentience constitutes a person? If your standard is complete sentience then anyone who’s ability to sense the environment is impaired or undeveloped (blindness, deafness) isn’t a person.

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

        • Kodie

          You need a brain first to have sentience. You don’t seem to have sentience.

        • Ameribear

          You need a brain first to think about and resolve the logical consequences of your latest failed attempt to justify murder before you post it. You don’t seem to have a brain.

        • Kodie

          What murder?

        • Ameribear

          The intentional ending of the life of another human being. Which is what you have yet to prove that abortion isn’t.

        • Kodie

          I just want to ask if you think killing an enemy in war is murder, if you think executing a violent criminal is murder, or if self-defense is murder, or is removing someone whose brain is dead from life support, is that murder? Was Saddam Hussein murdered? Was Osama bin Laden murdered? Was Timothy McVeigh murdered? Was Ted Bundy murdered? Was John Wayne Gacy murdered?

          Just asking.

        • Ameribear

          There are legitimate reasons to justify taking the life of another human being. Abortion isn’t and will never be one of them.

        • Kodie

          Oh, so we can separate some kinds of ending of human lives and call them something other than murder. Abortion definitely is one of those things.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life which is something you have repeatedly failed to disprove. There’s a big difference between that and ending the life of an aggressor who intends to take yours.

        • Kodie

          It’s the loophole that it isn’t a person. You allow for other loopholes, and this is a decision a woman can and should make for herself. I’d consider something inside my own body an “aggressor” who intends to take up all my life and attention and money. I see what parenting is like, and don’t have a romanticized vision of it.

        • Ameribear

          Because you are a spoiled, selfish little adolescent brat who never grew up. The human race would absolutely be finished if it were left to people like you. The blessing in all of this is people like you will inevitably eliminate yourselves from the gene pool. Problem solved.

        • Kodie

          That is only your demented opinion. And how fucking demented it is – nobody said everyone should have an abortion, it’s about CHOICE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKING MORON. Also, this isn’t a hereditary condition. Sharing information, facts, and opinions is not something we can eliminate from the gene pool. Furthermore, plenty of people who already have children get abortions, or who have had abortions go on to have a family. How stupid are you? That’s pretty stupid that you think this is a way to get rid of pro-choice people. I mean, pretty goddamned motherfucking absolutely how fucking stupid does your religion make you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          If Christians followed the teachings of Jesus and Paul on celibacy and marriage to the letter, there’d have been no Christians early on, but then both those fuckwits didn’t think reproducing was at all important, given that the end of the world was nigh, 2000 years ago.

          And being a eunuch was something to aspire to also.

          12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

          The early Christian sects, the Marcionites, practiced extreme celibacy, as did the Montanists.

          And if everyone were to give Ameribear a perpetual hardon by becoming Roman Catholic tomorrow, and decided to give themselves to YahwehJesus and take holy orders, the human species would be well fucked. But that’s dumb fuck Ameribear who doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does, and writes shite before thinking it through.

        • Ameribear

          No cupcake it’s about placing your personal gratification above the lives of other human persons. Those of you who recoil at the thought of having to take responsibility for your actions and want nothing to do with caring for and raising the children you are responsible for bringing into existence are your own worst enemy. You suffer from the worst form of sickness which is the inability to put anything or anyone before your own pathetic, narcissistic existence. We pro-lifers are perfectly happy to stand back and allow you to eliminate yourselves from the human race. No assistance is necessary.

        • Kodie

          I don’t put any imaginary things before reality. That’s how it is here. You clearly have no idea how biology works if you think pro-choicers eliminate ourselves from the human race. How does that work in your fantasy world?

        • Ameribear

          I am speaking specifically about people like you who refuse to have any children because your afraid of them taking up too much of your time. You place your personal gratification above everything else and because you refuse to accept the gift of children you will die and leave no one else around to further your priorities. That’s your problem not ours.

        • Kodie

          Wow, aren’t you judgmental and ignorant of what I do with my life.

        • Ameribear

          You keep completely missing or ignoring my point because you can’t or won’t understand how shallow and vain you are.

        • Kodie

          No, you keep making obscene judgments about who I am and what I do, because you have a stereotype in mind for your hatred of women.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Maybe you should imagine that nonfertile Christian couples are going to hell.

        • Ameribear

          That isn’t necessarily true either.

        • Susan

          Where does sentience come from? What causes it?

          A cleaner question to Kodie would be “what is sentience?”

          What level of sentience constitutes a person?

          Good question. What is “sentience”? What constitues a “person”?

          If sentience determines personhood then anyone in a coma isn’t a person.

          Sentience. You can find other versions of the definition but we can start here: I think it’s roughly what Kodie is getting at. She can correct me if I’m wrong.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sentient?s=t

          Coma. Again, it’s just a start. Comas don’t seem to preclude sentience.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coma?s=t

          Single cells do seem to.

        • Ameribear

          I agree to that definition of sentience.

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          If you define personhood by sentience the first problem you are faced with is establishing some level of sentience to define the existence of a person. Such a standard must encompass all born humans because we do not all possess the same level of sentience.

          Single cells do seem to.

          I knew it wouldn’t take long for you to spit up another abortion industry talking point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but does not have the same nature as any other single cell. Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          The second problem you’re faced with is that science has shown that unborn humans are sentient well before birth.

        • Susan

          That definition of coma certainly seems to preclude sentience.

          I don’t see how.

          https://www.webmd.com/brain/coma-types-causes-treatments-prognosis#3

          If you define personhood by sentience

          No one has. The point is that sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          Also everything needed to give rise to sentience is present in it’s earliest stage of development at that time.

          No. It requires a host body from which it takes everything it needs to develop. ..

          It is not sentient. It is a cell.

        • Ameribear

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          What else is necessary to define a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell. I’ve pointed out the distinctions to you many times and you conveniently keep ignoring them. Your being intentionally misleading.

        • Susan

          There are different types of coma’s. There are type’s where
          patients are not sentient and that still pertains to my point.

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          Don’t just say “a coma”. If there is no sentience, is it a person? Is a corpse a person?

          Implantation does not change the nature of the organism.

          No idea what your point is. Originally, you said:

          Everything needed to give rise to sentience is present

          If that were true, you could send a zygote into outerspace and it would become sentient. You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          Either refute the description science uses to define what comes into existence after conception or stop referring to it as a cell

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          That it’s a special snowflake cell to you comes from your forced pregnancy sites that ignore real consequences for real persons.

        • Ameribear

          No. If it’s just lungs and a heart and no sentience… pick your coma.

          From the page you linked to. “A coma is a prolonged state
          of unconsciousness. During a coma, a person is unresponsive to his or her environment. The person IS ALIVE and looks like he or she is sleeping. However, unlike in a deep sleep, the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.”

          Is a corpse a person?

          No, a corpse is dead.

          You’re ignoring what’s needed from an actual person.

          I am not ignoring anything. You are ignoring the distinctions I’ve made over and over again.

          I don’t have to refute anything. Science doesn’t say it’s a person. Science DOES say it’s a cell.

          No, YOU are the one who keeps gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell. Science say it’s a human organism in its earliest stages of development and you have repeatedly and intentionally refused to acknowledge that and you haven’t offered a shred of evidence refuting it. It’s in the form of a cell for a very short period of time. By the time the mother even realizes she’s pregnant it’s developed way, way past that point. Most abortions take place around 18 weeks which means it’s not anywhere near a being just a cell.

          http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

        • adam

          “You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.”

          But still less so than The Church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/121670126727fb70083ce9688c4d61a65733742a289d1710ab2e6475100ee6eb.png

        • Susan

          the person cannot be awakened by any stimulation, including pain.

          Which implies that they can feel pain.

          Brains are complicated, which is why the medical ethics on the subject are difficult.

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14891-some-coma-patients-feel-pain/

          With a zygote, there is no brain present.

          gacking up your talking points
          by calling it a cell.

          It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          Most abortions take place around 18 weeks

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          You are as brainwashed and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

          Sproing!!

        • Ameribear

          With a zygote, there is no brain present. It is a cell. No brain. No sentience.

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development just like everything else. The brain does not get added to it from the outside.

          Your argument is that a cell is a person. So, that’s irrelevant to your point.

          What comes into existence after conception is in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development. My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

        • Susan

          There is a brain present in it’s earliest stage of development

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          in the form of a single cell but is a person in it’s earliest stage of development.

          So, you keep asserting.

          My second point is that by the time most abortions take place it has developed way past being just a single cell.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

        • Ameribear

          No. There isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is not a sentient being.

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          So, you keep asserting.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          That wanders away from your point that a cell is a person.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

        • Kodie

          Sentience requires a brain, not the cells that will, with physical blood and tissue contribution from its host, become a brain much later.

        • Susan

          Another denial with nothing backing it up.

          You say a cell has a brain. Back it up. It’s outrageous as far as I can tell. I don’t have to deny it. You haven’t supported it. Cells don’t contain brains. Ask a neuroscientist.

          So you keep ignoring and or denying.

          No. I keep pointing out that you have nothing but assertions and have done nothing to support those assertions. That’s not ignoring. And it doesn’t merit denying. I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your rectum forced-birther propaganda.

          That demonstrates that you don’t understand that I’m making two separate points.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

        • Ameribear

          You say a cell has a brain.

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely which you have never refuted. You are intentionally being misleading by continuously hacking up your talking points and then demanding that I prove them rather then what I actually said. I never said a cell has a brain so your lying about that too. I said it’s a new separate genetically distinct human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is what you insist on ignoring. You are intentionally being deceitful and dishonest because you cannot even acknowledge what I’ve said let alone refute it.

          I don’t accept your claims because they’ve been plucked from your forced-birther propaganda.

          I can’t accept your claims because they aren’t claims. They’re intentional diversions made to attempt to hide the fact that you cannot refute what science has declared for some time. You’ve offered nothing but regurgitated abortion industry agitprop that you’ve clearly proven you can’t think beyond.

          You’ve lied about eighteen weeks. So, that’s not a point made. You haven’t even acknowledged that you’ve got that completely wrong.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial to the point I made and you missed. The fact that you’re still obsessing over a number instead of actually refuting the point is even more proof of your abject intellectual bankruptcy.

          Your line of demarcation as far as personhood goes is a zygote. The rest is irrelevant. And you can’t make that point either. You just assert it.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly. I backed them up with quotes from 40 textbooks on embryology and links to detailed fetal development material. I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times and not once have you even responded to it. That’s plenty more than just assertions and all I’ve gotten back from you is “it’s a cell”. You’ve got nothing. Thank you once again for proving your worldview is an empty lie and has no future.

        • Susan

          You keep coming back to referring to it as a cell

          Because it’s a cell. The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          when I’ve made the repeated distinction that science has defined it as something else entirely

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          I never said a cell has a brain

          You said:

          There is a brain present in its earliest stage of developent.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly. There is a brain “present” is what you said. There clearly isn’t.

          The number of weeks is completely immaterial.

          Then don’t parrot bullshit statistics from forced-birth propaganda and pretend you’ve said something useful. Especially don’t do that and ignore that you have no support for those statistics and then fail to acknowledge the error when it’s pointed out that your statistics are erroneous.

          I’ve made my points repeatedly

          Find one of your comments where you’ve made a single point to support your assertions, copy/paste the comment by right-clicking on it. So far, all you’ve done is make assertions..

          I must have made the form/nature distinction at least half a dozen times.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood. You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications, fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood and completely ignore the consequences on real persons (women/broodmares).

          By the way, man up. 18 weeks is demonstrably wrong. That you can’t acknowledge something so obvious says everything about you.

          You’ve got nothing.

          All I’ve got is:

          You haven’t made a dent on the subject of personhood and you seem to have studied your biology exclusively from forced-birth arguments.

          .You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell. .

          You’ve shown no progress on the personhood of your arbitrary cell and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          0 for those 3.

        • Ameribear

          Because it’s a cell.

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          The subject is personhood which requires at the very least sentience.

          You cannot just cite sentience as a criteria for determining personhood.

          Sentience is a property that continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          If sentience is your criteria then any one who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          I’ve never seen “science” claim it is something else entirely than a cell. It’s a cell. It is not sentient.

          Then you’re deliberately ignoring what has been taught in numerous embryology text books for some time now.

          What did I get wrong? Make your point clearly.

          One more time. It is a human organism in it’s earliest stage of development which is a universe apart from just a cell and a definition you still have not refuted. The brain is present in it’s earliest stage of development just like all the other vital organs.

          The form/nature distinction is not a disnction at all when it comes to the subject of personhood….fail to make progress on the philosophical question of personhood

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person. A zygote qualifies as being both of these from conception even in the form of the cell it starts out in. Personhood cannot be predicated on any varying property or on a continuum. If you deny this you must offer a third or more criteria to this set that aren’t arbitrary.

          You point at an arbitrary cell and ignore the biological implications,

          I keep correcting your brain dead talking point by pointing to a living human organism because you are the one ignoring the biological implications. It’s painfully obvious by now that you have no choice but to ignore the biological implications because they blow your pathetic talking point out of the water. If you believe it’s not what science says it is, then offer something better than the same feeble talking point repeated ad-nauseam.

          and completely ignore the consequences on real persons

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception on which you have offered zilch proving otherwise.

          You are forced to appeal to sentient beings in order to assert the personhood of your arbitrary cell.

          I specifically said sentience cannot be used to assert personhood and that’s the 4th of 5 times you’ve repeated the same stupid talking point with nothing refuting the scientific definition in this post.

          and you’ve dismissed requests that you address the personhood of the established person whose life and health you find irrelevant.

          No that’s what you’ve been doing. Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

          All I’ve got is:

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point or in other words…nothing.

        • Susan

          It’s a human organism. That is a singular point you haven’t even acknowledged yet.

          It is a cell which, if it feeds off the resources of a sentient being can become either no person, a person or part of a person. People have tried to explain the biology to you but you’ve ignored them.

          Personhood is the issue and you haven’t established personhood for your pet cell.

          So fuck off with your “biological implications”. Science does not say it’s a person. Nor can it.

          You are the one ignoring the consequences on the real persons that are present from conception

          You haven’t established that a cell is a person.

          In the meantime, all women (and their families and their children and their significant others) can just suck it, according to you Note that the people I listed there are unquestionably “persons”. The consequences for them are real. They are sentient.

          I specifcally said that sentience cannot be used to assert personhood

          Then, stop using terms like “murder”, “genocide”, “innocence” etc., all of which are based on sentient models.

          Being a human and a living being are the minimum set of characteristics sufficient to make an entity a person.

          No. I disagree. *Human* is a biolgical term. And a fuzzy one on thte contiuum of sentient earthlings. “Person” is a moral term.

          “Persons” are those who are worthy of moral consideration.

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appea endessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          No. That’s what you’ve been doing.

          No. I haven’t. But you have.

          You have made no efforts to study either biology or pesronhood.

          An arbitrary point of human tissue is not necessarily a person.

          You can assert it until you’re blue in the face. That is not an argument.

          You haven’t even had the decency to retract your claim that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks” even though it’s clearly false.

          “Personhood” (i’e. moral consideration( and sentience are complicated and I’d be happy to roll up my sleeves with an honest person to address them.

          But not with you.

          Because you’ve shown no interest in either biology or the phiosophy of personhood and you don’t even have the decency to retract the statement that “most abortions happen at eighteen weeks”.

          One continuously regurgitated worthless talking point

          Right back at you bro.

          You’re claiming a zygote is a person.

          But you’ve made no progress.

          Your church’s arguments address neither the science of biology nor the philosophy of personhood.

          They just talk about souls and when confronted, bullshit about biology and personhood.

          And you just repeat their bullshit.

        • Ameribear

          Sentience is basic for moral consideration or you wouldn’t appeal endlessly to terms (see above) that are basic for sentient beings.

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood then answer the questions and points in my previous reply.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age.

          Sentience is something each one of us possesses in varying degrees over our life time.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          If sentience is your criteria then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery are not persons and are therefore
          by your standard not worthy of moral consideration.

          These are the logical consequences of your assertion. You can pick any continuous property and these questions would still apply. Address the consequences of your assertion or find something else to base personhood on because sentience cannot be it.

          You’ve accused me of failing to make progress on the issue of personhood and then you turn around and do exactly the same thing. Once again you are the one who’s failed to do what you accuse me of.

        • adam
        • Susan

          If you’re going to use sentience as a criteria for determining personhood

          We all do. Give me an example of a moral problem that isn’t based on the short or long term consequences of a sentient being.

          Sentience is a property that arises well before birth, continues to develop after birth and begins to deteriorate as we age

          It also applies (based on the definition you said you accepted) in varying degrees to billions of non-human earhlings. It applied to hominids that went extinct and it applies to trillions of life forms that have populated this planet for hundreds of millions of years.

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for determining personhood?

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          If sentience is your criteria

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”. Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not sufficient.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          then anyone who is comatose

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience. Brains are complicated. Zygotes don’t have them.

          or anaesthetized for surgery

          We’ve been through this too.

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          Are you going to address either one of those points?

          Ever?

        • Ameribear

          It does not apply to a zygote, your magical point of “personhood” that you have yet to support.

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience, or any type of human mental activity from conception. The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”, there is no reason to restrict “worthy of moral consideration” to humans..

          I reject that definition outright. Animals and inanimate sacred
          objects are worthy of moral consideration so that cannot be what
          defines a person.

          I asked you a direct question that you haven’t answered so I’ll
          repeat it.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood? How about a straight answer instead of an evasion?

          I’ve said straight out (and others have said the
          same thing less directly) that sentience is not my “criteria”.
          Just that sentience is basic. That sentience is necessary but not
          sufficient.

          And I say straight out that personhood cannot be based on
          sentience nor any other continuous property because you inevitably end up having to regard some humans as non persons because they don’t possess it.

          If sentience is not basic, then stop using terms like “murder” “babies” and “genocide” all of which push buttons that are connected to our mirror neurons sympathizing with fellow sentient beings.

          Sentience cannot be the basis for personhood and I will not stop
          using those terms because they describe exactly what abortion is.

          I’ve addressed this. There are so many ways of
          being in a coma. Only some of them preclude sentience.

          I pointed out to you that there is at least one form of comatose
          described in the link you posted that fits. All of them do not have
          to preclude sentience in order for my point to be valid.

          We’ve been through this too.

          Where?

          Back to your point about a microscopic, brainless bit of tissue being a person.

          Langman, J. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition:

          The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

          Larsen, WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd edition:

          This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

          O’Rahilly, RR and Müller, F. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition:

          [F]ertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is
          thereby formed….

          Moore, KL. Essentials of Human Embryology:

          This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

          Carlson, BM. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology:

          Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

          Gilbert, S. Developmental Biology. 7th edition:

          Fertilization: Beginning of a New Organism

          Back to you about being wrong for the umpteenth time. You continue deny reality by ignoring the real scientific definition that proves you’re wrong and have offered nothing else to counter it.

          If you would like to discuss potentially sentient beings, be prepared to address all of them. Not just the human ones.

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception without you trying to evade and divert the issue you’ve repeatedly failed to disprove.

          “Personhood” is complicated.

          Any definition of personhood must include every living human being at every stage of development. I said that being alive and a human being is all that’s needed to be a person because that definition does exactly that.

          But as I’ve always said, you can’t make an argument in any other situation that any “person” has a right to use another “person’s” body against their will. I’ve made these two points repeatedly.

          I’ve already answered your worthless objection multiple times.
          Embryology declares unequivocally that a new human being is present from the moment of conception and that two peoples willful actions are responsible for that happening. That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          1) One has to achieve sentience at least, in order to have moral worth. In order to be a person.

          Wrong. Sentience is achieved by other non human life forms so that cannot be it.

          2) Even if one is a “person”, they can’t force another “person” to donate their body to sustaining them.

          A newborn requires the use of both parents bodies for several
          years to continue to provide a baseline level of care necessary for
          ordinary survival so by your screwed up logic parents can kill their
          children or aged parents simply because they’ve become to big of a burden.

        • Susan

          It does apply because all humans possess the ultimate capacity for sentience

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge what embryology clearly defines a zygote as shows just how feckless your defense of abortion is.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          I reject that definition outright.

          Take that up with moral philosophers. I don’t know whether they’ll care nor why they should.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI&t=17s

          Animals

          You mean otheranimals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          and inanimate sacred objects are worthy of moral consideration

          No. They’re not. The sentient beings who created them and the sentient beings who care about them are worthy of consideration. Inanimate objects themselves are not worthy of moral consideration.

          What level of sentience that encompasses every living human at
          every stage of life from birth to natural death do you propose for
          determining personhood?

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          Sentience canot be the basis for personhood.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          I would like to address that human personhood begins at conception

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          That new persons right to the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival cannot be trumped by any imaginary bodily autonomy.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          You are special pleading. You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so. Unless you’ll consent to being forced to give blood, donate a piece of your liver and donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

        • Ameribear

          No,it doesn’t because a cell is not even sentient.

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism and provided abundant evidence to back it up but you continue to ignore that because it blows your entire argument out of the water. You are being deliberately misleading and dishonest in the face of very clear evidence that your wrong.

          It decidedly does NOT define it as a person.

          It is living and it is human which means it’s a person.

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person?s=t

          You mean other animals. Yes, Ameribear. We are animals. It’s not unreasonable to consider our fellow non-human earthlings worthy of moral consideration. It’s not immoral to kick a rock but it is to kick a kitten. The rock won’t suffer and the kitten will.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans. It cannot define personhood it can only be something that is demanded by the nature of what it’s directed at.

          What is special about humans? Anyway,any sentience at all. Something a zygote cannot have.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          Since you can’t answer that question I’ll do it for you. Sentience is a continuous property that all humans possess in varying degrees over our lifetimes so it, just like every other continuous property, can never be a basis for personhood because it would be impossible to decide on a level of sentience that includes all living persons at all stages of development.

          No. It is not the basis for personhood. As I’ve said repeatedly, it is necessary but not sufficient..

          Then what makes it sufficient?

          But you’ve never addressed it. You’ve just asserted it. You just keep asserting it.

          I have done way more to back up my points than you have with yours.

          It’s not imaginary if the state forces you to give blood or donate a piece of your liver, or even just mandate that you donate your body to science on your driver’s license.

          The state cannot force person A to meet the state of need of person B if person A is not directly responsible for person B being in that state of need. This does not apply to unborn persons because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          This is a big fat red herring on your part.

          You can’t force a woman to go through pregnancy and labour just because you say so.

          Just like the state can’t force anyone to assume the responsibility for their actions right?

        • Susan

          I have said repeatedly it’s a human organism

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then being worthy of moral consideration is not reserved strictly for humans

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Personhood is complicated.

          What is it about you that you can’t give me a straight answer to that question?

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          This does not apply to unborn persons

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          because the parents of the unborn person are directly responsible for his or her state of need.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          That’s when it’s an actual person in the actual world. An established person. With a brain and usually a family and friends.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          And you keep ignoring me and repeating yourself.

        • Ameribear

          That doesn’t make it a person.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          As a “person” is generally defined as “a being worthy of moral consideration”

          Exactly. If you kick a rock down the sidewalk, you are bored. If you kick a kitten down the sidewalk, you are a contemptuous monster.

          Then your definition of a person as a being worthy of moral consideration isn’t valid because humans aren’t the only thing worthy of moral consideration.

          Yes. That doesn’t make it a person. It is a cell that if it feeds off the body of a sentient being can become no person, a person, part of a person or multiple persons.

          I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Unless you can provide arguments or evidence that embryology gets it wrong then stop repeating that talking point.

          That does not make it a person. You have to make your case. And you don’t. Repeating that being a human organism is equivalent to being a person is a category error.

          Then give me an example of a person that is not a human
          organism.

          It’s not a straight question. There is no reason to restrict “moral consideration” to humans. And no reason to provide it for a cell.

          It is a straight question and this is the third time you’ve evaded it.

          There’s not even any other case you’ve argued where someone should be forced to give blood, donate a piece of their liver or donate their body to science. That is, to have their choice removed about their own body.

          You’re once again ignoring the key distinctions I already pointed out that render your bodily autonomy argument invalid.

          But you want to give a cell priority over a person’s right to choices about their body, over the needs of her children and her spouse You want her to have to take on the short and long-term health risks (which include death) because a brainless cell has rights to her body.

          I want to shatter the self-absorbed lies that people like you insist on propagating and that you still haven’t proven aren’t lies.

          You believe in little souls. Somehow, you think “human organism” will effectively replace that belief in a conversation about personhood. That is begging the question.

          Show me where I’ve ever mentioned souls.

          You also belong to a church that does a terrible job at sex education and is against access to reliable methods of birth control

          Why don’t you stick to the topic at hand instead of attempting to divert attention from the fact that you have no arguments or evidence.

          Until you establish that a cell is a person, you need to stop calling them persons.

          You never established that it isn’t. I’ve shown you ample evidence that it’s not just a cell. Until you can establish that embryology gets it wrong and that you’ve got it right then stop repeating your feckless talking points.

          If you caused a terrible collision because you were texting and driving and the person you injured desperately needed a blood transfusion and you were a match, you would not be forced to donate blood.

          The person who needs a blood transfusion in your case would not, in order to survive, have to get it from the one who caused him or her to need it. An unborn child does not have that option.

          Hint: When you say “I keep saying”… note that I keep explaining why you don’t have an argument. I don’t just assert it.

          You do assert it because you haven’t come up with squat to explain anything you said. All you have is talking points and I’ve refuted every one. You just keep denying what I’ve said, ignoring me, and repeating yourself.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          It does make it a person because being alive and a human being includes all human persons at every stage of development. You cannot add anything else to those criteria without excluding some members.

          Every single cell in your body is human in some stage of development and nearly every one of them is alive. Not one single cell of your body is a person.

        • Ameribear

          What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell. It is nothing like any other cell in our bodies. It’s not even close to being just another cell. You missed a crucial distinction once again.

        • adam

          “What comes into existence after conception according to embryology is a new, distinct human organism in the form of a cell”

          Or a number of cells or the cell just DIES.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Greg G.

          It is a single cell. Most every cell has a dozen or so mutations so they are all distinct human organisms but they are not people. You are imagining distinctions so you can stick your nose into other people’s business for religious reasons.

        • Ameribear

          It is in the form of a single cell but it’s nature is that of a new human being in it’s earliest stage of development so it is a member of the human race. No other types of cells can or will ever develop into a human being. It’s not just another cell. This is a very important distinction that embryology points out and not something I’m imagining.

        • Pofarmer

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons. Even some Catholic philosophers realize that saying something is a person before implantation is problematic. Some also realize it’s problematic before the point of twinning is past at about 14 days. Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks. But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

        • Ameribear

          So? If it doesn’t implant it will simply be flushed out. Or it could be absorbed. Or it could twin or more for about the first 2 weeks. At any stage of gestation it could fail for any number of reasons.

          It’s true that many pregnancies don’t make it to full development but that doesn’t change what embryology has defined it as.

          Some realize that it’s impossible to be a person without a nervous system. Some don’t think you can he a person if that nervous system never fires, which is around 25 weeks.

          That still doesn’t change anything. According to embryology the
          zygote contains everything necessary to form all the vital organs and systems. It’s still a human person in it’s earliest stage of development that under normal circumstances will become a fully developed human. Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.

          But you know all this, and you ignore it and go round and round, so you can control other people

          Does forcing people to take care of their born children constitute controlling them?

        • adam

          ” Because things go wrong during the early stages of development of some
          persons does not justify intentionally ending the lives of others.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          “That still doesn’t change anything. ”

          Most certainly it does. Whether or not something is conscious changes things a great deal.

        • Ameribear

          Then any born human who isn’t conscious isn’t a person.

        • adam

          So a dead born human isnt a person.

        • Pofarmer

          A born person who can be conscious would be a person. A zygote or embryo doesn’t have a developed nervous system. They cannot be conscious.

        • Ameribear

          Zygotes and embryos have the capacity for consciousness from the start. You cannot link personhood to development.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Capacity? So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          The twinkle in your eye has the potential to be a living, breathing human. Did you and your wife have every possible child you could’ve? I certainly hope so. It would’ve been heartless to deny that potential.

        • Susan

          So it’s all just an argument from potential.

          Not even thinly disguised. He hasn’t progressed a micrometer past that.

          A lot of bluster and derision since. But no actual argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I realize that Ameribear has made a thousand comments already, so my few words in response are chaff in a windstorm. But sometimes it’s hard to resist.

        • Susan

          my few words are chaff in a windstorm.

          Not in terms of the actual discussion.

          I wish more people jumped in.

          Ameribear has nothing BUT an argument from potential.

          And repetition.

          If this were about changing Ameribear’s mind, I wouldn’t bother.

          But it isn’t so we should.

        • Pofarmer

          I’ve been reading a little bit about the philosophy of personhood and the ethical arguments surrounding abortion the last few days. Philosophically it seems pretty clear cut that an embryo is not a person. It is somewhat less clear cut that an embryo is a human being, depending on qualities given thereof. Then you get into the argument from potential. That because a zygote will be a person some day, it should have the full rights of personhood from the point of fertilization. Except it’s pointed out that we don’t do that with anything else. A 12 year old is potentially an 18 year old, but they can’t vote or drink. Etc. Etc. Etc. Now it would seem a little sticky, except for the issue that the zygote, despite protestations elsewhere, is 100% reliant on the mothers body for it’s growth and developement. It changes and uses it in permanent and significant ways. The zygote, even though it may have a right to life, also does not have the right to use another’s body against their will. None of us do. So the mothers rights take precedence. This is the way I see it and I beleive is correct. Folks like Ameribear are trying to drag us back a few hundred years on the ideas of personal freedoms and individual rights. Thru discount the rights of the mother for the perceived rights of the state, and I think this could be particularly dangerous and far reaching.

        • Pofarmer

          You Guys may be interested in this short Paper from MU.

          http://ethics.missouri.edu/personhood.html

          “The Concept of Personhood”

        • Kodie
        • Pofarmer

          No, they don’t and yes, you can. That’s how you do it. They don’t have the capacity for consciousness until the develop stable brain wave patterns.

        • Ameribear

          Yes they do and no you can’t.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that? If stable brain waves are what determines a person then any born human with unstable or erratic brain waves isn’t a person. If you insist on linking development to personhood then anything short of a perfectly developed fully functioning human isn’t a person. Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are. No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with. If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

        • Pofarmer

          This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          Linking personhood to development means your defining a person by what they can do instead of who they are.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          What level of brain waves constitutes a person? How will you measure that?

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          No one can function as a person unless they are a person to begin with.

          Yep.

          If you insist on defining a person based on what they can do, how do you justify your own existence?

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

        • Ameribear

          Or a cat, or a dog, or a pig, or a butterfly.

          But it isn’t going to develop in to a cat, dog, pig, or butterfly is it? It’s a human organism.

          You’re not defining by a who, you’re defining by a what, and not even a full what.

          Alright then what they are. The point is that what a person can do still can’t be what defines them as a person. What is your standard of what persons should be able to do going to be to determine if they’re a person because anyone who can’t meet it isn’t a person.

          My consistent criterion has been sentience. It’s not some one off opinion.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person. Animals are sentient and are not persons. Sentience varies over our life time so personhood must vary as well. What level of sentience are you going to use that includes all persons at every stage of develelopment?

          Yep.

          Then personhood is present from conception.

          Why should I have to? I’m sentient and exist in society.

          May it never happen but what if you suffered a brain injury or a stroke that left you with only enough brain capacity to sustain a basic level of survival without external aids? Will you no longer be a person then?

          No, a world run by your world view is one where people reserve the right to decide who lives and who dies by allowing the will of the strong to be forced on the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. This is also a world with no future.

        • Pofarmer
        • epeeist

          Have a look at the references in his link, including the places where information was published.

        • BlackMamba44

          The first paragraph of their mission:

          MISSION

          The goal of the Charlotte Lozier Institute is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood, and fatherhood, and to identify policies and practices that will protect life and serve both women’s health and family well-being. Our profound conviction is that the insights available through the best science, sociology and psychology cannot help but demonstrate that each and every human is not only “fearfully and wonderfully made” but blessed to be born at this time in human history

          We desire and seek that the benefits of modern medicine and the wealth of nations be put to the service of human life and that the scourges of abortion, physical disease, euthanasia and human exploitation will be diminished and ultimately overcome. Our intention is to work closely with the full array of existing groups dedicated to parallel purposes – to provide them with information of the highest quality that will assist them in their tasks of public advocacy, legal argument, and social action. We will do so while remaining faithful to the best methodologies and standards, inviting and accepting debate in the pursuit of our goals so that our work earns the highest degree of public trust and respect.

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

        • epeeist

          Skimming through their news link also gives them away. A pro-life “institute”.

          Who equivocate between “human” and “person” in exactly the same way as Ameribear.

        • Pofarmer

          I did. I also noted that the author is a member of the “Pontifical academy for life.” Arguing to a predetermined conclusion?

        • Kodie

          If you can pull the plug on someone who is being kept alive by heart and respiration machines but is brain-dead, you can pull the plug on a fetus.

        • Greg G.

          Neither has the capacity for consciousness. They need lots more material that must be taken from someone else’s bloodstream to develop the capacity for consciousness, not unlike a carbon atom that needs to form a hydrocarbon and become part of a zygote that has the potential to become a conscious entity. A zygote is closer to the carbon atom than to having the capacity for consciousness.

        • Ameribear

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. So by your reasoning based on the feckless talking point you keep vomiting up, we should rescind all the child protection laws and allow parents to end the lives of their born children simply because their to much of a burden.

        • Greg G.

          Newborns continue to rely on the use of their parents bodies for years after birth and the state can compel them to do so under penalty of prison. 

          Parents can relinquish custody to someone else who will take responsibility if they do not want to become parents. They face prison if they do not provide care without relinquishing responsibility. The children are cared for by people who are willing to do it.

        • Ameribear

          Then the law can still compel someone else to donate their bodies to the care of the child.

        • Greg G.

          The law can compel the death penalty for picking up sticks on one particular arbitrary day of the week but who wants that?

          Parents can say they do not want to or that they cannot care for their children, and society can relieve them of the responsibility. If they do not say that, society will leave them alone as long as the children are not being deprived of care.

          This is another losing argument for you. All of your arguments are failures but you are too stupid to shut up.

        • Pofarmer

          Isn’t Ameribears world just lovely?

        • Ameribear

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children. You can’t go around whining about not being forced to donate your body because it can and is done. Your feckless bodily autonomy talking point is the king of losing arguments and the fact that you keep hacking it up proves how badly your losing the abortion debate and that you’re the one who’s too stupid to shut up.

          Without it, you do not have personhood.

          Then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized isn’t a person and that means it’s ok to kill them.

          Lack of sentience means lack of personhood.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then? What level of sentience covers every living person at every stage of development? You never answered that exact same question when I asked it in reply to your stupid brain activity standard either.

        • Greg G.

          My point is the state can and does legally compel humans to donate their bodies to the responsibility of caring for children.

          Then you have no point because it is not true. A person can hire a nanny and not care for the kid personally. If a person accepts responsibility for the care of the child, then they are responsible for the care of the child. But they can revoke the responsibility and put the child up for adoption or let someone else care for the child. As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it. If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          hen anyone who is comatose or anesthetized

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          You’ve just affirmed my point and you probably don’t even realize it. If sentience is required for personhood and it varies then the level of personhood has to vary as well. What level of sentience should be the standard for personhood then?

          Bob posted an article with a dilemma for you. You are trying to escape a fire. There is a five year old that you can rescue on your way out and cooler with a thousand frozen human embryos, but you cannot carry both. Which do you save, the child or the thousand embryos or two embryos? If the child, is there some number of embryos that you would need it to be instead of the child. What if the choice was a puppy or a human embryo?

        • Ameribear

          As long as the child is getting minimal care, the state is OK with it.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          If a pregnant woman wants to have the child, she can, but if she does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do it.

          Only in you deluded fantasy land.

          Depends on the coma but an anesthetized person has a functioning brain capable of sentience.

          They’re not sentient during surgery. You still haven’t answered the question of what level of sentience are you going to use to determine personhood. You also haven’t addressed the problem you yourself brought up of some humans becoming less of a person than others because their sentience is either impaired or underdeveloped.

          That asinine thought experiment is nothing but a rehashed false dilemma that you’re to dense to see through.

          http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/

        • Greg G.

          Then the state is still compelling someone to care for the child even though it may not be the birth mother. Some one has to take responsibility for the child or face the consequences if they don’t.

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being. I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument. If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          But you were too much of a chickenshit to answer the question.

        • Ameribear

          The state does not force anybody to care for a child against their will. It will hire people to do the job but they can quit or take another job. It can pay foster parents to care for the child but they can return the child if they cannot handle that child for some reason.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time? The force of law compels both biological parents and any one whom the state hires to take the responsibility of caring for a child to act responsibly or suffer the consequences. Neither one of them can use the excuse that their bodily autonomy trumps the right of the child in their care to receive proper treatment. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth.

          A sentient being that is temporarily not sentient is still recognized as a sentient being.

          Your assuming that all non sentience is temporary. Some comatose patients may never regain sentience.

          I do not understand why you are pursuing this line of argument.

          Because it intentionally narrows down the definition of personhood to exclude other persons.

          If a fully sentient being requires another fully sentient being to survive, and the other being does not agree, the first being is out of luck in my view, as the second being cannot and should not be forced to keep the other being alive for any extended period.

          A newborn requires another fully sentient being to survive for an even longer period of time and no one’s bodily autonomy is absolute to the point of justifying denying any child a proper environment. The only difference is that a child has no other means of survival available to it before birth. Absolute bodily autonomy is a feckless myth you cling to because you’ve run out of excuses. As if you had any to begin with.

          That page says that saving the five year old and leaving the embryos is the moral thing (“We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. “). Professor McCormick recognizes that a living child is more of a person than many embryos. The other examples have no bearing on the question.

          That article says they agree that “considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl.” Professor George goes on to say “However, this by no means shows that human embryos are not human beings or that they may be deliberately killed to produce stem cells, or in an abortion.”.

          Want to guess what that makes you for intentionally leaving that out?

        • Greg G.

          Then why are there laws on the books stating that anyone who harms or neglects a child can be convicted of a crime and face jail time?

          This has been answered to many times by me and by others. That you continue to use it shows that you are out of arguments. You are the Black Knight:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6frs86Szk_0

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t come anywhere near answering it. I asked you specific questions that exposed the speciousness of your argument that you never answered. Absolute bodily autonomy is a myth and existing child protection laws prove it.

        • Greg G.

          Answered many times. Perhaps you need to upgrade your intelligence. Escaping the hold religion has on you can help with that.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear thinks that since bodily autonomy isn’t absolute, it’s ok to make people slaves, for the good of the fetus, of course.

        • Ameribear

          Have a look at these.

          https://www.wonderslist.com/10-mothers-who-killed-their-kids/

          Now then weasel, since you and others here believe bodily autonomy is absolute, explain why these women are behind bars instead of roaming around Scott-free because their lawyers invoked the vaunted bodily autonomy defense? Number one, I think is, especially pertinent because her 3 month old son was interfering with her all-important bodily autonomy by keeping her away from her Farmville session.

        • Greg G.

          Every one of those cases, the mother had accepted responsibility for the child instead of giving it up for adoption or to family services. Not one of the cases is relevant. If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

        • Pofarmer

          None of those were fertilized eggs. Funny.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If that is the best you can come up with, then you have no argument.

          Colour me shocked, I tell ya, shocked….NOT!

        • Ameribear

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          You aren’t missing the point I’m making, you’re intentionally ignoring it because it proves you’re wrong and you’re too much of an underhanded slime bag to admit it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Those women are behind bars because they were convicted of refusing to accept their responsibilities by murdering their kids which proves your feckless absolute bodily autonomy concept is a myth.

          How can you be so asinine with just one head?

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          I was a single parent, had I behaved the same, I’d be behind bars for neglect too.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Had those women gave up those children because they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect, they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

        • Ameribear

          They are behind bars for neglect.

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          Those women decided to accept the responsibility of looking after those children, then neglected that duty. It isn’t the fucking same thing ya dopey bastard.

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect. Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action. It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Had those women gave up those children because
          they couldn’t cope, and the kids had subsequently died of neglect,
          they would not have ended up behind bars…because they are NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE…. MORON.

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except for #4 all of those stories are about women who committed first degree murder doofus. There’s a hell of a difference between that and neglect.

          And all of them except number four are filicide and do nothing to uphold your argument ya fuckwit. Only case four is anywhere near relevant, and even then it isn’t.

          They are all behind bars because they neglected the responsibility they undertook to look after the children they decided to have and look after.. How the kids met there demise is academic to this discussion on accepting said responsibility and a mothers right to bodily autonomy.

          https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-horrific-cases-of-parents-who-killed-their-children/

          Neglected children could be found to be dirty, sick and or malnourished in which case they could still survive neglect.

          Jumping Jaysus on a fucking pogo stick, do you take courses in stupid?

          If you read what I wrote…S-L-O-W-L-Y… you just might get it.

          Murdered children are always found dead. Neglect involves inaction, first degree murder involves direct, willful action.

          And it isn’t exclusive to mothers looking for bodily autonomy, so it has fuck all to do with abortion.

          It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          Except when it is…. as in example four…or…

          http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/baby-dies-in-hot-car-after-mum-left-her-for-six-hours-to-go-get-her-hair-done-6790943/

          But they willfully murdered their children because they couldn’t cope so they are behind bars because they are responsible Ignorant Amos.

          Which is the very point I made. They couldn’t cope AFTER they accepted the responsibility to cope. they NEGLECTED their responsibility. How the kids met their death is a non sequitur to the discussion. that some mothers proactively engage in the harm, while others unintentionally cause harm, has diddly squat to do with this debate. Neglect of a duty of care after accepting it, is the point. A mother who gives up that responsibility, whether through abortion, or giving a child over to the care of another, is not guilty if harm comes to the youngster later.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

          Why you keep digging this hole you’ve started that has bugger all to do with pro-choice, is an enigma.

        • Ameribear

          You are saying the term neglect applies to the mothers of both the kids who died because of the direct action or inaction by their mothers which is beside the point. My point is that in either case the mothers right to bodily autonomy isn’t absolute to the point of absolving any of the them of their crimes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My point is that those mothers accepted their pregnancies, took them to term, had the babies, and accepted the responsibility to care for them…THEN…neglected them.

          Nothing remotely similar to a woman finding she has got pregnant and deciding that is a responsibility she isn’t prepared to sign up to, for what ever reason, and selects to have a termination.

          Or, after going to term, has the child and selects to remove the responsibility by relinquishing it whatever system at hand.

          Either way, she will have bodily autonomy. But the examples you have presented are of mothers that did neither.

          And again, my circumstances as a father are no different. I could have chickened out and gave my kids over, ergo, having no responsibility fro their well being. But since I didn’t, any harm while under my obligation for due care and attention rests at my feet. Up to, and including, life imprisonment for the loss of their lives because I’m too busy watching football and having a beer to notice they’d toddled out the front door and onto the road in front of a bus.

          Why on earth you can’t grasp the difference is beyond me.

          You wanting to compare the situation to an aborted fetus is just pure fuckwittery.

        • Ameribear

          My point is that those mothers accepted their pregnancies, took them to term, had the babies, and accepted the responsibility to care for them…THEN…neglected them.

          When they accepted the responsibility for them, they accepted the task of providing their children with a suitable environment to grow in. You can call it neglect if you like because it doesn’t matter. My point is they failed to provide the proper environment for their children which ended up depriving them of their lives. They are now behind bars because the state stepped up and did its job which was to first pass then enforce laws requiring that parents assume the responsibility for providing a suitable environment for their children to grow in which requires the parents to surrender some percentage of their bodily autonomy. Those who violate said laws do not escape justice by claiming their bodily autonomy rights are so absolute that they trump their children’s right to life. Since the state can and does, by the force of law, ensure that someone has to surrender some percentage of their bodily autonomy in order to provide suitable environments for children then absolute bodily autonomy is BS.

          Nothing remotely similar to a woman finding she has got pregnant and deciding that is a responsibility she isn’t prepared to sign up to, for what ever reason, and selects to have a termination.

          Bodily autonomy is thrown out as an excuse to justify abortion with the tag line that no one can force anyone to donate a part of their body without their consent. That’s false because the state can and does exactly that to ensure the protection of children and the examples I linked to
          prove that. Your insistence that bodily autonomy is absolute is false.

          The only differences between what those women did and getting an abortion is the level of development of their children and that they did it themselves.

          And again, my circumstances as a father are no different….

          Then you support my point through first hand experience.

          Why on earth you can’t grasp the difference is beyond me.

          The only difference lies in the form bodily donation takes.

        • Kodie

          So, 9 months of pregnancy is like taking a child and handing it to any random woman, and forcing her and only her to serve all the needs of that child for 9 months. None of those cases is like that at all.

        • Ameribear

          Nine months of pregnancy means providing a basic standard of care
          for a living, growing human person who has no other means of getting
          that care.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My point is they failed to provide the proper environment for their children which ended up depriving them of their lives.

          Oh for fucksake….the law only applies AFTER the adult accepts responsibility for the maintenance of the child’s well being. A mother can give her baby up for adoption at birth. She is not in any way responsible for its well being any longer. She has full bodily autonomy. The women in your fuckwit example enjoyed no such position because they CHOSE to take the responsibility, and therefore any culpability for negating said responsibility. How hard is this for you to understand.

          An example on your own Catholic doorstep is all those single girls who got pregnant and had to be shipped off because your fucked up religion makes abortion a sin and removes the bodily autonomy of the pregnant women. The moment the baby was born, it was removed from the mother, thereby removing the mothers responsibility for the child. In other words the mothers bodily autonomy was returned AFTER she was forced to go to term. And we all know how that repugnant shite turned out in many cases.

          The home, run by the Bon Secours Sisters, a Catholic religious order of nuns, received unmarried pregnant women to give birth. The women were separated from their children, who remained elsewhere in the home, raised by nuns, until they could be adopted.

          The discovery confirms decades of suspicions that the vast majority of children who died at the home were interred on the site in unmarked graves, a common practice at such Catholic-run facilities amid high child mortality rates in early 20th-century Ireland.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/mass-grave-of-babies-and-children-found-at-tuam-orphanage-in-ireland

          Culpability is commensurate to responsibility. All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does. Most rational thinking countries have provisions for just that. But ignorant knuckle-dragging morons like you are trying to drag everyone else back into your religious dark ages, which was a lot worse. You just can’t admit it, even if the more liberal among your ranks can…so you do one and fuck off with that shite.

        • Pofarmer

          And there’s the thing. These assholes have treated women and CHILDREN atrociously, all because of their faith, not in spite of it.

        • Ameribear

          All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          You agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born. Women can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to allow someone else to legally murder their unborn child up to the time of birth but they’ll go to jail if anything happens to the child the second after it’s born and you can’t or won’t see the absolute insanity of that logic. On top of that you, like the good little goose stepping moron you are, have to sanitize your barbarism by using carefully worded phrases like “relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth” to justify homicide. There are no words to adequately describe how brain-dead you are.

          Most rational thinking countries have provisions
          for just that.

          You think this is rational. You are beyond belief.

          But ignorant knuckle-dragging morons like you are trying to drag everyone else back into your religious dark ages, which was a lot worse.

          When the culture of death’s useful idiots like you actually believe and advocate for the utter insanity you just outlined, we’re already in the darkest of ages and it wasn’t us who brought us here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born….

          I agree that your reading for comprehension skills are a loada shite and you love a straw man fallacious means of argument along with your preferred hyperbole.

          Let me try again, even though the concept appears alien to your pea sized brain.

          I agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic standard of care for their children after they’re born if, and only if, they have undertaken to ACCEPT that responsibility, with the exception of in loco parentis.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

          Got it yet?

          Now for your hypocritical hyperbole.

          …but you think it’s OK to murder them before they’re born.

          I don’t think it’s murder, and get this, neither does those places where it is legal for abortion. Your assertion that it is murder carries no weight. And as you believe that the single cell has a soul, and the ultimate aim of the soul is to be in communion with your man in the sky, what ta fuck are you whinging about. Those murder victims are being fast tracked to Heaven. Unless you don’t really believe all that mumbo jumbo…is that what this is about, your lack of faith?

          Women can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to allow someone else to legally murder their unborn child up to the time of birth but they’ll go to jail if anything happens to the child the second after it’s born and you can’t or won’t see the absolute insanity of that logic.

          So much wrong with that loada jism I hardly know where to start. I’ll start with pointing to your lack of reading for comprehension and straw manning. Where did I say a woman can cite stress and inconvenience as a reason to abort a pregnancy ya lying fuckwit? Try reading it again s-l-o-w-l-y, it might save ya making a cunt of yerself…again.

          A “reason to legally murder their unborn child”, what ta fuck? Legally murder? Are you for real ya muppet?

          Then there is more verbal diarrhoea with, “they’ll go to jail if anything happens the child the second after it’s born”…NO THEY WON’T….furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, they will only become culpable as soon as the well being of the child is their responsibility…which could be never.

          The “insanity of that logic” is invented in your made up world of woo woo…get over it.

          On top of that you, like the good little goose stepping moron you are, have to sanitize your barbarism by using carefully worded phrases like “relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth” to justify homicide.

          Says the guy who is up to his neck in a fascist cult, a cult who relied on, and used some of the worst fascist dictators of the twentieth century to further their nefarious activities. A cult that consistently tries to keep it’s jack boots on the necks of the gullible cretins who are too stupid to think for themselves.

          Opus Dei: Neofascism Within the Catholic Church

          https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/2/19/1066389/-Opus-Dei-Neofascism-Within-the-Catholic-Church

          You are the moron here, Coco. There is no need for me to justify anything ya fuckin’ Dime Bar…there is no homicide being committed, other in your asinine imagination.

          How the fuck you get to “goose stepping” from someone that is pro-choice, while at the same time, you want to remove freedoms, is flabbergasting.

          In fact, even here in Ireland, Human Rights has declared the withholding of abortion for women in this part of the UK, because of the backward attitude of knuckle dragging Christians similar to you, is illegal. But even in this sorry place, the right to life of the woman trumps the right to life of the fetus.

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/26/ni-government-report-recommended-abortion-reforms-a-year-ago

          There are no words to adequately describe how brain-dead you are.

          Spoooiiinnnggity, spoing, spoing, spoing….there goes a box of meters. I’m not the gormless prick that believes in an imaginary man in the sky, and all that other made up fuckwittery you believe in, so pah!

        • Ameribear

          Let me try again, even though the concept appears alien to your pea sized brain.

          I agree that parents have the responsibility of providing a basic
          standard of care for their children after they’re born if, and only
          if, they have undertaken to ACCEPT that responsibility, with the exception of in loco parentis.

          Let me try again, even though the concept seems alien to your vacuumed out skull.

          They are still human children before their born you jack-booted stooge. You still don’t get it. They are still living growing human beings that in spite of all the half-assed attempts by every one the leftist boobs here you still haven’t proven otherwise.

          I don’t think it’s murder, and get this, neither
          does those places where it is legal for abortion.

          If you don’t think it’s murder then explain why. Why isn’t an unborn member of the human race entitled to the same basic level of care as a born human?

          Your assertion that it is murder carries no weight.

          Your assertion that it isn’t carries no weight because you haven’t
          come up with jack in the way evidence or reasons an unborn human being isn’t a human being. You don’t get to pull this crap with me. Explain without resorting to repeating abortion industry talking points why it’s not a human being before birth.

          And as you believe that the single cell has a
          soul…

          Nowhere in any of my defense of the unborn have I ever mentioned
          anything about a soul so you can cut the straw man crap and start
          showing your work.

          Where did I say a woman can cite stress and
          inconvenience as a reason to abort a pregnancy ya lying

          All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          Then there is more verbal diarrhoea with, “they’ll go to jail if anything happens the child the second after it’s born”…NO THEY WON’T….furthermore, and for the umpteenth time, they will only become culpable as soon as the well being of the child is their responsibility…which could be never.

          Does a child from the moment of birth become entitled to a basic
          standard of care? What’s going to happen to the staff if born children in their hospitals die because they didn’t get it? If a born child is entitled to a basic standard of care, what’s going to happen to ANYONE responsible for providing it if they don’t?

          Says the guy who is up to his neck in a fascist cult,

          Says the paid BS artist for the secular left. You’ve transformed the inability to think for yourself into an art form. Stop trying to change the subject and start explaining.

          There is no need for me to justify anything ya
          fuckin’ Dime Bar…there is no homicide being committed, other in
          your asinine imagination.

          Bullshit! You don’t get off with spewing your leftist tripe to me and think you never have to explain it. You’re reserving the fundamental right for yourselves to determine what constitutes a human person and nobody here has done anything but recite abortion industry talking points in defense of it. I’m betting the farm that you’re no different. When it comes down to really having to explain the bilge you spew, it becomes abundantly clear you are the ones who couldn’t think for yourselves if your life depended on it .

          How the fuck you get to “goose stepping” from someone that is pro-choice, while at the same time, you want to remove freedoms, is flabbergasting.

          Because I’ve never heard any so called pro-choicer adequately
          defend the barbarism they advocate and I’m betting you’re no
          different goose stepper. No free passes this time boot-licker. If you
          believe it isn’t murder it’s because you believe the unborn aren’t
          human persons. If you can’t adequately explain why you expose
          yourself as just another brain-dead, leftist, useful idiot which to
          me, you’re already well on your way to doing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They are still human children before their born you jack-booted stooge. You still don’t get it.

          So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get, and guess what, more and more of the world is recognising that fact. So you can bleat all you like about it, you lose. And it is you that is the “jack-booted stooge” by trying to enforce your backward religious thinking on everyone else, but you are too dumb a fuck to realise it. Thankfully, you are part of a dwindling number. So pah!

          They are still living growing human beings that in spite of all the half-assed attempts by every one the leftist boobs here you still haven’t proven otherwise.

          And yet the “leftist boobs” are winning the argument….with their “half assed attempts”…imagine if they applied their “whole assed attempts”, where would your fucked up thinking be then. When are you gonna question your YahwehJesus’ hand in all this pa-lava? When should we expect him to step up to the plate? That shite must piss ya off no end.

          If you don’t think it’s murder then explain why. Why isn’t an unborn member of the human race entitled to the same basic level of care as a born human?

          Why? You don’t listen. It has been explained to you ad nauseam on these threads why, you just refuse to grasp it. Bob has written whole articles why…and governments the world over don’t consider it murder, making your fucked up thinking the minority position more and more daily. Even within Catholicism ffs.

          Your assertion that it isn’t carries no weight because you haven’t come up with jack in the way evidence or reasons an unborn human being isn’t a human being. You don’t get to pull this crap with me. Explain without resorting to repeating abortion industry talking points why it’s not a human being before birth.

          You still don’t get it, do ya dipshit? The onus isn’t on me. You are the one losing the ground because your argument is pants. World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          Nowhere in any of my defense of the unborn have I ever mentioned
          anything about a soul so you can cut the straw man crap and start
          showing your work.

          The inference drawn is that you are a dopey cunt because you are a conservative Catholic, if you are just being a dopey cunt for the sake of it, you still have nothing to be proud of, but at least the conservative Catholic angle gave you a bit of an excuse, now you’ve lost even that. But let’s not kid ourselves here, there is a better than fair chance you hold yer dopey cunt views because of your conservative Catholicism and believe a single cell is a person because of it’s soul. If ya don’t, you are an even more of a dopey cunt than I realised. My bad.

          “All we are saying is that a woman finding herself in an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to relinquish the responsibility earlier than the point of birth and avoid all the stress and inconvenience of taking an unwanted pregnancy to term…and she does.

          Riiiggghhhttt. Again, where did I cite stress and inconvenience as the reason for the abortion? You are a wee bit thick really, aren’t ya…Dime Bar. Let me break it down for ya, since you are struggling so much. A woman who is forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term is ipso facto going to suffer inconvenience and stress, REGARDLESS, that’s IN SPITE of the reason she doesn’t want to take the pregnancy to term. The reasons for abortion are wide and varied, and may well include inconvenience and stress, but not exclusively. What I said was why should a woman endure the inconvenience and stress of an unwanted pregnancy by taking it to term, that’s regardless of her reason for not wanting the thing to go to term. Try and keep up please.

          Does a child from the moment of birth become entitled to a basic standard of care?

          Jaysus Christ on a rubber cross. This is a non sequitur of your making with no relevance to the pro-choice argument whatsoever. Let’s say yes for the sake of argument, now what? Entitled to a basic standard of care from whom? We live in a world where it isn’t obligatory from the mother, so your line of fucked up thinking doesn’t work. Give it up already.

          What’s going to happen to the staff if born children in their hospitals die because they didn’t get it?

          What do you think happens to negligent hospital staff ya Clampett?

          At the very least, the institution involved is held culpable.

          The tragic human cost of NHS baby blunders

          https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/sep/23/health.medicineandhealth

          But get this, they are never charged with a criminal offence…it isn’t murder, nor even manslaughter…why is that do ya think?

          And it still isn’t the mothers fault, so why ta fuck you still want to flog this dead horse is beyond any rationality.

          If a born child is entitled to a basic standard of care, what’s going to happen to ANYONE responsible for providing it if they don’t?

          Well that depends doesn’t it? I’m sure you think you have some sort of reasoning for this line of argument, it just isn’t there. The key word is “responsible” and the degree of lack of care. But this is irrelevant and why ya think it is, fuck knows.

          Says the paid BS artist for the secular left.

          Paid? I wish. I’m not the Coco that is scoffing down the crap and lies from a 2000 year old death cult, so pah!

          You’ve transformed the inability to think for yourself into an art form.

          Spooiiinng! The meters are exploding here, right, left, and centre.

          Stop trying to change the subject and start explaining.

          Start explaining what? That you are getting a new arse right royally tore with every asinine comment of yours being rebutted? That is in evidence. that you are asserting that I’m the one wearing the jack-boots and I’ve demonstrated that you are the right wing fascist cunt on this website with no retort? That’s in evidence too. That abortion is a reality that your backward thinking woo woo has lost the argument over? That’s also in evidence. So explain what?

          Bullshit! You don’t get off with spewing your leftist tripe to me and think you never have to explain it. You’re reserving the fundamental right for yourselves to determine what constitutes a human person and nobody here has done anything but recite abortion industry talking points in defense of it. I’m betting the farm that you’re no different. When it comes down to really having to explain the bilge you spew, it becomes abundantly clear you are the ones who couldn’t think for yourselves if your life depended on it .

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. it has been explained to you here, over and over, again and again, you just don’t get it. You asserting your asinine position doesn’t change the fact that abortion is a reality, and it isn’t down to the abundance of left wing secularists. You keep banging on about the overwhelming number of Christians, yet you are impotent to stop pro-choice legislation. Irish Catholics travel to England for abortions in there droves>

          Almost 25,000 women travelled from Ireland to Britain for abortions in last five years

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/almost-25000-women-travelled-from-ireland-abortions-last-five-years

          And that may well be set to change.

          Northern Ireland law on abortion ruled ‘incompatible with human rights’

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/30/northern-ireland-law-on-abortion-ruled-as-incompatible-with-human-rights

          Ireland to hold abortion referendum weeks before pope’s visit

          Last year the UN human rights committee found that Ireland’s abortion laws were “cruel, inhuman and degrading”. It repeated this criticism in June.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/ireland-abortion-referendum-pope-visit

          Ya need to suck it up, because the times they are a changing and your woo woo institute has lost it’s teeth to do anything about it.

          Because I’ve never heard any so called pro-choicer adequately defend…</blockquote.

          No one here gives a fuck about what Ameribear finds adequate, suffice to say the position has been adequately defended and entered into law.

          …the barbarism they advocate and I’m betting you’re no
          different goose stepper. No free passes this time boot-licker. If you
          believe it isn’t murder it’s because you believe the unborn aren’t
          human persons. If you can’t adequately explain why you expose
          yourself as just another brain-dead, leftist, useful idiot which to
          me, you’re already well on your way to doing.

          Tee hee hee…..Lifes a bitch, ain’t it. I win and you are irked, tough titty….na-na, na-na, naa, na….

          You have already lost this debate, you are just to stupid to know it, so jog on.

        • Ameribear

          So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most
          vulnerable members of society by the strongest members even though you think they’re both human persons. Congratulations, you’ve just justified all the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty tyrant to the present day.

          And it is you that is the “jack-booted stooge” by trying to enforce your backward religious thinking on everyone else, but you are too dumb a fuck to realise it.

          I’m the jack booted stooge for standing up for the rights of every
          member of the human race and by condoning mass murder, you’re not. You’ve really earned your jack boots today you heartless slug!

          And yet the “leftist boobs” are winning the argument….with their “half assed attempts”…imagine if they applied their “whole assed attempts”, where would your fucked up thinking be then.

          Only in the jack up alternate reality you live in. None of you have come anywhere near anything resembling a coherent argument. At
          least you’re honest enough to admit it’s still OK to murder another innocent human being in the name of some bullshit right you pulled
          out of your ass.

          Why? You don’t listen. It has been explained to you ad nauseam on these threads why, you just refuse to grasp it.

          Bullshit! Nothing’s come close to being explained. The only thing
          you’ve been able to do is parrot the same feeble talking points you
          superiors force feed you.

          Bob has written whole articles why…and governments the world over don’t consider it murder, making your fucked up thinking the minority position more and more daily. Even within Catholicism ffs.

          Governments the world over at one time didn’t think there was anything wrong with one person owning another person so I guess that makes slavery morally acceptable. In your thoroughly screwed up reality if a government says it’s ok then everybody just has to go along with it or suffer the consequences huh? Now you have the job of explaining to the family of every genocide and holocaust victim that they’re simply out of luck because they’re respective governments said what they were put through was ok by them.

          You still don’t get it, do ya dipshit? The onus isn’t on me.

          Yes it is, and by the looks of it, your unwillingness to even attempt it means I’m right about you being nothing more than a brain-dead, goose stepping moron. Put up or shut up boot licker.

          You are the one losing the ground because your argument is pants.

          Your the one losing ground because you still haven’t come up with jack to justify your barbarism.

          World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          You’re so un-freaking-believably dense you don’t even realize
          you’ve just invoked what’s probably the absolutely worst excuse.
          World opinion, governments, ethics, and science have all been used at some time or another in the past to justify genocide only you’re to much of a plank to realize it. You believe that if you can just get enough people to go along with what you want, you can get away with doing whatever the hell you want including mass murder and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. What are you on? Are you really that incredibly dense that you can’t see how completely insane the logic of what you’re saying is and that exactly the same things you cite have been previously invoked by some of the biggest genocidal maniacs in history?

          The inference drawn is that you are a dopey cunt

          Let’s indeed not kid ourselves here. The inference is drawn that
          you, just like so many others here have to constantly resort to the
          soul straw man and attempting to change the subject because you know damn well you wouldn’t have to if you had any sound arguments for what you advocate. Anytime you bring up anything mentioned nowhere in previous exchanges it proves I’m right and you’re a feckless boot-sucking lackey.

          A woman who is forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term is ipso facto going to suffer inconvenience and stress, REGARDLESS, that’s IN SPITE of the reason she doesn’t want to take the pregnancy to term.

          Then according to you’re jacked up logic, stress and inconvenience is an acceptable reason to intentionally end the life of another person. Hey, we’ve convinced the governments that it’s ok so what the hell!

          The reasons for abortion are wide and varied, …Try and keep up please.

          What I said was that if a woman can legally have her unborn child
          executed because she wishes to avoid stress and inconvenience or any other reason for that matter then the rights of a class of human persons are intentionally being disregarded or revoked by the state. If you believe this then you must believe that A) the unborn human person is not yet a person or B) that it is a person and that the rights of another class of persons trump their rights. Either way you have to come up with a sound, well-reasoned defense of one or both of the aforementioned positions and so far you and everyone else here has catastrophically failed at that simple task. Try and keep up please.

          Let’s say yes for the sake of argument, now what? Entitled to a basic standard of care from whom? …

          If the born child is indeed entitled to a basic standard of care from someone from the moment of birth and the state, by acting in it’s proper role, has passed and enforces laws to that effect, then the basis of those laws is that the child from the moment of birth posses something that demands, under the force of law, that the child is worthy of receiving a basic standard of care and that before birth that very same child did not possess something that demands exactly the same thing. The onus is on you stump head, to explain what a born child posses after birth that requires it’s right to life be protected by the state, that it didn’t posses before birth and why.

          So far all you’ve come up with is “So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get” and World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          More fair-minded, reasonable atheist brilliance on display for us to marvel at.

          Paid? I wish.

          So IIRC you’re expending your life active on hundreds of boards
          spreading this manure, and your doing it for free? You’re even
          stupider than I thought.

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….

          One more time brain stump. Your advocacy for abortion forces you
          into the role of reserving the fundamental right to determine what
          constitutes a human person and who is entitled to the right to life.
          In the real world demanding to hold such an incredibly important
          office means you’d better be able to make a bullet-proof case for it.
          In spite of your deluded fantasizing about refuting my points, you
          along with the rest of your Reich here have bombed spectacularly.
          When I said I’m betting the farm that you’re no different, I never dreamed the payoff would be you exposing yourself as a champion for all the blood lust the human race has been forced to endure
          throughout history. Bravo!

          Many thanks once again for proving that atheism is total bullshit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So IIRC you’re expending your life active on hundreds of boards spreading this manure, and your doing it for free? You’re even
          stupider than I thought.

          Are you trying to kid me that you are here and getting paid to get yourself a new arse tore with every comment you make being right royally pwned?

          And you think I’m the stupid one?

          Bwaahahahaha!

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society by the strongest members even though you think they’re both human persons.

          I don’t consider them human persons, but that’s not the point. Regardless of what I think, they are not considered human persons with equal rights to life than the woman carrying them. Even in countries like Ireland where abortion is still illegal, if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk, the unborn fetus at any stage stage has to go. That is a fact.

          It isn’t cold-blooded murder just because you can type a bit of hyperbole into a combox ya cretin. Get yerself a dictionary and try reading for comprehension. Wise ta fuck up, will ye?

          Congratulations, you’ve just justified all the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty tyrant to the present day.

          More shite talk. But even on that logic, according to you I’m in good company. Given the number of spontaneous abortions and a tri-omni YahwehJesus, the most prevalent blood thirsty tyrant in human history is that of the imaginary arsehole you lick. No wonder your mouth spews so much asinine shite. Nonsense isn’t it? So pah!

        • Ameribear

          I don’t consider them human persons, but that’s not the point.

          Yes it is so quit dodging the question. Why aren’t they human
          persons?

          Regardless of what I think, they are not considered human persons with equal rights to life than the woman carrying them.

          That doesn’t mean squat. You’re hiding behind the premise that some governments don’t consider them human persons and I pointed out to you that at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life. Just because a “government” decrees something doesn’t even begin to justify it. If you think it does then all of the atrocities committed throughout history were perfectly reasonable actions because the governments said so.

          Even in countries like Ireland where abortion is still illegal, if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk, the unborn fetus at any stage stage has to go. That is a fact.

          Children born as early as 22 to 23 weeks have an excellent chance
          to make it to term thanks to the advances in neo-natal care so that’s unacceptable. In the case of a woman who’s past that point the child can be delivered early so the mother can get proper care. Tell me then, how does murdering her unborn child benefit the health of the mother?

          It isn’t cold-blooded murder

          It is when a human person is present at conception which you and your Reich members here still haven’t disproved. Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          But even on that logic, according to you I’m in good company. Given the number of spontaneous abortions and a tri-omni YahwehJesus,…

          No that’s according to you because in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why don’t you just hold your view of life but not demand that it be imposed on others?

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s a Roman Catholic, he can’t help it…it’s ingrained.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Maybe that’s my bad. If the guy is intellectual disabled in that regard, perhaps I’m too hard on him.

          /sarcasm

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha…of course he’s intellectually disabled, that’s what the religious mind virus does to people….some more than others of course.

        • Ameribear

          I could ask you the exact same question.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You could ask me why I want to impose my views on others? I’m not. You can’t really impose “you get to choose” on anyone.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ameribear is too dumb to notice, but all the heel clicking he is hearing is coming from those Jack boot’s that are at the bottom of his legs, and from the feet of those Catholic’s he surrounds himself with. He’s a Dime Bar.

        • Ameribear

          Every aborted child has had someone else’s views imposed on him or her. You are imposing your views on others, you just can’t or won’t make the connection.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You can call the fetus anything you want. Call it a giraffe if it makes you happy; that doesn’t mean that that is an objective definition we’re all stuck with.

          I’m talking about the adults in the conversation. They’re the only persons we can agree are there.

        • Greg G.

          If someone was killed for trying to steal one of you kidneys, someone else’s views were imposed on the thief.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes it is so quit dodging the question.

          No it isn’t and no one has dodged your question, you just refuse to accept the answer and give nothing to counter it but your insistence.

          Why aren’t they human?

          Because that’s what the experts in the fields concur and I agree with them. As do governments, etc., more and more.

          Many empirical studies indicate that sentience is not possible before 20 weeks gestation, and may not emerge until much later. Prior to 20 weeks, although billions of neurons have already migrated to the cerebral cortex, there are almost no synaptic connections between them or with the thalamus, which mediates sensory perception. Partly because of the ambiguity of fetal EEG patterns, it’s difficult to say precisely when consciousness first occurs. But somewhere between 20 and 32 weeks gestation, the cortical neurons become capable of firing in ways that make consciousness possible. The brainstem and nervous system may function before that time, and there may be reflex reactions to stimuli, but there is no one “there” yet to experience sensory inputs—the lights are on, but nobody’s home. (Anand & Hickey 1987; Flower 1989; Morowitz & Trefil 1992) Since early embryos and fetuses cannot experience harm, they lack interests of their own which are necessary to have moral rights. Under the higher-brain standard, they do not become persons until the onset of consciousness (Steinbock 1992; Robertson 1994).

          It’s worth pointing out that the criterion of neocortical functioning is distinct from viability and birth, both of which have legal significance in the U.S. Since Roe v. Wade, federal law prohibits states from giving fetuses the status of persons prior to birth, though in regulating abortion it grants states a “compelling interest” in fetal life from viability. But neither viability nor birth is directly correlated with the capacity for consciousness (Gertler 1986), and no federal or state law confers any significance on the latter.

          Even if laws were changed, though, to accord late-term fetuses the rights of persons because of their capacity for consciousness, this would not entail a total ban on late-term abortions, since other laws permit the killing of persons in self-defense, and almost never require people to risk their health substantially in order to save others’ lives. For example, U.S. courts have been unwilling to force people to donate bone marrow or kidneys, even if potential recipients are a perfect match and will die for lack of them (Rhoden 1994). Ninety-eight percent of abortions in this country are performed within the first 15 weeks of pregnancy anyway, and most of the rest occur when the mother’s life or health is at risk or in cases of severe fetal abnormality. However, if conscious fetuses were legally recognized as persons, a woman seeking a late-term abortion might be required to show that continuing her pregnancy posed a threat to her life or health. Federal law currently permits states to enact a similar restriction regarding viable fetuses, but doesn’t require them to do so.

          Hard cheese….you lose.

        • Kodie

          Mmmm … hard cheese.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I love my cheese too….but it gives me dreams.

          https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hard-cheese.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          That doesn’t mean squat. You’re hiding behind the premise that some governments don’t consider them human persons and I pointed out to you that at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life. Just because a “government” decrees something doesn’t even begin to justify it. If you think it does then all of the atrocities committed throughout history were perfectly reasonable actions because the governments said so.

          Stop with the bullshit. Your religion was on the same page with the governments every step of the way when it suited it. In many cases the governments followed the whim of the Church. Torturing folk to death for trivialities. Governments have gradually moved on and instigated laws against all those you list and more, your religion lagging. Perhaps one day it will catch up on this issue too. Now wise ta fuck up.

        • Ameribear

          You’ve intentionally dodged the point again. According to you completely wacked logic, the government can decide who is a person and who isn’t and then allow the systematically elimination anyone who doesn’t fit their particular definition. If they can do it to anyone that means they can do it to you and to any of your family members and you’d be SOL dumb-ass. You must have to work hard all your life to become this much of a post.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who would you prefer to decide besides the government? Isn’t that part of the government’s job?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The RCC get’s a hard on for governments when they kowtow to it’s fuckwittery. Not so much when they go against it’s religious asininity.

          The same applies to science.

          Ameribear will punt to science when it supports his position, as can be seen in this discussion. But he will poo-poo the science when it counters his position. Which he has also demonstrated here.

          Government and science is good when it agrees with him and his insipid institution. Government and science bad when it contradicts his insipid institution.

          Ameribear is an out and out hypocrite and an excellent poster boy for all that is wrong with that particular flavour of his faith.

        • Ameribear

          The last time I looked, governments were still comprised of people elected by the citizenry. Until the citizenry realizes that the only thing that will keep every person at every stage of development safe is a definition of personhood that includes every human from conception to natural death and elects representatives to protect and uphold that definition, then no one will ever be is safe.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What I can’t understand is this convenient species-ism that everyone seems biased by. When will the citizenry elect representatives that agree that all life is sacred? A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

          C’mon, people, how hard is this? We managed to get over slavery.

        • Kodie

          It’s really not that melodramatic. There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person, and one of those is that it physically grows not only inside a woman, but from that woman materially. Nobody is allowed to do that, especially if they’ve not got a brain yet.

        • Greg G.

          Have you been listening to Rick Santorum? He used to say that elderly people in The Netherlands wouldn’t go to the hospitals for fear of being euthanized. He said something a half of patient deaths in The Netherlands were euthanizations. He was making shit up.

        • Pofarmer

          Whoa, whoa, whoa. A conservative Catholic politician making shit up? The hell you say.

        • Ameribear

          No, I don’t listen to Rick Santorum. The point I’m making is that if you wish to define the right to determine who is and isn’t a person based on a definition that doesn’t include all living human beings at all stages of development then anyone can dehumanize anyone else for any reason.

          You who advocate for legal abortion do so either by denying the person hood of a set of human beings or declaring that their right to life as human beings are trumped by the rights of other human beings. That line of reasoning cuts both ways. If your applying it to someone then what’s to stop anyone else from applying it to you?

        • Kodie

          If it can’t live outside of a person, it isn’t a person.

        • Ameribear

          Then you’re saying that anyone
          who has to be fed or oxygenated through a tube isn’t a person. That
          would also include anyone undergoing kidney dialysis. You better hope
          you are able to enjoy good health all your life.

        • Greg G.

          That is nothing like what she said. Is someone “who has to be fed or oxygenated through a tube” outside of a person or inside? Do they do dialysis on someone who is inside another person?

          You are not good at restating what other people are saying. You should get that brain damage checked out.

        • Kodie

          Are they living inside of another person? Are they dependent upon a single human who is forced to care for them, or actually a machine can do the work you’re enslaving individual women to do?

          And you still don’t answer me or acknowledge me that they aren’t persons yet; they are not merely growing inside of a person as complete individuals separate from the human it grows inside of, they are constructing themselves out of parts of that person.

        • Ameribear

          You are also denying the personhood of every prematurely born baby in neo-natal ICU’s everywhere which I pointed out to you before.

        • Greg G.

          A prematurely born baby is not living inside another person. That was her opening question. Did you forget it that quickly?

        • Ameribear

          No, but that means you are discriminating based on where they live. Did you forget that that quickly?

        • Greg G.

          The unborn live inside another person with consent or without that person’s consent.

        • Ameribear

          The unborn are persons from the conception which you still haven’t disproven. That means they are entitled to a basic standard of care through
          the only means they have of getting it. Consent notwithstanding.

        • Kodie

          They’re not living inside of another person, are they, dummy.

        • Greg G.

          If someone wanted to take your liver, kidneys, lungs, and heart to save five people’s lives, would you give your consent? Would you be dehumanizing the people who needed your organs by letting them die? Would you be dehumanizing the guy with the knife if you killed him to protect yourself? Would you be dehumanizing the guy with a knife if you denied him his right to make a living selling organs at a discount to people who desperately need them? What if they only wanted one kidney temporarily and there was a very small chance that you would die?

          Even if you grant personhood to a single-cell, it does not grant it the right to use somebody else’s uterus without the consent of the uterus’ owner.

          Your personhood/dehumanization arguments are irrelevant. No person has the right to use another person’s organs without consent. But I still maintain that a sufficiently functional brain is required for personhood.

        • Ameribear

          If someone wanted to take your liver, kidneys, lungs, and heart to save five people’s lives, would you give your consent?

          Irrelevant because as I have said many times before I am not responsible for their state of need and they are not dependent solely on me to have their state of need met.

          Would you be dehumanizing the guy with the knife if you killed him to protect yourself?

          The intrinsic value of every person cannot be affected by their freely chosen actions but their freely chosen actions can present extrinsic conditions that can justify denying their right to life. Unjust aggressors dehumanize themselves.

          Would you be dehumanizing the guy with a knife if you denied him his right to make a living selling organs at a discount to people who desperately need them?

          It depends upon how he goes about procuring the organs. It also depends upon the legality of trading in human organs for profit.

          What if they only wanted one kidney temporarily and there was a very small chance that you would die?

          This scenario is no different than the first one.

          Even if you grant personhood to a single-cell, it does not grant it the right to use somebody else’s uterus without the consent of the uterus’ owner.

          You are committing a category error by referring to what comes
          into existence after conception as a single cell. What it actually is
          does indeed grant him or her the right to his or her mothers organs
          for the reasons given in my other reply to you.

          Your personhood/dehumanization arguments are irrelevant. No person has the right to use another person’s organs without consent.

          No they’re not irrelevant for the reasons given in my other reply to you.

          But I still maintain that a sufficiently functional brain is required for personhood.

          Then, as I pointed out to you previously, you are still obligated to determine what level of brain function is sufficient to include every living human being at every stage of development which you have yet to do.

        • Pofarmer

          This. Is dumb. Do you not feel safe now? Do you feel like you’ll go in for a root canal and be Euthanized?

          Idiot.

        • Ameribear

          The point I’m making is that if you wish to define the right to determine who is and isn’t a person based on a definition that doesn’t include all living human beings at all stages of development then anyone can dehumanize anyone else for any reason.

          You who advocate for legal abortion do so either by denying the person hood of a set of human beings or declaring that their right to life as human beings are trumped by the rights of other human beings. That line of reasoning cuts both ways. If your applying it to someone then what’s to stop anyone else from applying it to you?

        • Pofarmer

          Dude that’s been hapening since humans evolved from apes, and you do it too,

        • Ignorant Amos

          He doesn’t get it…let’s grant him his fucked up thinking…it is still a case of the lesser of two evils.

        • Pofarmer

          it is still a case of the lesser of two evils.

          I agree. Except you can’t do evil to a non-sentient cell any more than you can do evil to a golf ball.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…I’m granting Ameribear the hypothetical where the choice is between the survival of his concept of the two persons. The clump of cells person, and the fully formed person. Whose rights should get presidence in his twisted world . How does he get to his decision and why? Given that all life is equally sacrosanct and beyond humanities decision making in his myopic thinking.

        • Kodie

          I think he’s thinking the itty-bitty “person” can’t live outside of the woman, and the woman can live with the itty bitty inside of her and endure whatever bullshit to give it the “basic standard of care” for the duration, since she knew the consequences of fucking, and fucking can’t be unfucked, so fertilized eggs can’t be suctioned out or whatever they do. If we consider them equal persons with equal rights, the woman can kill her baby but being pregnant probably won’t kill her, so they both should live. And it isn’t slavery, she’s just the unlucky one holding the hot potato, see, because her lust got her in that condition, she has to put up with it, just like you have to take care of any child abandoned on your doorstep for 9 months or until the police come, whichever comes first. It’s your fault you have a fucking doorstep.

        • Kodie

          I’ve hocked up loogies bigger, and more potentially alive than that thing Bob posted a picture of the other day.

        • Kodie

          There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person. Get that through your fucking thick head. It’s not arbitrary.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Children born as early as 22 to 23 weeks have an excellent chance to make it to term thanks to the advances in neo-natal care so that’s unacceptable.</blockquote

          And that being the case, then they survive, if not, then it doesn't….either way it is acceptable…that's the way it is, even in places where termination is illegal in other circumstances. So the rights of the fully developed person trumps the partially developed unborn person. That's a fact. Suck it up

          In the case of a woman who’s past that point the child can be delivered early so the mother can get proper care.

          Then it isn’t an abortion then is it numbnuts.

          Tell me then, how does murdering her unborn child benefit the health of the mother?

          Now you are just being intentionally obtuse…or a stupid fucker. Go learn what a a late term abortion means and come back when ya know what you are talking about, there’s a good child.

        • Ameribear

          Then it isn’t an abortion then is it numbnuts.

          No shit Sherlock. Did you figure that one out all by yourself?

          Now you are just being intentionally obtuse…

          Maybe for you atrophied brain I am. This shouldn’t be that hard for someone even of you limited mental functions. Why should a late term
          child be killed to save the life of the mother? How does killing the child benefit the health of the mother? I can chalk up another dodged point for you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Holy fuck, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

          Late term abortions take a number of forms, dependant on the risk to the mother, or the condition of the fetus.

          An induced birth (Early Labour Induction) through the birth canal. If the baby survives, great, if not, tough titty.

          A Cesarean section (hysterotomy abortion), if the baby survives, great, if not, tough titty.

          Neither are are natural births. Both are abortions. If the mothers health is compromised by the pregnancy, both are carried out for the benefit of the mother in spite of whether the unborn survives….it surviving is a bonus, not the aim.

          That’s what happens in locals where abortion is still illegal, ergo, the right to life of the mother, supersedes the right to life of the unborn child, even in the third trimester.

          Then there is the more invasive methods.

          Intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is a procedure carried out where the unborn baby has zero chance of survival.

          The same with the non-intact dilation and extraction, where the fetus is dismembered in the womb.

          These methods are procedures used more when the survival of the fetus going to term is untenable. The first and most dangerous to the mother, nevertheless this allows an intact fetus for various reasons, not least of which is to allow for viewing of the remains, grieving, and achieving closure.

          Do you get it yet ya dumb inconsiderate evil fucker?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is when a human person is present at conception which you and your Reich members here still haven’t disproved.

          But as things stand, a human person isn’t present at conception. The burden is on you to prove it is, you haven’t. So pah!

          But even if you could prove there was a person at conception, that person still doesn’t usurp the rights of the fully developed person whose body it is in, so deal with it.

          Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          Man up and answer the question. Why isn’t it a human person at conception?

          You’ve been told why. You don’t like it, tough fucking titty. It is what it is….you lose. Suck it up.

          Now YOU explain why it is a human PERSON at conception…C’mon….man up ya mongrel.

          No that’s according to you because in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

          So a non answer…go figure. I know, I know, your tri-omni YahwehJesus can do fuck all because it’s imaginary. So spontaneous abortions are a part of nature…they are natural. A woman not wanting to be forced to give up her body to a parasite is also natural too. The world is getting onboard with that concept…you lose….suck it up ya misogynist bigot.

        • Ameribear

          But as things stand, a human person isn’t present at conception. The burden is on you to prove it is, you haven’t.

          The burden of proof is on anyone making the claim so figure
          out a way to get yourself out of that corner you’ve painted yourself into and answer the question instead of throwing up more blocks.

          You’ve been told why.

          No I haven’t. All you and your fellow goose steppers have offered are regurgitated talking points that were shot full of holes years ago only you’re too impaired to understand that.

          Now YOU explain why it is a human PERSON
          at conception…C’mon….man up ya mongrel.

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          So spontaneous abortions are a part of nature…they are natural.

          It means something went wrong not right numb nuts. Just because they occur doesn’t justify murdering unborn children anymore than the fact that born children who die for various biological reasons justifies murdering born children. You lose again, just like with every other dog pile you’ve posted on the subject. Suck it up stump head.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This already has been explained to you. The explanation doesn’t please you, so you ignore it (and are determined to impose your opinion by law on everyone else who disagrees).

          If you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a person.

        • Ameribear

          This already has been explained to you. The explanation doesn’t please you, so you ignore it (and are determined to impose your opinion by law on everyone else who disagrees).

          No it hasn’t been explained. The only thing that’s been given are regurgitated talking points, category errors, and false equivocations. All the philosophical distinctions and problematic consequences I’ve pointed out have been intentionally ignored or obfuscated.

          If you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a person

          Just like that. Thanks for proving my point.

        • Kodie

          There is an extreme biological difference between an embryo and a person. Get that through your fucking thick skull. Nobody is systematically snuffing out fetuses – it is a personal decision, not a government decision! You are such an idiot!

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are not very good at this at all. We are not obliged to answer anything. We enjoy the Null Hypothesis, if you have an alternative hypothesis, present it with supporting evidence. Either put up, or fuck up.

          That said…let’s have a we look at your waffling dross for shits and giggles.

          The burden of proof is on anyone making the claim so figure out a way to get yourself out of that corner you’ve painted yourself into and answer the question instead of throwing up more blocks.

          To begin with, it has been pointed out to you a number of times by a number of folk on here why it is not a person. You don’t like the answer, but the answer has been given. Suck it up, cry baby.

          No one has been painted into any corner but you, because as of yet, you still haven’t explained what makes a thing a person from conception. But since you only deal with the simple, let’s take Bob’s answer below. If you need a microscope to see it, it ain’t a person. There, your question answered in simple terms even a knuckle-dragging fuckwit like you should be able to comprehend.

          That said, no one here needs to defend the negative. A fertilised egg is no more a person than it is a Sea Horse. You have come here claiming it is a person. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim convincingly, something you haven’t even slightly attempted to do. Until you do, we don’t give a flying fuck about your opinion. The laws on women’s reproductive rights are changing in our favour. So take your sick and twisted religiously based morality and shove it up your arsehole.

          No blocks being thrown up on this side of the debate, no need to, we have the body of evidence on our side, all you have is a silly book and the bullcrap from a bunch of antiquated, misogynist, religious, bigots, that have been getting things wrong since the get go.

          No I haven’t. All you and your fellow goose steppers have offered are regurgitated talking points that were shot full of holes years ago only you’re too impaired to understand that.

          Yes you have, you choose to ignore them. Renaming them “talking points” won’t change that fact. Those so-called “regurgitated talking points” that have been more convincing than anything you’ve been able to present so far. If they have been shot full of holes years ago, perhaps you can explain why you can’t present those slam dunk arguments that has shot them full of holes, then explain why, by and large, everyone apart from religious fundamental fuckwits like you have not been convinced, and are all going the opposite direction? Oh, I forgot, you’ve already inferred it is the worldwide influence of atheism….oh that my “fellow goose steppers” had such power….wise ta fuck up…you are a bug nutty bat shit crazy kook…conspiracy theorist much?

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….repeated hyperbole non sequitur spewed ad nauseam….none of which answers the fucking question YOU keep avoiding. A fertilised single cell isn’t a person because the alternative, what the rational thinking people might do to it upsets you ya imbecilic moron. Do you read back to yourself any of the fuckwittery you comment? Duh, two armadillo’s!

          Why is a new born baby a person?

          Because if it isn’t, then goose stepping troglodytes like you make a habit of taking it upon yourselves to decide what a person is and then systematically snuffing out anyone who doesn’t fit. And to top it off you think it’s cool because the government says it’s no big deal. You are so thoroughly brain washed that you don’t understand that.

          Quit the manic slavering and try and make some sort of coherent argument. You persistent attempts to put all this at the feet of atheists is turning you into a brain dead cretin.

          It means something went wrong not right numb nuts.

          Oh ffs, and here your ignorance on this subject is complete.

          It means that something went right, because something went wrong ya dumb ass? I thought you said you researched this stuff…you sure don’t demonstrate it.

          https://www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/abnormalities-of-pregnancy/spontaneous-abortion

          So, according to you, new life being so precious to that imaginary piece of shite whose arse your tongue is buried deep into, why would something go wrong with so many pregnancies in the first place?

          Why sort the wrong out with the right and spontaneously abort? All those unnecessarily wasted “persons” and the associated suffering….you God is a cunt. Maybe all the spontaneous abortions are Gods way of saying he is okay with abortion under certain circumstances and you lot are wrong on the issue. Apparently he works in mysterious ways ya know?

          Or maybe it’s just nature at work. Maybe having an abortion is natural too. I assume you have no complaints when science helps nature along in the saving of an unborn fetus? So why can’t science help nature along when something goes wrong? You are not a hypocrite too are ya?

          Just because they occur doesn’t justify murdering unborn children anymore than the fact that born children who die for various biological reasons justifies murdering born children.

          There’s that appeal to sentience Susan keeps reminding you about. You keep calling it murder when it isn’t. Murder is an unlawful act. Your hyperbole just makes you look even more a slavering idiot.

          You do know that there are cases when newborn’s that have fatal abnormalities have life sustaining treatment removed, right? I thought you knew about this stuff.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case

          You lose again, just like with every other dog pile you’ve posted on the subject.

          Pssssst! I’m gonna let ya into a wee secret Ameribear. The arguments have already been made. They have been played out. Your side lost, so I’ve won. And it’s no bloody wonder your side lost if you are the shining example of the best they put forward. You are a fucking gift. This back and fourth here is me paying lip service to your moronic imbecility. It is an exercise to show those looking on how cretinous your position is and you are playing along nicely. Keep it up, it’s the best craic I’ve had on here since our Roman Catholic Abuse Scandal tet a tet where you also got a good shoeing.

          Suck it up stump head.

          I think not, you are living in the Cloud Cuckoo Land of religion…wise ta fuck up.

          You’d be a funny guy if this subject wasn’t so serious. Your backward bigoted and misogynist attitude is evil and monstrous, but not unpredictable, given the cult ya follow. Maybe it’s time for you to just fuck away off.

        • Greg G.

          But… but… but… the chemical reaction of conception is magic… or a miracle… or something.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Pofarmer

          I hope this link will work. Here is a human fetus at 8 weeks. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2e/06/df/2e06df16407e45e1aaa896f28e353e67–ectopic-pregnancy-pregnancy-weeks.jpg

          It is about the size of a kidney bean. 2/3’s of all abortions in the U.S. have already occured by this stage. The ones after this stage are largely because of conservative efforts to delay them,.

        • BlackMamba44

          And once they’re born, screw ’em. (figuratively and literally).

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Ignorant Amos
        • Susan

          Yes it is

          No, it isn’t. 😛

          Why aren’t they human
          persons?

          Persons have brains.

          But as IA said, that’s not the point. You can’t decide what someone does with their organs. That you wouldn’t force someone to donate a piece of their liver to an established person but you would force a woman to donate her organs to a microscopic cell with all the psychological and physical commitments that that entails (including risk of death), is your problem.

          at one time some governments didn’t think blacks or Jews were human persons with equal rights to life.

          Congratulations. Your record of appealing to sentient beings (while denying sentience as a relevant factor in personhood) remains unblemished. It’s amazing to watch.

          We’re not talking about Anne Frank or Rosa Parks. We’re talking about a cell. Hmmmm…. one of these things doesn’t have a brain.

          It is when a human person is present at conception

          Which it isn’t until you show it is. Declaring it is doesn’t do that.

          in your typical fashion you continue to boot up your computer before engaging that microbe you call a brain.

          Good thing I’ve learned to shut off my irony meters, put them in a lead case and bury them underground before reading your posts.

          Or that would have cost me another one.

        • Ameribear

          That you wouldn’t force someone to donate a piece of their liver to an established person but you would force a woman to donate her organs to a microscopic cell with all the psychological and physical commitments that that entails (including risk of death), is your problem.

          Your continuous category errors and failure to establish any
          of the premises you assert are not my problem. Your points are incoherent because they’re nothing more than feckless attempts to redefine terms and definitions to support the line of abortion industry bullshit you’ve lapped up.

          Congratulations. Your record of appealing to sentient beings (while denying sentience as a relevant factor in personhood) remains unblemished. It’s amazing to watch.

          I am not appealing just to sentient beings, as I said before and as you as always ignored before, I am appealing to all human beings because I include both the sentient and non-sentient in the group I call human beings/persons. Since I believe the sentient and non-sentient are both human persons, I say you cannot treat one any differently than the other. Therefore, when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the non-sentient members of the human race by people like you who choose to redefine person hood to suit their particular interests, I’m being perfectly consistent. Yes, absolutely I reject sentience as criteria for determining personhood which means that I believe the non-sentient are persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering the sentient. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          Which it isn’t until you show it is. Declaring it is doesn’t do that.

          Which I have shown, repeatedly, by pointing out to you that every single criteria you and others here have chosen to disprove the personhood of the unborn, inexorably excludes somebody else among the born which you have never addressed. I have also repeatedly called you out on your deliberate category errors, intentionally misleading redefinitions, and the disastrous consequences of your positions which you know damn well you are committing and are still intentionally avoiding addressing. You are a pathological liar.

        • Greg G.

          suffering and death brought on the non-sentient

          You keep using words. I do not think you know what they mean. Anything that is non-sentient cannot suffer. “Sentient” means having the ability to feel. “Non-sentient” means the inability to feel.

        • Pofarmer

          This is Red Queen territory now.

          Since I believe the sentient and non-sentient are both human persons, I
          say you cannot treat one any differently than the other.

          How the fuck does that work?

        • Greg G.

          His children and I are human beings. He should treat us the same. If I don’t get as many Christmas presents from him that he gives to his children, I am going to suffer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All things can work when that religious fuckwit trait of Humpty Dumptying is employed.

        • Ameribear

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel
          anything then it’s ok to murder them. Surgery patients are anesthetized for the express purpose of preventing them from suffering the effects of being operated on. Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

        • Greg G.

          Why is it that every time you begin with “By your logic”, you say something stupid? But then it doesn’t seem to matter how you begin for that to happen.

          I do not make that argument because it doesn’t follow from my logic. You have had this explained many times. Your religious cognitive dissonance keeps you too stupid to process it.

          No being, sentient or not, has the right to use another person’s organs without that person’s consent. Your stupid “by your logic” does not follow from that.

          How in the hell can someone get “killing anesthetized patients is OK” from pointing out the fact that “non-sentient” cannot suffer? You were just putting the word “suffer” in the sentence because you are too emotional about the subject to think clearly.

        • Pofarmer

          Why is it that every time you begin with “By your logic”, you say
          something stupid? But then it doesn’t seem to matter how you begin for
          that to happen.

          Dammit, Dammit, Dammit. You beat me to the punch line.

        • Ameribear

          No being, sentient or not, has the right to use another person’s organs without that person’s consent.

          The whole bodily rights argument concedes the unborn child is a person with rights but the mothers right to her body trumps the right to life of her unborn child. There’s no need to appeal to this argument if the unborn child isn’t a person with rights.

          We all agree the child’s right to life demands they must be provided a decent basic standard of care after birth by someone who, under the force of law, must surrender some percentage of his or her bodily rights/autonomy in order to provide that standard.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands.

        • Kodie

          We all agree the child’s right to life demands they must be provided a
          decent basic standard of care after birth by someone who, under the
          force of law, must surrender volunteer (same as before birth) some percentage of his or her bodily
          rights/autonomy in order to provide that standard.

          FTFY

        • Susan

          The whole bodily rights argument concedes the unborn child is a person

          No. It only concedes for the sake of argument. Don’t you understand the difference?

          Addressing the even if then argument means you have to argue for the rights of a person to feast on antoher person’s organs even if that person doesn’t want to concede that right.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands

          If you have conceded

          For the sake or argument, you ninny.

          since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth

          First of all, they don’t. They can pass on that responsibility.

          Also, it doesn’t.

          That we agree that someone is obligated to take care of a person (something with at least a brain) is not the same as saying someone is obligated to be the host and human delivery system of your sacred cell.

          I predict you won’t acknowledge that:

          1) Morality is an obligations to something that can at least fell, bond, and/or think.

          2) You can’t make an argument that any person is responsible to donate their body to the above.

          3) You keep insisting that impregnated women should be obligated to donate their bodies to something that can’t feel, tbond and/or think.

          .

        • Greg G.

          Since, not if, you have conceded the unborn child is a person with
          rights by appealing to the bodily rights argument, and since parents have a responsibility to meet the basic needs of their children after birth, it follows they have the same duty before birth. “Donating” one’s uterus for a preborn child is simply providing the first phase of a basic standard of care the rights you conceded the child has demands.

          Nope, an unborn child is using the organs of another person. If the other person gives consent to use those organs, then there is no problem. If the other person does not consent to allow the use of the organs, then the unborn does not have the right to be there and there is a problem.

        • Ameribear

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons. You and everyone else here have yet to addressed this. All you keep doing is asserting a fictitious absolute bodily autonomy right that you cannot support.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death. This definition must be valid because it is the only one that does not exclude any born persons. If you disagree and continue to insist that personhood is based on some extrinsic property, then you must accept that your beliefs are no different than those of any of the genocidal, totalitarian regimes of the past.

          By assuming the risk inherent in willfully engaging in the act that brought the child into existence, the mother has already given consent to the use of her organs. Since the personhood of the child is present from the moment of conception, her unborn child most certainly does have a right to his or her mothers organs because they are providing him or her with a basic standard of care he or she for the first nine months of his or her life cannot get from anyone else. You are being inconsistent by saying that every child cannot be denied their right to a basic standard of care after birth but not before.

        • Susan

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons

          Brains. You’re claiming a single cell is a person.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death.

          Nope. You can’t just stick “intrinsic value” in front of a phrase and claim a cell is a person. You really can’t. This is not atheists talking back at you. This is the entire body of philosophy of personhood talking back at you. If you removed your head from the forced birth insanity and engaged even remedially on the subject, you would know that.

          By assuming the risk inherent in willfully engaging in the act that brought the child into existence, the mother the woman has already given consent to the use of her organs.

          For sex. Not to let a cell grow inside of her body. But you’ve made the point that even if a woman does not consent to sex, she is obligated to gestate a cell and deliver a baby.

          Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, no matter how much your church tries to force the first into the second

          You are being inconsistent by saying that every child cannot be denied their right to a basic standard of care after birth but not before.

          No. A child has a brain, trust, hope, fear, pain.

          A cell is not a child.

          You are making shit up.

          .

        • Greg G.

          I have already explained multiple times that you cannot use any extrinsic property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding some born persons. You and everyone else here have yet to addressed this. All you keep doing is asserting a fictitious absolute bodily autonomy right that you cannot support.

          This is not relevant to the abortion issue. Even a fully conscious entity that invaded a person without consent of the person does not have a right to be there without that consent. The person should have the right to choose whether to remove the entity by medication, surgery, or exorcism, even if the result is the physical death of the entity.

          The unborn are persons from the moment of conception because of the intrinsic value possessed by every human person from the point of conception to natural death. This definition must be valid because it is the only one that does not exclude any born persons. If you disagree and continue to insist that personhood is based on some extrinsic property, then you must accept that your beliefs are no different than those of any of the genocidal, totalitarian regimes of the past.

          What is “the moment of conception”? Are you under the impression that it is an instantaneous miracle? When the sperm interacts with the outer membrane of the ovum, a chemical reaction is initiated that makes the rest of the membrane impervious to other sperm cells. This takes time and sometimes another sperm interacts before the process is complete which creates an inviable doubly-fertilized egg. Is that a conception? The genetic package of the sperm then must travel to the nucleus of the ovum. This takes a while. Even then, there are mutations which might make the cell inviable.

          Remember that two fertilized eggs can implant close enough to one another that they communicate with one another chemically to from one body and one person with different parts having different sets of chromosomes. Is that one or two conceptions? Identical twins, triplets, etc. result from one fertilized ovum that separates in to individual fetuses. The Hensel twins are the result of an incomplete separation of identical twins, resulting in a body with two heads, each being an individual person. These cases show that personhood is not the result of a fertilized egg, but the development of brains.

          A brain-dead person can be removed from life-support by the next-of-kin, whether it is a baby, an elderly person, or an adult in the prime of life, a stranger can be appointed to make the decision. So if you are equating single cells as having the same rights as other humans, even a person with very little brain function can have decisions made for it that result in death. A clump of cells with zero brain activity due to the lack of any brain cells would then have fewer rights.

          You still do not have a reasonable argument.

          Your conclusion in the final paragraph fails because your premises are wrong. You should not take sex advice from those who do not have healthy sexual relationships.

        • Pofarmer

          I am not appealing just to sentient beings, as I said before and as you
          as always ignored before, I am appealing to all human beings because I
          include both the sentient and non-sentient in the group I call human
          beings/persons.Therefore, when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient
          members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the
          non-sentient members of the human race by people like you who choose to
          redefine person hood to suit their particular interests, I’m being
          perfectly consistent. Yes, absolutely I reject sentience as criteria for
          determining personhood which means that I believe the non-sentient are
          persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering
          the sentient. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          Dude, this is incofuckingherent

          It’s been pointed out to you time after time that what this does, is actually put the rights of the non-sentient above the rights of the sentient mother, in this case. It simply doesn’t work. Congratulations, you’ve made a woman a slave of a non-sentient thing.

          which means that I believe the non-sentient are
          persons which means that murdering them is no different than murdering
          the sentient.

          By definition. You can’t murder something that isn’t sentient. Try murdering a rock or a tree.

          when I equate the suffering and death brought on the sentient
          members of the human race to the suffering and death brought on the
          non-sentient members

          And, as has been pointed out. something that isn’t sentient, by definition, can’t suffer. Yes, we understand your point. We just reject it.

        • Ameribear

          It’s been pointed out to you time after time that what
          this does, is actually put the rights of the non-sentient above the rights of the sentient mother, in this case. It simply doesn’t work. Congratulations, you’ve made a woman a slave of a non-sentient thing.

          You are the ones imposing that. The rights of both are on the same level. The mothers right to life is the same as the unborn child’s. That is not elevating one over the other.

          By definition. You can’t murder something that isn’t
          sentient. Try murdering a rock or a tree.

          Those in a comatose state aren’t sentient and you can murder them. I have been repeatedly pointed out that you cannot use any continuous property to disprove the personhood of the unborn without excluding someone who is born.

          And, as has been pointed out. something that isn’t
          sentient, by definition, can’t suffer. Yes, we understand your point. We just reject it.

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel anything then it’s ok to murder them. Surgery patients are anesthetized for the express purpose of preventing them from suffering the effects of being operated on. Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

        • Pofarmer

          The rights of both are on the same level.

          Nope. As has been pointed out countless times now. No one. NO ONE has the right to use your body without your consent. The one proposing a change is you.

          By your logic if a person is in a coma and isn’t sentient and can’t feel anything then it’s ok to murder them.

          And yet a comatose person has every decision made for them. Including, at some point, removing them from life support if their condition doesn’t improve.

          Since it’s obvious they can’t suffer either, by your logic that renders
          them non-persons. Should we be able to murder them as well?

          Uhm no, this has also been explained to you. You are simply determined not to get it.

        • Kodie

          Another measure of a person is whether they have lived and experienced life and have people they matter to. This doesn’t mean we’re allowed to kill people who have no family. If you kill a person in a coma, they will not mind at all. They will not know. They cannot regret that you did that. Their family can. In a lot of cases, you’re actually allowed to kill a person in a coma because that is what many families decide to do, and that is what many patients write in a living will that they would prefer to have done for them if they should ever be in that state. The fetus isn’t going to have any problems or regrets about not being born. It’s that they can’t live outside of the womb, so that’s the woman’s decision to rid her body of the parasitic organism leeching off of her physical body, not yours and not yours on behalf of it. It doesn’t get a say.

        • Susan

          Your continuous category errors

          Do you know what a category error is Ameribear?

          Now, show me where I’ve made one.

          and failure to establish any of the premises you assert

          What premises did I assert that I have falied to establish?

          1) Moral consideration is something that should be provided to beings with a brain.
          2) No one is obligated to donate their organs to even a being with a brain.

          every single criteria you and others here have chosen to disprove the personhood of the unborn,

          You haven’t established the personhood of a zygote. It’s no one’s job to disprove an idea you can’t establsh.

          inexorably excludes somebody else among the born which you have never addressed.

          I’ve always addressed it. By saying sentience is necessary but not sufficient. You on the other hand exclude sentience as a contributing factor to personhood. Which means you could decide at the drop of a hat to set a cat on fire and you wouldn’t have harmed a person.

          All your appeals to babies, children, victims of murder, of genocide, to slavery, holocausts, etc. are appeals to our innate intuitions about our treatment of sentient beings.

          the disastrous consequences of your positions

          I am a woman who lives in Ontario, Canada.

          Here is a woman who lives in El Salvador..

          I don’t have to imagine the disastrous consequences of your position. I can see them.

          =====

          Edit:

          TAL

        • Ameribear

          Now, show me where I’ve made one.

          Every time you’ve referred to a zygote as a single cell. You know
          full well the reason you keep doing that is because you’re being
          intentionally misleading. You specifically don’t want anyone finding
          out what it really is because it exposes you and everyone else the
          abortion industry has bamboozled into carrying it’s water as colossal liars.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

          https://www.aaronmbrown.net/blog/2012/04/know-your-fallacy-category-error/

          What premises did I assert that I have falied to establish?

          Lets review again shall we?

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess different levels of throughout our lives. If sentience is linked to personhood then the level of person varies with the level of sentience.

          Sentience cannot be used to define a person because is not a property possessed only by persons since non-person life forms also possess it.

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person.

          If you want to use sentience as the determining criteria for personhood then you have to determine what level of sentience is sufficient to include all living persons at all stages of development.”

          You insist on linking personhood to extrinsic continuous properties and you have repeatedly failed to answer any of the logical consequences of that line of reasoning. I’m betting this time won’t be any different.

          Moral consideration is something that should be
          provided to beings with a brain.

          The brain is present from conception in it’s earliest stage of
          development just like every other vital organ. If you wish to use the
          presence of a brain as what defines personhood you have to decide what level of brain function establishes personhood. You cannot say X has to be present without accounting for the entire spectrum of the functioning of X in every living human person.

          No one is obligated to donate their organs to even a being with a brain.

          If they are responsible for providing a basic standard of care for
          another person who has no other means of getting it then yes they are obligated.

          I’ve always addressed it. By saying sentience is
          necessary but not sufficient.

          You’ve asserted that over and over but never addressed any of the
          problems I keep pointing out to you. You’ve also never said what else is necessary besides sentience. Sentience is a completely worthless criteria just like every other extrinsic property. You haven’t addressed squat. All you’ve done is continued to follow your marching orders to intentionally be as vague and misleading as possible.

          You on the other hand exclude sentience as a
          contributing factor to personhood. Which means you could decide at the drop of a hat to set a cat on fire and you wouldn’t have harmed a person. All your appeals to babies, children, victims of murder, of genocide, to slavery, holocausts, etc. are appeals to our innate intuitions about our treatment of sentient beings.

          Yes I do reject sentience for the reasons I previously pointed out
          to you numerous times. My rejection of that and every other extrinsic property means my appeals are to our innate intuitions about our treatment of “EVERY PERSON” not just the ones you or anyone else has decided not to include in your definitions. It is beyond me why you cannot understand the simple basic problem that arises when any group of persons decides for themselves who is and isn’t a person. No matter who comprises the group doing the deciding, the definition they come up with will never, ever exclude themselves.

          I don’t have to imagine the disastrous consequences of your position. I can see them.

          No you can’t see them because they aren’t what you think they are.

        • Kodie

          That’s what a zygote fucking is.

          https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-zygote-2796031

        • Ameribear

          Things have forms and things have natures. The only thing a zygote has in common with any other single bodily cell is the form it starts out in. The nature of any biological cell is to remain a single cell and function in whatever organ it was created to for (heart, skin, blood, etc). Any other biological cell is only going to be a single cell for the entirety of it’s existence because that’s all that’s in it’s nature to be.

          A zygote on the other hand is an incredibly complex living and growing organism that by it’s nature is going on to become a fully developed human being. The difference between the two are light years apart. Referring to a zygote only by it’s form is intentionally dishonest and misleading.

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • Kodie

          It isn’t something else than a cell, though, correct? It isn’t what it will become, it hasn’t yet used its host not just to situate for 9 months but to use its host materially to build itself. Nothing is lost here. It’s not belonging to anyone. It isn’t part of the family, it isn’t a citizen of anywhere. Getting rid of it isn’t any kind of ethical or moral problem to me. You try to make it one so women will feel ashamed when they don’t have to. You love manipulating them.

        • Ameribear

          It isn’t something else than a cell, though, correct?

          Cell refers to a form of an organism. A zygote and other bodily cells are entirely different types of organisms which means they have vastly different natures. Their forms are the same for a short period of time but their natures are worlds apart. It isn’t even close to being the same thing.

          It isn’t what it will become, it hasn’t yet used its host not just to situate for 9 months but to use its host materially to build itself.

          Implantation and the formation of everything necessary to support it’s development doesn’t change the nature of what it is.

          Nothing is lost here. It’s not belonging to anyone. It isn’t part of the family, it isn’t a citizen of anywhere. Getting rid of it isn’t any kind of ethical or moral problem to me.

          Yes it is. It’s a genetically distinct human being and member of the human race from the start. You also keep forgetting that the zygote rapidly develops way, way past the single cell stage before the woman even knows she’s pregnant. Most abortions occur around the end of the first trimester and by that time it’s a clearly recognizable human being.

          You love manipulating them.

          You can accuse me of manipulating women all you want. I, however, am not the one advocating for a future with fewer women in it.

        • Kodie

          You live in fantasy, you just do. It’s a cell, and doesn’t have any qualities of a person. Nothing is lost here. It’s not your decision, or your definition.

        • Ameribear

          When you ignore basic distinctions because they don’t square with your personal interests, you’re the one fantasizing.

        • Kodie

          I don’t see any resemblance to a person, and I do see that this is slavery for women.

        • Ameribear

          A zygote isn’t going to resemble a fully developed person. It’s still a person from the start because you cannot discriminate against any person based on their stage of development.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          There’s no English word that could describe what the fully developed person is and the zygote is not?

        • Ameribear

          There is, you just used it. Developed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “The newborn is a developed, while the single cell isn’t”? No, I’m going to have to ask you to try again.

          Or were you trying to make the argument from potential again? “The single cell isn’t a person … but it will be once it has developed into a newborn.” Sure, I’ll agree with that, but you’ve been told many times before why this fails.

        • Ameribear

          No, you’re deliberately forcing your syntax on it again. I said a newborn is “more developed” not “a more developed”. You don’t have to ask me again because I’ve already covered it.

          The single cell and the newborn are both actual persons. Person hood cannot be linked to development. I have explained many times before why that fails.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No, you’re deliberately forcing your syntax on it again.

          Correct. I asked you to fill in a blank and you didn’t. Or maybe wouldn’t. Or maybe couldn’t.

          Want to have another go? “A newborn is a ___, while the single cell it was 9 months earlier isn’t.”

          I said a newborn is “more developed” not “a more developed”. You don’t have to ask me again because I’ve already covered it.

          It’s your call, but I’ll assume that that means that you have no answer.

          The single cell and the newborn are both actual persons. Person hood cannot be linked to development. I have explained many times before why that fails.

          And (I’m repeating myself here) I have tried to be the gentleman and let you have your definition of “person.” But with “person” gone (as a definition of what a newborn is and the single cell isn’t), let’s go with what term you want to use. Yes, I know that’s generous of me, but that’s how I roll. Surely this isn’t much to ask. We have English words for subtle distinctions once the baby is born—infant, newborn, baby, toddler, one-year-old, and so on. There must be a word that expresses the difference between trillion-cell newborn and the microscopic single cell.

          You’ve already said that you have nothing more to say. I welcome any advancement on the argument if you have it, but if there is nothing, you know what I will conclude.

        • Rudy R

          I’ve debated Ameribear extensively on this very same subject. His position, as near as I can tell, is that a human is a person and a person is a human. Since he’s a Catholic, he could use the “soul” argument against abortion, but since he is arguing with atheists, he knows that the soul argument won’t work. So he’s trying to use a secular argument that is consistent with the soul argument, but it’s a failure, because most atheists don’t consider “human” and “person” to be synonymous. For most atheists, a human has physical qualities and a person has mental qualities. For most theists, there is no differentiation between the two. So, when theists try to argue for a secular reason against abortion, theists and atheists invariably start talking around each other. There is no squaring a hole on this argument. I think I have a better secular argument, but he won’t agree with it, because it’s not consistent with the soul argument.

          Is that clear as mud?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. It’s helpful to get a third-party perspective.

          My response to people like Ameribear is to sidestep their dictionary argument where they argue how “person” and “human being” and so on are defined (all synonyms). I invite them to pick a word which applies to the newborn but doesn’t apply to the single cell (“A newborn is a ___, while the single cell isn’t”). They never take me up on it, which I interpret as a public admission that they refuse to admit that there is any meaningful difference.

        • Ameribear

          Since you structured that statement so that any other word used to complete it won’t make any sense, the conclusion you’re forcing, that
          the newborn is a person and the single cell is not, is presumed in the statement without any support for it. As I said previously, I’m not taking the bait. Since your conclusion that person is the correct word, you’re linking personhood to development and you and everyone else I’ve discussed this with here have never addressed the logical consequences of that belief. I’d be happy to discuss those consequences If you like, but I’m not falling for your rigged ploy.

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Since you structured that statement so that any other word used to complete it won’t make any sense, the conclusion you’re forcing, that
          the newborn is a person and the single cell is not, is presumed in the statement without any support for it.

          Small world! I was just critiquing your clumsy approach with another commenter, noting that when you refuse to offer a word that fills in the blank, you publicly admit that there is a meaningful difference that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

          The enormity of the difference between a newborn and a single cell is hard to express in words, and yet we have words that express much, much smaller differences—newborn, baby, child, toddler, one-year-old, and so on. You don’t like person (a newborn is a person while a single cell isn’t)? That’s fine—use baby. Or tell me some other word that will do.

          There are several possibilities (“person” is my preference), but to admit that one applies is to admit that your elimination of the spectrum fails. You’re like the PETA extremist who uses the slogan, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” They tell us that there’s no spectrum between vermin and human, but that’s certainly not the way most of us see things. But maybe you don’t mind being lumped in with other extremists.

          As I said previously, I’m not taking the bait.

          Brilliant! Now I’m the bad guy for giving you a no-win, “have you stopped beating your wife?” question!

          High five, bro! I’m sure no one caught that clumsy rhetorical move.

          Since your conclusion that person is the correct word

          For the umpteenth fucking time, “person” is the obvious word from my standpoint, but I’m giving you the option of showing me a better word. The problem is, you got no better word. There’s an enormous difference; you just pretend that by not labeling it, you can say, “Nothing to see here! Move along, people! A cell, a baby—they’re the same thing!”

        • Kodie

          I imagine how Ameribear thinks women are is that we bleed in our drawers every month and cry that we don’t have a(nother) baby to cuddle. I know what a menstrual period is actually, but the idea that “pregnant” is something sacred is propaganda aimed at women, aimed at young girls. I mean, they stick a baby doll in our hands as soon as they can, we’re trained to squeal at babies, girls are sexualized to want to bear children from infancy. I don’t even think most all y’all think about that shit. Whenever I get my period, it’s not like I want to bleed, but it turns out to be pretty convenient to have some kind of early indication from your own body whether you are pregnant or not, or want to be, or don’t want to be. I got over the imaginary idea that I was “designed” to have babies, and realize I was culturally indoctrinated to think that’s the highest function I can offer society. The difference between shedding the lining of my uterus and eliminating an embryo is literally nothing. You get a grace period to decide if you want this path or that path, and you can always choose that other path later, but you can’t unchoose that path once you choose it.

        • Ameribear

          noting that when you refuse to offer a word that fills in the blank, you publicly admit that there is a meaningful difference that you simply refuse to acknowledge.

          There’s a meaningful difference alright, but it’s not what you’re trying to establish it to be.

          The enormity of the difference between a newborn and a single cell is hard to express in words, and yet we have words that express much, much smaller differences.

          Yes, there is an enormity in development but that does not mean the person isn’t there from the start.

          There are several possibilities (“person” is my preference), but to admit that one applies is to admit that your elimination of the spectrum fails.

          I’m not eliminating the spectrum, I’m only saying that it applies to development not to personhood.

          There’s an enormous difference; you just pretend that by not labeling it, you can say, “Nothing to see here! Move along, people! A cell, a baby—they’re the same thing!”

          Which brings me to the real enormous difference you and everyone else here either doesn’t understand or does but won’t admit it. Every human life begins in the “form” of a single cell but the “nature” of the zygote is worlds apart from any other human cell. They are by nature autonomously developing human beings from the start and continue to do so way, way past birth. You insist on linking personhood to development while you refuse to ever address the pitfalls and all those excluded by that line of reasoning. I, on the other hand, link personhood to the nature of what comes into existence after conception which doesn’t change from that point onward. It is a living human being from the start and that has to be all it takes to be a person because that definition of person excludes no one.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • Kodie

          What about it is a person, if it wasn’t a person just now, and has months and months to develop into a person, using blood and tissue from its host to build itself from not a person into a person. That’s all the ways it cannot live outside of a uterus.

          I think your word “nature” means DNA which is code for soul. Please just be honest about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Please just be honest about it.

          Behave yerself Kodie…honesty isn’t part of the Christian make-up.

        • Kodie

          I know, I’m just tired of pussyfootin’ around it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pussyfootin’ around…whaaaa….you? Never seen it in my time on this forum.

          Ah, ya were being sarcastic…in that case….

          Ya owe me for the keyboard a just ruined.

        • Ameribear

          It is a person because it is by nature an autonomously developing member of the human race from the start and continues to do so well after birth..

          No, nature does not refer to any soul. It refers to what the organism does after it comes into existence. The nature of regular bodily cells is to function in their respective organs. Heart, liver, lung, blood etc. The nature of regular body cells does not allow them to do or become anything else. The nature of a zygote is to autonomously develop into a full grown human being. Implantation does not change that nature.

        • Kodie

          It isn’t autonomous, it relies on its host for everything. She can say “nah.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except it isn’t autonomously doing anything though is it?

          That seems to be the important bit you have been struggling to come to terms with.

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m trying to figure which definition of autonomous he is using. None seem to apply.

          adjective
          1.
          Government.
          self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
          pertaining to an autonomy, or a self-governing community.
          2.
          having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent:
          a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
          3.
          (of a vehicle) navigated and maneuvered by a computer without a need for human control or intervention under a range of driving situations and conditions:
          an autonomous vehicle.
          4.
          Biology.
          existing and functioning as an independent organism.
          growing naturally or spontaneously, without cultivation.

        • adam

          From his arguments my bet is #3

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s a Catholic remember, normal rules don’t apply.

        • Ameribear

          Yes it is.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show
          uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          That seems to be the important bit (actual accurate scientific explanations) you have been struggling to come to terms with.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No it isn’t.

          Talk about thick as pig shit.

          autonomously:- Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.

          A fetus is dependant on the woman whose womb it is developing in.

          It can’t direct it’s own development to more mature stages of human life without the human incubator it is being carried around in, ergo no autonomy.

          Now wise ta fuck up. Loser.

        • Ameribear

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          It’s autonomously developing before it implants and implantation supports but doesn’t drive or change that.

          Time for you to wise up eight ball.

        • Kodie

          If you see a seedling or a sapling, would you pull it? Maybe you want a tree, someday, maybe you don’t want it so close to your house. Maybe you have enough trees and don’t want a forest. It is the same thing.

        • Ameribear

          You’re comparing vegetation to human life. You’re really difficult to take seriously.

        • Kodie

          How different are they?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it dependent on the host or not?

          You seem to be arguing against yourself from a number of days ago with the pregnant woman has a duty of care shtick. How so if it is an autonomous entity? Is it because you are inventing your own definition of words again…ya Dime Bar?

          Pro-tip, ya need a better memory if ya are to bee a decent liar. Ya suck at that too ffs.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh, C’mon. A zygote is 100% autonomous if you just change the definition of autonomous to “100% dependent on the body and actions of another for survival.” See, fixed it.

        • Ameribear

          How so if it is an autonomous entity? Is it because you are inventing your own definition of words again…ya Dime Bar?

          It’s genetically developing autonomously from the mother. It’s genetically distinct from both parents from the moment of conception. If it wasn’t, mothers would only give birth to exact duplicates of themselves.

          I’m not inventing any words. I’m taking the time to actually grasp the science and philosophy behind it rather than conflating meanings and definitions ya Jack Wagon.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it dependant on the host or not?

        • Ignorant Amos

          This discussion revolves around the relationship between a pregnancy, the woman who is pregnant, and whether the pregnant woman’s rights trump the rights of the pregnancy, including her choice in the matter.

          Your “autonomously” developing cells can do that developing in petri dish up to a point where it needs to be implanted into a host. It is then dependent on the host in order to develop further. The host is not necessarily the mother. But whoever it is, the implanted developing cells are reliant on the host, so no autonomy as per the host/pregnancy relationship.

          If your argument is that because cells are doing their thing outside the “control” of the host, if permitted, and therefore deserve certain rights based on this condition, you are wrong and they don’t.

          There are trillions of entities self developing inside my body at this moment and the majority of them more beneficial than to e than an unwanted pregnancy is to the woman not wanting it. Non of those have any rights whatsoever, even though without them I’d die.

          Then there are those “autonomous” cancer tumours.

          It is the woman’s rights that take priority, there is no defence of a not person you can make that will change that. You lose.

          https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/4/15/1082439/-The-fetus-is-a-parasite

        • Ameribear

          This discussion revolves around the relationship between a pregnancy, the woman who is pregnant, and whether the pregnant woman’s rights trump the rights of the pregnancy, including her choice in the matter.

          Nice try airhead. This discussion revolves around whether or not personhood begins at conception which in spite of all the effort you’ve expended you have failed to disprove.

          Your “autonomously” developing cells can do that developing in petri a dish up to a point where it needs to be
          implanted into a host.

          It’s a living, growing, developing human organism. How about
          attempting to get at least that much right instead of crapping out your abortion industry talking points again?

          It is then dependent on the host in order to develop further. The host is not necessarily the mother. But whoever it is, the implanted developing cells are reliant on the host, so no autonomy as per the host/pregnancy relationship.

          The host does not change the nature of what came into existence
          after conception. That nature does not change from conception to natural death. No born person becomes a non-person or something else when any of their basic needs have to be met. You are continually (and probably intentionally) referring to autonomy in the wrong sense. I said previously it is not autonomous in the sense that it can live or survive on it’s own. It’s only autonomous from it’s mother in terms of it’s genetic development.

          If your argument is that because cells are doing their thing outside the “control” of the host, if permitted, and therefore deserve certain rights based on this condition, you are wrong and they don’t.

          My argument is that the nature of every human person is to be a living, autonomously developing, human organism from conception to natural death. That definition should be what defines a person because it includes every single human being/person in existence and it takes away the ability of anyone to redefine what a person is to suit their own private interests.

          There are trillions of entities self developing inside my body at this moment and the majority of them more beneficial than to me than an unwanted pregnancy is to the woman not wanting it. None of those have any rights whatsoever, even though without them I’d die.

          You intentionally refuse to either grasp or acknowledge the distinctions between cells and organisms I’ve been pointing out. You have to because as soon as you do you, your entire case explodes in you face. That statement proves how truly clueless you
          are.

          It is the woman’s rights that take priority, there is no defence of a not person you can make that will change that. You lose.

          It’s a person from conception which means the woman’s rights
          do not take priority because they are equal. There is a defense of the personhood of the unborn and you have spectacularly bombed in attempting to disprove it. The entire case for abortion is one huge steaming pile of BS. You lose!

        • Ignorant Amos

          This discussion revolves around whether or not personhood begins at conception which in spite of all the effort you’ve expended you have failed to disprove.

          Nope, that there is a person there at conception has not been demonstrated, by you, or anyone else. The current default position is that personhood does not exist at, or begin at, conception. No argument put forward by those advocating there is personhood, has failed. You lose.

          It’s a living, growing, developing human organism. How about attempting to get at least that much right instead of crapping out your abortion industry talking points again?

          And since I haven’t denied that detail, where are you going with this straw man? The cells in the petri dish are also a living, growing, developing, human organism.

          The host does not change the nature of what came into existence after conception….blah, blah, blah, blah…

          Does it not? Apparently it does.

          I guess you know even less about epigenetics than I do…no surprise there then.

          An international study, involving scientists at the University of Southampton, has used an analysis of epigenetic marks on DNA to measure how much a baby’s development in the womb is determined by the genes inherited from the parents, as compared with the mother’s nutrition, mental health and lifestyle.

          It’s only autonomous from it’s mother in terms of it’s genetic development.

          Nah…seems you are just plain wrong….again.

          Professor Godfrey comments: “Development in the womb can in some ways be likened to an orchestra, in which genes are the instruments and epigenetic changes are the musicians who determine the sound that is heard, or the baby that is formed.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140428074640.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s a person from conception which means the woman’s rights do not take priority because they are equal.

          No it isn’t, yes they do, and no they are not…in that order. That’s why things are the way they are, and not the way you want then to be. Get over it. You lose.

          There is a defense of the personhood of the unborn and you have spectacularly bombed in attempting to disprove it.

          Ffs, how many times, I don’t have to disprove it. The status quo is that there is no personhood at conception. You and your side are the ones that have bombed in convincing there is…you have lost already.

          The entire case for abortion is one huge steaming pile of BS.

          A case that has won the day already, steaming pile of BS or not. You lose.

          You lose!

          Wake up and smell the coffee ya Dime Bar…we are all laughing at your nonsense.

        • Ameribear

          Ffs, how many times, I don’t have to disprove it. The status quo is that there is no personhood at conception.

          Yes you do, but since you’ve proven beyond all doubt how completely incapable of that task you are you have to run and hide behind you infantile little excuses. I don’t have to tell you what you can do with your status quo loser.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is abortion legal, or becoming legal, in most places?

          Yes, so I win, you lose…that’s the way it is until there is any change and abortion becomes illegal, then you win and I lose….are you too fucking pig thick stupid to grasp that simple concept.

          You have not demonstrated personhood at conception, repeating your mantra that there is, over and over again, does nothing to change that and support your claim. The burden of proof lies with you…get to it, and once you have you can then take your evidence to the courts of human rights, change their findings, and get abortions made illegal everywhere. It’s that simple. But until you do, you are the loser. Suck it up ya Dime bar.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of society based on intentionally spread ignorance. Are you to pig thick stupid to understand that that’s what your advocating?

          You have not demonstrated personhood at conception, repeating your mantra that there is, over and over again, does nothing to change that and support your claim.

          Yes, I have, multiple times but the fact that you’re to brainwashed to even understand the reasoning and to pig thick stupid to refute it is not my problem.

          The burden of proof lies with you…get to it, and once you have you can then take your evidence to the courts of human rights, change their findings, and get abortions made illegal everywhere. It’s that simple. But until you do, you are the loser. Suck it up ya Dime bar.

          Wrong again slow leak. The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person with absolutely zilch to back that claim up. In place of sound reasoning you are advocating the exact same mindset of every megalomaniac thug dictator throughout history. “What I say goes and you’re SOL if you don’t like it.” Suck it up ignorant Adolph.

        • adam

          “Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the
          strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of
          society based on intentionally spread ignorance”

          NO, you are thinking child abuse by the church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7b26fa63bd62710b5b0bda13321c325b5f32009b7ac947dd6169bdc88c7b54d.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          NO, you are thinking child abuse by the church

          Of course he’s thinking about that. He’s a Catholic. While actual child abuse is allowed to only a few, covering up child abuse is a requirement for all good Catholics.

        • adam

          “The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are
          claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person
          with absolutely zilch to back that claim up.”

          You mean ‘zilch’ in actually the Law?

          Speaking of breaking the Law:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb70ebc9c906ff76ff95ab2f328671605e8b757c39c1f322041ffd4c501d54e.gif

        • Ignorant Amos

          Abortion is and will always be the imposition of the will of the strongest members of society on the weakest, most vulnerable members of society based on intentionally spread ignorance.

          A fetus is not a member of society ya dime bar, so pah!

          As for the imposition, it never ceases to amaze me that Catholics are pro-life up until they need to avail of the abortion procedure for their own interests, then the hypocrisy kicks in to play.

          http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FactsTelltheStory2014.pdf

          Yes, I have, multiple times but the fact that you’re to brainwashed to even understand the reasoning and to pig thick stupid to refute it is not my problem.

          No, you haven’t. Just saying it is so, doesn’t count.

          You keep building the “human being at conception” straw man and then equating it to your opinion that it infers personhood, and by extension, equal right to life as a real born person. I have not argued that a zygote is not a human being in development. The argument is that it isn’t a person, and certainly not a person with rights that trump those of the pregnant woman in whose body it resides. That is my position and you have done fuck all to refute it.

          And get this, the law of your land doesn’t recognise your erroneous assertions, so for the nth time, you’ve lost.

          As for my demonstrating the counter to your bullshit, I don’t need to refute fuck all because the work has already been done.

          January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

          While there is no consensus upon what stage in a pregnancy the fetus becomes a person, very few rational people make the claim that it is a person from the point of conception.

          https://www.thoughtco.com/when-fetus-become-person-with-rights-248026

          You’ve lost already….suck it up big boy and dry yer eyes.

          Wrong again slow leak. The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person with absolutely zilch to back that claim up.

          You are the Dime Bar that has come here and are making the assertion ya fucking dimwit. I don’t have to demonstrate anything. The current accepted position is that a fetus is not a person with the same rights as the host it resides in, what part of that concept are you struggling to up take? The stuff provided is being continually hand waved away or ignored by you, that’s your problem, not mine. saying I’m providing “absolutely zilch” is a bare faced lie.

          The quest for a neurological marker of the beginning of human personhood owes its impetus to the perceived symmetry between processes at the beginning and end of life, thus if brain function is a criterion used to determine the medical death of a person, it should also be the criterion for its beginning.

          http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2567&context=fss_papers

          In place of sound reasoning you are advocating the exact same mindset of every megalomaniac thug dictator throughout history. “What I say goes and you’re SOL if you don’t like it.” Suck it up ignorant Adolph.

          You keep bloviating with this hyperbole fuckwittery ya buffoon. We are all in kinks laughing at you because you really can’t see the irony in it. You are the prick that is demanding an imposition on the rights of women against their will, ya feckin’ clown.

        • Ameribear

          You keep building the “human being at conception” straw man and then equating it to your opinion that it infers personhood, …rights that trump those of the pregnant woman in whose body it resides. That is my position and you have done fuck all to refute it.

          You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person? Tell us exactly when and why? If personhood is linked to development then only a perfectly developed human counts as a person. Anything less than that (and that means everyone here including you dumb ass) is sub human. Don’t give me your crap about not having to prove anything because you keep making philosophical and legal statements about the relationship between humans and personhood and you’ve repeatedly shown that you’re in way too far over your empty skull to come anywhere near supporting them. This is just another infantile excuse you’re hiding behind. This is nothing more than standard abortion industry talking points being made by a good little pro-death jackboot who’s too stupid to know any better.

          The current accepted position is that a fetus is not a person with the same rights as the host it resides in, what part of that concept are you struggling to up take?

          Previously accepted positions were that blacks could be bought and sold as private property. Previously accepted positions were that Jews were untermensch and could be disposed of like any other form of waste. What’s stopping anyone else from using your totalitarian mindset to make it a currently accepted position that YOU aren’t a person and can be disposed of? Explain to us why it’s right and just solely on the basis of being a currently accepted position. You’re are so completely wacked that you’ll never make the connection that what you’re advocating and what every other blood thirsty tyrant throughout history has advocated and carried out are exactly the same thing.

          The stuff provided is being continually hand waved away or ignored by you, that’s your problem, not mine. saying I’m
          providing “absolutely zilch” is a bare faced lie.

          The only things you’ve posted are the same crap with a PHD attached to it and we all know that by your standards that’s all you need to go ahead and post it. Everything you’ve posted has raised even bigger problems that you’re too much of a stump to even recognize let alone resolve and none of it has addressed any of the logical consequences I keep pointing out. What you posted has only served to show what a colossal slab you are. You suck, you’ve completely bombed. Own it Adolph.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person? Tell us exactly when and why?

          There is no consensus. That doesn’t mean you get to declare that it is at the point of conception. I’ve provided more than one position.

          Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a nonperson? What have people got that nonpeople haven’t got? More specifically, we can ask at what point in one’s development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. An ideal account of personhood would be a definition of the word person, taking the form ‘Necessarily, x is a person at time t if and only if … x … t …’, with the blanks appropriately filled in. The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties then (e.g. Baker 2000: ch. 3). Others propose a less direct connection between personhood and mental properties (Chisholm 1976: 136f., Wiggins 1980: ch. 6).

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

          If personhood is linked to development then only a perfectly developed human counts as a person.

          You love your straw man arguments. Since when did you get to decide what, or who, defines what counts as a person?

          Anything less than that (and that means everyone here including you dumb ass) is sub human.

          You are at tha silliness again. Conflating human with person…give over already.

          Don’t give me your crap about not having to prove anything because you keep making philosophical and legal statements about the relationship between humans and personhood and you’ve repeatedly shown that you’re in way too far over your empty skull to come anywhere near supporting them.

          I have repeatedly cited articles by scholars that support what I’ve been saying. the statements are not mine, they are from philosophers and law makers. Can’t you make that distinction.

          This is just another infantile excuse you’re hiding behind. This is nothing more than standard abortion industry talking points being made by a good little pro-death jackboot who’s too stupid to know any better.

          Ameribear, what is the status of the law on abortion in the USA? Why is it the way it is? What is the status of abortion law i most European countries? Why is it the way it is?

          The human rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus….it’s a fact….I’m hiding behind nothing because I don’t need to hide. You’ve lost the argument already, but too dumb a fucker to grasp that detail.

          Previously accepted positions were that blacks could be bought and sold as private property. Previously accepted positions were that Jews were untermensch and could be disposed of like any other form of waste.

          That’s right. Then we wised ta fuck up and changed those things for the better. Like what is happening with a woman’s right to chose to have an abortion. It’s called progress, great isn’t it?

          What’s stopping anyone else from using your totalitarian mindset to make it a currently accepted position that YOU aren’t a person and can be disposed of?

          How the fuck is giving a woman the freedom to choose over her reproductive rights having a totalitarian mindset and forcing her to take an unwanted pregnancy to term, not?

          We already make decisions that some human beings are not viable as persons and can be disposed of.

          Withdrawal of life support in the intensive care setting is increasing in frequency. More than half a million deaths a year, or 20-25% of all deaths in the United States, occur in ICUs.5 Serial review of ICU deaths in San Francisco found that from the 1980s to the 1990s, the percentage of ICU deaths that occurred following withdrawal or withholding of life support increased from approximately 50% to approximately 90%.6,7 The factor most strongly associated with withdrawal of mechanical ventilation are the physician’s perception of patient’s preferences about use of life support.8 This emphasizes the importance of asking patients, especially those with serious or life-limiting illness, to consider what kind of quality of life is acceptable when they are stable in the outpatient setting.

          Explain to us why it’s right and just solely on the basis of being a currently accepted position.

          Because that’s how society works. All things considered, it is deemed the best scenario. When it is demonstrated not to be, then no doubt things will changed to correspond to the new circumstances and data. Explain to me why a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will and human rights?

          You’re are so completely wacked that you’ll never make the connection that what you’re advocating and what every other blood thirsty tyrant throughout history has advocated and carried out are exactly the same thing.

          Sppppooooiiiinnnng!

        • adam

          You should actually spend your efforts on real LIVE human beings being neglected by you and your church.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ee57cb233d671c38fb55fe6e7f6f030457fc4070e7ae4a15a1e148e58eba246.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Are you still hoping that someday you will type something smart? I bet you have many times but deleted it because you didn’t like it.

        • Pofarmer

          This doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. It’s as if Ameribear lives in a separate reality.

        • adam

          “You are linking person hood to development so for the zillionth time what stage or level of development constitutes a person?”

          By LAW at birth.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a30e9ed4b50a7e4300c82eaf37aa43977e3a7c62ef12a69841080dde4d693a5.jpg

        • Ameribear

          Tell me then, since the law once declared blacks as non-persons
          and that they could be bought and sold as slaves did that make slavery ok? The laws of other countries once declared Jews and the disabled as non-persons and that it was ok to exterminate them. Just because the law said so does that justify the holocaust?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Tell me then, since the law once declared blacks as non-persons
          and that they could be bought and sold as slaves did that make slavery ok?

          Not in my mind, but that’s just me. I wouldn’t declare that as an objectively true moral claim. I’ve never seen evidence that (1) objective morality exists and (2) we humans can reliably access it. But if that’s your claim, I’m interested in your evidence.

        • Ameribear

          Not in my mind, but that’s just me.

          So you would never own slaves but you wouldn’t necessarily condemn anyone else for owning them nor advocate against legalizing it again.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Pro tip: pause and reread before clicking Post.

          I would condemn others for owning slaves. I would advocate against slavery being reinstituted in the West.

          Obviously.

        • Ameribear

          To be sure I understand you correctly, what is your definition of objective?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I use WLC’s definition of objective morality: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.”

        • Ameribear

          So why wouldn’t the morality of slavery be objectively immoral?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It might well be if objective morality existed. I’ve seen no evidence.

          Got any?

        • Ameribear

          Is the immorality of slavery valid and binding regardless of whether or not anybody believes it is? Would it still be immoral even if a majority of people favored it?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why is this hard? Just because you’re making it so?

          You imagine that there’s one objective answer to the question, is slavery moral? I am not claiming that; you are. As far as you’ve shown, morality is not objective, and we all have moral opinions. The Bible has one–that slavery is moral–and so do each of us. There are many answers to the question. In the West, the answers are almost all the same (but, of course, in the West 300 years ago, they were also almost all the same, but in the opposite way).

        • Ameribear

          You imagine that there’s one objective answer to the question, is slavery moral? I am not claiming that; you are.

          No, I’m asking a simple question. Would slavery still be immoral even if no one believed it?

          As far as you’ve shown, morality is not objective, and we all have moral opinions.

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any other.

          There are many answers to the question. In the West, the answers are almost all the same (but, of course, in the West 300 years ago, they were also almost all the same, but in the opposite way).

          “Almost all the same” means that some would believe slavery is immoral and others would not. If it’s all a matter of personal opinion neither one of those two views is illegitimate. If it’s all a matter of personal opinion then everything is moral.

        • TheNuszAbides

          If it’s all a matter of personal opinion then everything is moral.

          you seem determined to point non-religious considerations of morality in the direction of invalidating the entire concept of anyone ever bothering to debate morality. that would be either ignorant, disingenuous, and/or poorly-thought-out – a common trilemmatrifecta with your comments here.

        • MNb

          “I’m asking a simple question”
          I answered it; you neglected my answer. So much for your intellectual integrity. Not that anyone is surprised.

        • Greg G.

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any other.

          It becomes a societal matter. If one person’s morality offends everybody else, the group will impose the commonly held beliefs. I have heard that in some cultures, it is immoral to wipe your ass with your right hand and immoral to eat with your left hand.

          The Bible teaches that slavery is moral. People who are subject to slavery do not like slavery. Our sense of fairness makes up agree that the Bible is wrong about slavery. But the sense of fairness can be skewed so that some can learn that slavery is moral even if the enslaved don’t agree. Morality is malleable if the most powerful members of society are clever enough to make it so.

        • MR

          They’re always arguing against a strawman, aren’t they. It’s like they just seek the apologist argument, never research (or even listen) to the other side’s argument, and never think for themselves. Sigh.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not even that they’re arguing a strawman, it seems like they’re detached from reality. All you have to do is look around, read a little history, to see that morality, in this case, varies greatly from place to place and time to time. It’s obviously malleable and obviously a societal construct. We might not like it, but it certainly seems to be true.

        • MNb

          “All you have to do is”
          read the Bible – eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek.

        • Pofarmer

          Hey, no fair pointing out moral contradictions in their own book.

        • MNb

          “I have heard that in some cultures, it is immoral to wipe your ass with your right hand and immoral to eat with your left hand.”
          Not immoral – unhygienic. Then it becomes a grave insult to stick out your left hand for handshaking.

        • Greg G.

          I recall an old co-worker telling the story a few times that when he was in the Navy, they had shore leave in Turkey. When lunch was served the left-handed guy got chased by the owner with a cleaver. It was explained to them later that the faux pas was very offensive.

          In this country, if you want somebody to come to you, you hold up your hand and motion with the index finger. I have learned that has a sexual implications to Asians. One young Asian lady told me that she understands that when people do that here, they do not mean that at all but she still feels as if she was insulted.

        • MNb

          My then future (ex-)wife told me about the same, though I never got chased by anyone. Surinamese-Javanese had been exposed to Dutch cultures for many decades.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The Western “come here” sign (hand out, palm up, fingers motioning inward) in Japan is used for animals. For people, they have the palm down.

        • Greg G.

          For people, they have the palm down.

          That is in Vietnam, too. I have also seen it in movies from China.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This guy is doing something wrong then?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB93ajnXPjg

        • MNb

          Every muslim(a) I know would think this disgusting. So do I.

        • Ameribear

          Then no one society has any right to criticize or intervene in the actions of any other society even for the most egregious offenses. No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.

        • MNb

          That you love with imposing non-sequiturs on us does not mean that we are guilty of them.

        • Greg G.

          Why can a society not criticize the morals of another society? Nothing stops them. They have the right to do it if they grant themselves the right to do it.

          My moral sensibilities are based on thriving, happiness, and minimizing suffering. Another person may have the same sensibilities but opposing ideas about how to achieve those goals. A sociopath would see things differently. They might think that hording all wealth is the best thing and letting others starve and die from treatable diseases. We can try to limit the damage through government but they can also manipulate the source of power of a government.

          No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.

          Yes. Well, I think my moral sensibilities are better than or equal to anyone else’s but I am willing to improve anything that needs improving. But other’s may have different goals and different methods.

          People claim there is an objective morality, but it is always pretentiously theirs. If there was an objective morality, it might not be tolerable. The objective morality might be to be the last living thing. I enjoy being a social creature and seeing others thrive so I prefer my moral sensibilities to that morality even if it is objective.

        • MR

          My moral sensibilities

          An important distinction. We tend to forget that things like “morality” don’t really exist. It’s simply a label that we use to refer to a complex set of thoughts, intents, actions, expectations, desires, consequences…. People do things and from our own point of view we analyze those actions, thoughts, intentions against our own and others’ expectations, desires, and the consequences that those actions have in relation to us and those around us.

          Collectively, various groups may have similar points of view on certain behaviors because of group beliefs. A Christian or Muslim may condemn an act as sexually immoral based on their belief from a book or religious tradition, whereas another Christian or Muslim or non-Christian may view it simply as sex between two consenting adults.

          Collectively, humans, because we are cut from the same cloth have similar points of view on certain behaviors. As social creatures, we innately avoid those who lie, cheat and steal because it generally means some form of harm to us. And our innate sense of empathy can extend those feelings to others.

          The apologist line that it’s simply “personal opinion” is disingenuous. “Morality” (much less objective morality) doesn’t exist, but moral sensibilities like empathy, trust, etc., do exist in all humans (except maybe psychopaths). You can’t just write those things off and claim it all boils down to “personal opinion.” But they do [even when you point out it’s not just personal opinion], and keep going back to the same strawman argument like a dog to its vomit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed….fundamental Muslims think it is perfectly moral to saw the heads off infidels….including fellow Muslims…they’d claim that because it is Allah’s wish, even if there was no one to saw the heads, or have their heads sawed, it is still objectively moral to do so.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ameribear is happy to criticize anyone else’s moral claim when it conflicts with his own beliefs, but he’s shocked when anyone else does it to him. We’ll have to gently show him how things work on our planet.

        • adam
        • Ameribear

          Why can a society not criticize the morals of another society?

          I’m not saying they can’t. All I’m saying is that Pofamers reply states that societal norms determine morality and nothing else.

          We can try to limit the damage through government but they can also manipulate the source of power of a government.

          Or vice versa.

          Yes. Well, I think my moral sensibilities are better than or equal to anyone else’s but I am willing to improve anything that needs improving.

          You advocate for redefining person hood to suit personal interests. How does that make you any better than any one else?

        • adam

          “No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.”

          Yes, we understand the Catholic morality you adhere to

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38105552a1ee7bdfd6f9024d3e27ed0f405887ee3fd5341d468f517d8fdaf963.jpg

        • adam

          “No ones morality is any better than anyone else’s and as far as the victims are concerned is tough nuts.”

          THE Catholic Church morality.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/caa3de188660881f5c11426e7541c2e3f333e8711ca2a8dacf707b99b85bdaa2.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re familiar with the Nuremburg Trials? Here are a couple of questions to help you see how reality works.

          Whose law was used during the Trails, the Allies’ or the Germans’?
          Why do you suppose that was?

        • Ameribear

          The allies because it was superior. But that doesn’t change the fact that Pofarmer makes no mention of the superiority of one societies norms over anothers in is post.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The allies because it was superior.

          Explain. Was there some evaluation? Were the Germans’ legal system a candidate? Or is this just your (subjective) opinion?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The more recent Hague genocide trials are applicable here too.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point.

          Ameribear is hilarious when he fires his shotgun at the bottom of his own dingy.

        • Ameribear

          It’s not that complicated. Various Nazi’s were tried, convicted, and executed for very egregious crimes against members of their own and other countries. This is veering off of the main point I was making about Pofarmers original post though.

        • Greg G.

          If the Nazis had invented the atomic bomb first, Nazis would not have been tried at Nuremberg, they would be heroes, and we would be typing in German.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No, it’s not complicated. The Allies won, and that’s why the Allies’ legal process was used to try the Germans. So your saying that Nuremberg used the Allies laws because they were superior is mere chauvinism.

        • Ameribear

          Ok, we won so we got to establish the rules after the war. Why is it chauvinistic to declare our laws were better than theirs? What if the communists had gotten there before us? Would their system of laws have been deserving of the same reverence?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why is this hard (besides your making it so)? Might makes right sometimes. We think our rules are the best; the Soviets thought theirs were; and so on. It’s not that our laws are better; it’s that we think they’re better.

          And that’s morality as well. Christians are eager to handwave support for objective morality, but they never provide any evidence. Just like laws in Nuremberg. Laws are subjective, as are morals.

        • Ameribear

          So all morality is relative and nobody’s morals are any better than anyone else’s and you still never answered my question. Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?

        • MNb

          I did – and you preferred to neglect it. Thanks for confirming your dishonesty. However I’ll give you a second chance.

          “Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?”
          This is a meaningless question. The view that slavery is or is not immoral is subjective. If no one thinks slavery is immoral than in that time and that place, according to the people living then and there, it isn’t.
          Of course formulating questions correctly never has been your forte, as we already understand since your First Locomotive debacle.

        • Ameribear

          Then in that time and in that place if slavery is moral because
          no one believes it isn’t immoral the owning of some group of people by others is an acceptable practice. Would you still believe it is an acceptable practice if you were one of those being bought and sold by someone else?

          Of course formulating questions correctly never has been your forte, as we already understand since your First Locomotive debacle.

          Defending your bullshit materialism has never been your forte as we know from that same experience. That was a debacle on your part and I thank you once again for proving me right.

        • MR

          If no one believes it immoral, then MNb would also not consider it immoral. You answered your own question.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then in that time and in that place if slavery is moral because no one believes it isn’t immoral the owning of some group of people by others is an acceptable practice

          Isn’t that why YahwehJesus was okay with slaves in the Bible? That’s why it is all morally subjective.

          Until recently, marital rape was acceptable in Ieland. The RCC turned a blind eye to it.

          http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970

          Would you still believe it is an acceptable practice if you were one of those being bought and sold by someone else?

          Of course not…ever here of Spartacus?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

          Just like you don’t see abortion as an acceptable practice, while those women who actually have to carry an unwanted fetus to term, do.

        • Ameribear

          Of course not

          In your subjective view of morality as a slave you’d be SOL. It doesn’t matter that you’re an actual person being treated like a piece of
          property because it’s all subjective. There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene to gain your freedom and in fact it could be seen as an unjust act to attempt it. Slavery is right for the time, place, and people so I guess you’re stuck simmering in your own juices.

        • MNb

          Where would a silly apologist like you be without his beloved logical fallacies?

          “It doesn’t matter …”
          No matter how often you repeat it, this remains a non-sequitur. You want to attribute it to those who maintain subjective morality, so it becomes a strawman as well.

          “There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene”
          And here we have the utter failure of christian theology: the poor attempt to combine deduction a la the ancient Greeks with Hebrew faith.
          Such interventions never ever have resulted from rational reason. They invariably have resulted from empathy – which is an emotion.

          “you’re stuck simmering in your own juices”
          Which unsurprisingly was the fate of the vast majority of slaves in human history. Even more unsurprisingly those smart christians you are so proud of also invariably failed to provide rational reasons for Abolition until at least the end of the 18th Century. And when they started to do so it took them many more decades to show this “objective moral truth” to their fellow christians.
          If morals are objective indeed then christianity is an immense failure – including the Bible, given “eye for an eye” vs. “turn the other cheek”. Oh yes – I am sure you will be able to rationalize this contradiction away. Your problem is that such rationalizations are only necessary exactly because they confirm that the Biblical morals are not objective, but depending on the subject who wrote them down.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In your subjective view of morality as a slave you’d be SOL.

          Since I’ve no idea what “SOL” means, your first sentence is incoherent.

          It doesn’t matter that you’re an actual person being treated like a piece of property because it’s all subjective.

          Of course it would matter to me, but not to the people in whose culture I was being enslaved.

          Here’s a we example of those that thought they were doing the morally right thing, while those at the coal face most certainly did not.

          The largest migration of abandoned children in history took place in the United States between 1854 and 1929. Over two hundred thousand orphans were forced onto railroad cars and shipped west, where any family desiring their services as laborers, maids, and servants used and abused them. Orphan trains were highly popular as a source of free labor. The sheer size of the displacement and degree of exploitation that occurred gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption rather than indenture. Eventually, adoption became a quintessential American institution, embodying faith in social engineering and mobility. By 1945, adoption was formulated as a legal act with consideration of the child’s best interests.

          There’d be no rational reason for anyone to intervene to gain your freedom and in fact it could be seen as an unjust act to attempt it.

          I could see where a Catholic might think that way.

          The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, also known as Magdalene asylums, were institutions of confinement, usually run by Roman Catholic orders, which operated from the 18th to the late 20th centuries. They were run ostensibly to house “fallen women”, an estimated 30,000 of whom were confined in these institutions in Ireland. In 1993, a mass grave containing 155 corpses was uncovered in the convent grounds of one of the laundries. This led to media revelations about the operations of the secretive institutions. A formal state apology was issued in 2013, and a £50 million compensation scheme for survivors was set up, to which the Catholic Church has refused to contribute.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland

          Where the immoral were nothing of the sort, while the bastions of morality were, in fact, as immoral as it goes.

          Or maybe the conflicting morality of Tuam.

          A harrowing discovery in Ireland casts light on the Catholic Church’s history of abusing unwed mothers and their babies – and emboldened survivors to demand accountability.

          In the ultra-Catholic Ireland of the time – the St. Mary’s home opened in 1925 – there were various institutional ways for dealing with poor, unwanted children. “Illegitimate” children were forcibly separated from their mothers, who were deemed unsuitable parents. From the mother and baby homes many were sent to foster homes at the approximate age of 5 for boys and 7 for girls. Others were formally adopted for a fee – mostly to wealthy North American families. And some were shuttled off to residential schools – known as industrial schools in Ireland – when no family, either foster or adoptive, could be found.

          http://www.thejournal.ie/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-what-has-been-happening-3268787-Mar2017/

          So much for objective morals.

          Slavery is right for the time, place, and people so I guess you’re stuck simmering in your own juices.

          Only until decent people see the light…hopefully sooner rather than later. And yes, until those decent folk get their act together and make things better, I’ll be left simmering in my juices.

          You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept.

        • Ameribear

          Since I’ve no idea what “SOL” means…

          Shit out of luck.

          Of course it would matter to me, but not to the people in whose culture I was being enslaved.

          There are times when moral issues involve someone being on the giving side and on the receiving side. It’s very easy to advocate subjective morals as long as you’re certain you’re always going to be on the giving side (like when you’re deciding who is and isn’t a person). Not so much if you’re on the other end of someone else’s subjective moral beliefs.

          So much for objective morals.

          The objectivity of morals is not dependent on anyone adhering to them.

          Only until decent people see the light…hopefully sooner rather than later. And yes, until those decent folk get their act together and make things better, I’ll be left simmering in my juices.

          If all morality is subjective, they’d already believe they’re the decent people and have seen the light. If you’re just another piece of their legitimately purchased property, they’d believe they have every right to prevent you or someone else from depriving them of it, even by force if necessary. Their moral certitude would be just as valid as yours and you’d be the recipient of your own moral views.

          You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept.

        • MNb

          “Would you still believe ….”
          No idea. Better ask the slaves themselves. Now why would they think slavery immoral? Because they suffer from it. At the other hand slaves that don’t suffer in general found it easier to accept it, especially when indoctrinated by say christianity.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Capitein

          “debacle on your part”
          Ah, the sweet smell of christian self-deceit in the morning. Still not learned the difference between Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics, I see. Of course that would have been a miracle!

        • Ameribear

          No idea.

          You have no idea of whether or not you’d think slavery is immoral if you were declared a non-person and were stripped of your freedom?

          Now why would they think slavery immoral? Because they suffer from it.

          And you have no idea of whether or not you’d think slavery is immoral if you were made to suffer the same way?

          At the other hand slaves that don’t suffer in general found it easier to accept it.

          How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?

          Still not learned the difference between Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics, I see.

          Still not learned the difference between physics and metaphysics,
          I see.

        • MNb

          “You have no idea of ….”
          Why do I need to answer this question again? Are you even too stupid to accept it the first time?

          “And you have no idea ….”
          Apparently yes – this is the third time you ask this.

          “How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?”
          And the fourth time.
          You are even more stupid than I thought.

          “Still not learned the difference between physics and metaphysics,
          I see.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA
          Yup – your stupidity knows no limits. My dear, I wrote Aristotelean and Newtonian Mechanics. Mechanics is not metaphysics. I wrote nothing about metaphysics, not even when pointing out your errors in your failed First Locomotive Argument. Locomotives, rails and rail cars belong to the realm of physics, not metaphysics. And if you already get your physics incorrect (which you totally did – you failed to recognize that Aristoteles was wrong when postulating force being the cause of movement instead of change of movement) you cannot use it anymore to arrive at a correct metaphysical argument.
          Arrogant stupid apologist – I am totally capable of Steelmanning the Cosmological Argument. In fact I just did today, so that it doesn’t even need causality anymore and hence does not conflict with Modern (probabilistic) Physics. Yes, you read this correctly. All those smart apologists I have met, both American and Dutch, were not capable of what atheist me did with some help of others. Unfortunately for you this best version, which happens to be logically valid and compatible with Modern Physics, also makes immediately clear why no unbeliever has to accept it. The faith element (that little thing unbelievers by definition do not have and apologists desperately try to hide because they want to jump the scientific bandwagon) jumps from the screen.
          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the First Locomotive Argument incorrectly implies that force causes movement instead of change of movement any exposure to this Steelmanned version of the CA will be a total waste on you.

        • Ameribear

          I wrote nothing about metaphysics,

          Of course not because you’ve demonstrated that you suck out
          loud at grasping metaphysics.

          Locomotives, rails and rail cars belong to the realm of physics, not metaphysics.

          Metaphysics is can be applied to understand the functioning of anything. Metaphysics naturally compliments physics.

          you failed to recognize that Aristoteles was wrong when postulating force being the cause of movement instead of change of movement) you cannot use it anymore to arrive at a correct metaphysical argument.

          And you failed to realize that it doesn’t matter if force is the cause of movement or the changer of movement because that’s not the point. Unsurprisingly you still completely missed this one along with a number of other points.

          I am totally capable of Steelmanning the Cosmological Argument.

          You are totally capable of exposing yourself as a pompous, arrogant ass who is to dense to grasp the fact that no cosmological argument was ever being postulated.

          In fact I just did today, so that it doesn’t even need causality anymore and hence does not conflict with Modern (probabilistic) Physics.

          And then you further expose your utter cluelessness when it becomes embarrassingly evident that you’ve never botherd to understand the most basic premises underpinning the arguments.

          Yes, you read this correctly. All those smart apologists I have met, both American and Dutch, were not capable of what atheist me did with some help of others.

          The only thing I’m not capable of is grasping the sheer size of your bloated ego.

          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the First Locomotive Argument incorrectly implies that force causes movement instead of change of movement any exposure to this Steelmanned version of the CA will be a total waste on you.

          But as long as you are not capable of understanding that the
          cause/change distinction you keep beating like a dead horse is completely irrelevant and that it only serves to expose what a colossal boob you are to the rest of the world, this discussion will be a total waste on you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you suck out
          loud at grasping metaphysics.

          Perhaps we’ve uncovered the problem. You’re pretending to be in a world of metaphysics, and the rest of us are in reality. If God doesn’t exist in our reality, then what’s the point?

        • Rudy R

          Bob, good post over at Atheism And The City that addresses how metaphysical claims are many times bound with scientific claims and aren’t immunized against falsification.

        • epeeist

          Now that’s interesting, I had never thought of “coming into existence” being reliant on a presentist view of time before. It makes sense.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks.

          (And I curse Disqus that you can no longer see links in text …)

        • Ameribear

          What makes you think metaphysics is not a part of reality?

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          If I wrote nothing about metaphysics you also have nothing to justify any judgment about my grasp of it. After this excellent demonstration of your prejudice I didn’t read any further. Your comment only can get worse.
          Keep up the good work of looking ridiculous, Ameribear. It’s quite a spectacle.

        • Ameribear

          I have plenty to judge your grasp of it. I’ve witnessed you repeatedly
          make metaphysical statements in hysterically pathetic attempts to prove your worthless materialism. What makes it so entertaining is you don’t even realize you’re doing it. You should get an award for shooting yourself in the ass so many times. It’s been huge fun to watch.

        • Ameribear

          I have plenty to judge your grasp of it. I’ve witnessed you repeatedly
          make metaphysical statements in hysterically pathetic attempts to prove your worthless materialism. What makes it so entertaining is you don’t even realize you’re doing it. You should get an award for shooting yourself in the ass so many times. It’s been huge fun to watch.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          MNb: “I wrote nothing about metaphysics”
          Ameribear: “Of course not,”
          Ameribear again: “I have plenty to judge your grasp of it.”

          Whistle …… ass shooting …… whistle …… mote ……. beam ……. whistle …… Matth. 7:4 …… whistle ……
          Thanks for taking my advise. You keep up the good work of looking ridiculous indeed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How do you get declared to be a piece of property for the rest of your life and not suffer?

          Great question. That’s why atheists are shocked when Christians read Lev. 25:44-46 and still pretend that God isn’t OK with slavery for life.

        • Ameribear

          Again, where are your grounds for opposing any moral wrongs if it’s all a matter of opinion?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What planet are you from? I think that my moral opinions are correct, so I’d prefer to see things go my way than not.

          If you think that your position is different in that you have objective moral truth on your side, demonstrate this.

        • Ameribear

          You haven’t resolved the dilemma you put yourself in. The only thing you have is that you think your moral opinions are correct but your line of reasoning offers nothing that makes your opinions any better or more valid than anyone else’s.

        • MR

          You mean objectively valid? I think he knows that. That’s why we need to try to get along together as best we can. I promise not to force you to get an abortion or get gay married. Deal?

        • Ameribear

          That’s like saying I promise not to force you to own any slaves or execute any Jews.

        • Kodie

          Not even a little bit.

        • MR

          Deal. It’s something we can all agree on.

        • MNb

          Yup – our First Locomotive Fool doesn’t (want to) see the difference between a slave and a jew at one hand and an embryo at another. Or he does and he has just found another logical fallacy (the False Analogy) to make him horny.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What dilemma? I think my moral opinions are correct. You think yours are. Neither of us can point to any objective source to finally resolve who’s right where we disagree.

          Or am I wrong? If objective morality exists, show me! That you haven’t done so makes it clear to me that you realize that you have no argument.

        • MNb

          Of course he hasn’t resolved it – there is no dilemma except in your overheated hypocrite imagination.

        • Kodie

          I have an opinion that things ought to be done this way, not that way. Others agree with me, and some others disagree with me, so we try to come to an agreement, or at worst, overpower the others’ opinion in numbers. There are consequences to having certain moral opinions, some that we may not be alive to know how it all turns out, and even if we get out of our current problems, that’s not going to stick. There will be problems ahead for new humans to solve and resolve. That’s just how it fucking works, why don’t you understand that? You’re trying to overpower me with your opinion, and I am trying to reason you out of it, because I want idiots like you to agree with me, because that’s just how it works. I can’t force you to change your mind, and I know if you keep up with your bullshit, I am not coming to agree with your opinion. I don’t even know why you’re still here.

        • MNb

          Empathy, something christians are supposed to have (because Jesus taught it) but unfortunately way too often haven’t – like you for pregnant women, when you defend forced birth.

        • Ameribear

          Empathy, something atheists bloviate about but actually have no concept of, like you for denying the personhood of an entire class of humans when you defend slaughtering them.

        • MR

          Plenty of Christians, including Catholics, would disagree with your portrayal, so your drama-kitty attack on atheists kind of falls flat.

        • Ameribear

          I’m happy to lump anyone who shares your views on personhood into that category.

        • MR

          You don’t know what my views on personhood are. If you can’t even convince your own kind, how can you claim you hold an objective position?

        • Ameribear

          You’re right, I apologize to you. I don’t know your views so I shall rephrase my reply to say “those” views.

        • MR

          You ignored the important part: How can you claim you hold an objective position?

        • MNb

          Yeah, we pro-choicers (who are actually the ones who are pro-life, not you) cannot help ourselves feeling more empathy for teengirls and women than for a rather amorph clog of cells. Even pro-forced birthers recognize this and hence strongly tend to present the falsehood that embryos are homunculi.
          At the other hand the empathy pro forced-birthers like you have for babies miraculously tends to disappear after the woman has given birth, given all the christians that have voted for The Donald and hence are OK with breaking down social security that would benefit those newborns.
          Not that I’m surprised by your hypocrisy. Unlearning the hypocrisy of your own flock is so much more difficult that cheap, unthoughtful rants against the opposition if you want to demonstrate your moral superiority.

        • Ameribear

          Yeah, we pro-choicers (who are actually the ones who are pro-life, not you) cannot help ourselves feeling more empathy for teengirls and women than for a rather amorph clog of cells.

          An amorph clog of cells? Learn something.

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          Even pro-forced birthers recognize this and hence strongly tend to present the falsehood that embryos are homunculi.

          I prefer to let embryology define what an embryo is.

          At the other hand the empathy pro forced-birthers like you have for babies miraculously tends to disappear after the woman has given birth, given all the christians that have voted for The Donald and hence are OK with breaking down social security that would benefit those newborns.

          FYI social security benefits those at the other end of the life spectrum. I fully agree that a consistent pro-life ethic cannot encourage expectant mothers to give birth and then abandon them. I am all for a robust support system for anyone dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.

        • MNb

          Nothing in your link contradicts my “amorph clog of cells”. You are the one who has to learn – not something, but a lot. Here, after four weeks:

          http://fetus-pregnancy.com/4-week-fetus/

          “I prefer to let embryology define what an embryo is.”
          Not homunculi. At four weeks an amorph clog of cells.

          “I am all for a robust support system for anyone dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.”
          This apparently means “but not when dealing with an expected pregancy. And you being a pro forced birthers also will get to decide when a pregnancy is expected or unexpected.
          I also notice that you do exactly nothing to make your pro forced birth flock unlearn their hypocrisy. Because why take the small, thorny road if there is such a comfortable broad one?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Here’s a precious human being.

          http://i.imgur.com/Z93UnIq.gif

          Just kidding. It’s a precious elephant fetus.

        • Ameribear

          Nothing in your link contradicts my “amorph clog of cells”.

          Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

          That article clearly defines it a new human organism and explains in detail why. It’s nothing like any other cell or clumps of cells.

        • MNb

          It’s still a clump of cells. I wrote nothing more, no matter how desperate your hope is.

        • Ameribear

          You are intentionally ignoring what that article is saying about the nature of the zygote.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you’re a vegetarian then?

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t even hurt them. What does empathy have to do with this? What does “slaughter” have to do with it? You’re really an emotional mess!

        • Pofarmer

          I wish Ameribear could carry all these pregnancies he’s so concerned about. Maybe raise a couple of kids as a single mother on minimum wage.

        • Pofarmer

          If you actually want to get at the base of our moral intuitions, you could read something like “Braintrust” by Patricia Churchland.

          That’s if.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you’ve dropped the objective morality claim?

          I think that slavery is immoral. Some other guy might disagree. Welcome to reality with no objective morality.

          Is slavery immoral even if no one believes it is?

          How can it be? Fill in the blank: “slavery is immoral even if no one believes it because ___.”

        • Ameribear

          There
          can never be any justification for trading in other people as property.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So then you’re back making the objective morality claim. Do you want to do more than just make that claim? Like maybe back it up with reasoning?

        • Ameribear

          Do you want to come up with some circumstances in which trading
          in other people as property is morally acceptable?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I know of no such circumstances.

          Now, if “objectively correct morality” is “what Bob thinks,” then you’ve proven your point. Unfortunately, no one but you thinks that.

        • Ameribear

          If it is subjectively immoral then someone must be able to come up with a convincing argument, grounded in sound reasoning that justifies it.

          If there are no circumstances in which trading in other people as property is morally acceptable, then how can slavery not be objectively immoral.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Here’s why I point out that the burden of proof is yours and then you dance away from it.

          Yes, I know that some moral opinions are very strongly felt. That’s evolution talking–that moral programming helped humans survive. That doesn’t mean that they’re objectively true.

          If there are no circumstances in which trading in other people as property is morally acceptable, then how can slavery not be objectively immoral.

          Think first, then click Post. That’s not what I said. I said that, in my opinion, there are no such circumstances.

        • MR

          We never say that ants enslaving another ant is immoral. The ant might have a different view.

        • Ameribear

          If it’s just your opinion that there are no circumstances, then someone else’s opinion that there are is just as valid as yours and you have no
          grounds to oppose it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just as valid in a cosmic sense, sure. But everywhere you and I disagree on moral issues, I think I’m right. And the reverse is also true. We both take that as grounds to advance our opinion.

        • Ameribear

          If 100% subjective opinions are all morality is grounded in, you have no more grounds for advancing your 100% subjective opinion on morals than you do for advancing your 100% subjective opinion on your favorite flavor of ice cream or your favorite brand of beer.

        • MR

          Strawman! Next.

        • Ameribear

          Explain why.

        • MR

          You’ve been explained many times. You simply ignore it. Go back and read what epeeist has said recently, what Bob has said, what others have said. To beat your dead horse strawman of 100% subjective opinion is disingenuous and dishonest.

        • Ameribear

          I did read and replied to what the epeeist posted and I’m waiting on his reply.

        • MR

          And yet it’s not strictly personal opinion. It’s still a strawman, not to mention that you haven’t addressed biological reasons, religious laws, codes of honor, laws, etc. Morality isn’t 100% subjective opinion.

        • Kodie

          …power of suggestion.

        • MR

          Good point…, brainwashing, lack of information….

        • Susan

          If 100℅ subjective opinions are all morality is grounded in

          They’re not. Concern for other sentient beings is a standard. What could morality even mean If it doesn’t factor in sentient beings at its heart?

          your favorite flavor of ice cream or your favorite flavor of beer

          No.

          See Above.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t care what ice cream you eat or like. Doesn’t affect me. Your vote on a moral issue does, however, and that’s why I would be motivated to correct you (if necessary) where your moral opinion differs from mine.

          Show me that objective morality exists.

        • epeeist

          Show me that objective morality exists.

          We both know he can’t and that he is just going to deflect or make appeals to pity (or other emotional appeals).

        • Ameribear

          Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion. We can certainly discuss them but in the end you still have no grounds to correct me or anyone else. To the rest of you who replied to my posts, I will reply to as many as I can over the course of this week.

        • MR

          Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion.

          Not entirely true, which you’ve been told many times, which makes you dishonest and your discussion disingenuous.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your views on moral issues are subjective. They’re a matter of your personal opinion.

          Show me that yours aren’t.

          We can certainly discuss them but in the end you still have no grounds to correct me or anyone else.

          I will, with pleasure, correct you. With so much to correct, it’d be a shame to pass up the opportunity. I correct you where I think you’re wrong—that’s how it works on this planet.

        • Ameribear

          Correct all you want. Why should I be bound to comply or agree with yours or anyone else’s subjective morals?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sure, you can have that attitude if you want. Very few do, but go ahead. Just be consistent. Tell me that you say, “Why should I be bound to comply or agree with yours or anyone else’s subjective morals?” to your wife, kids, boss, neighbors, legislators, police, and so on.

        • Kodie

          … church’s?

        • Ameribear

          Ah but you forget that I don’t believe my moral obligations to my family or to society are subjective.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not what we’re talking about. You’re wondering why you should care what I think if my morals are subjective. I’m just asking you to be consistent. Treat me like you treat equivalent people in your life. If you would listen and consider the arguments of a stranger you meet at a party, great–that’s me. Why, aside from bias, would you treat me any different?

          Or is this not the point you’re making?

        • Ameribear

          I would never treat you nor anyone else any differently than I would anyone else in my life. You are telling me to be consistent and tell all my loved ones the same thing I’m telling you. That I am not bound to agree or comply with your “subjective” moral opinions. Are you assuming that I am obligated to take care of my family, be a reliable and productive employee and obey the laws of our countries governments because those obligations arise from someone else subjective opinion? All I’m saying is that I fulfill all those obligations because I do not believe they are someone’s subjective opinions. I believe they are the exact opposite. They are binding on me because I believe they are objective morals and that I will at some point in time be held accountable for fulfilling them whereas you will never be able to hold me nor anyone else accountable for not obeying or ascending to your subjective morals.

        • Kodie

          You treat women differently.

        • Ameribear

          You are the one who believes a future with fewer women in it is desirable.

        • Kodie

          Wow, you have no concept of demographics or population growth. I wonder how many other things you don’t know.

        • Ameribear

          Wow you have no concept of what it means to grow up and start thinking and acting like something other than a prepubescent, narcissistic primadonna. I don’t need to wonder about how many other things you don’t know because you’ve provided more than enough evidence of it.

        • Susan

          Kodie made a very specific point. You haven’t factored in things like demographics in your editorial regurgitation.

          She’s right. You haven’t.

          In response, you just make stuff up about her.

          Do you see a difference?

        • MR

          Do you see a difference?

          Ameribear is not capable of an honest answer to that.

        • Kodie

          It’s really hard for you to support your earlier comment about me wanting fewer women in the world, so you revert to judgmental idiot. I mean, underneath, all along, that’s really all you have.

        • MR

          Objectively? No reason. Are you human? Then for one thing you’d have your humanity to overcome. Most, not all, humans have empathy for others. At least others of their own tribe. It’s in a human’s nature in the a similar way that wolves cooperate in packs because it’s in their nature. Why should a wolf be bound (objectively) to comply with the pack. He’s not. But it is a part of his nature. Secondly, do you want to benefit from the things that society collectively offers? You’ll likely follow to some degree the moral of whichever society you are in. We don’t need objective morals to explain these things.

        • Ameribear

          It’s in a human’s nature in a similar way that wolves cooperate in packs because it’s in their nature.

          It is also in a human’s nature to possess the ability to freely make choices and act on them. History provides us with ample evidence that we are not simply pre-programmed to do good. Humans by nature are perfectly capable of good or evil acts.

          You’ll likely follow to some degree the moral of whichever society you are in.

          You’re right, I do follow the morals of the society I live in precisely because I believe for the most part they, are objective. The ones I believe are immoral or unjust I speak out against.

        • MR

          I’m not sure how freely we make choices. Humans have many constraints that we can’t see like a fish in water. Good and evil are emotional terms. Hu

        • Ameribear

          Humans simply aren’t capable of making perfect decisions or judgements.

          What standard of perfection are you appealing to? If all morals are subjective, we get to be our own standard of perfection.

          Good and evil are emotional terms.

          So outside of anyone’s perceptions, all acts are morally neutral. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about them. There is nothing about the act of say the Las Vegas sniper that makes that act and the one who committed it good or evil. It’s only how one perceives the act that determines it’s morality. Even if ones perceptions may lead to condemning the act and the one who committed it, condemnation is only an emotional judgment based on personal preferences.

          Humans do acts that do benefit and do harm.

          If all morals are subjective then we get to be the ones who define benefit and harm. If your definition of benefit and harm are all a matter of your personal preferences, what grounds do you have for criticizing anyone else definitions of benefit and harm?

          Some reasoning is sound and some reasoning isn’t. If you’re using reasoning simply used to bolster what you want to believe, that’s not sound reasoning.

          Who are you to criticize the soundness of anyone else’s reasoning? If we’re the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong then we can do anything we want without any reason for it.

          And yet you have no way demonstrate it, nor do you have any way to objectively know for certain that you are correct.

          The logical consequences of subjective morals are all the proof I need.

          Other people have other views, and it’s hard to combat actual reasoning and facts with “I just know I’m perfectly right, even if I can’t demonstrate it.”

          What makes you think those who may oppose your views can’t or don’t support their views with actual reasoning and facts and that you don’t hold your own views just because you believe you’re perfectly right? Why does anyone need reasoning and facts to begin with?

        • MR

          Am I suppose to be rebutting your strawman of what I’m saying? All you can do is misrepresent the argument. It’s dishonest. Let me know, though, when you have evidence for objective morality. I’d be very interested in that. Intellectual dishonesty, not so much.

        • Ameribear

          Am I supposed to be rebutting your strawman of what I’m saying? All you can do is misrepresent the argument.

          Then by all means show me what I’ve misrepresented.

          Let me know, though, when you have evidence for objective morality. I’d
          be very interested in that. Intellectual dishonesty, not so much.

          Subjective morality as you have presented it has numerous insane logical consequences to it that haven’t been adequately addressed. Just like all the re-definitions of personhood here. Personally I don’t have to provide any evidence of objective morality because subjective morality is sufficiently incoherent to defeat itself. If you feel I’ve misrepresented what you’ve been saying please point out to me where I’ve done that and we can discuss this further.

        • Susan

          Subjective morality … (Blah, blah, blah)

          The consequences of your strawman, not withstanding,. apply to your position equally.

          Niw, if you’d care to acknowledge sentience, we could have an honest discussion about it.

          That’s the sort of thing that philosophers of ethics have to engage as a matter of discipline.

          As you appeal to sentient beings consistently while rejecting sentience as a criterion when grappling with moral consideration tells me everything.

          That you provide nothing distinguishable from subjective reasoning. (all the way down to Eurhyphro) while claiming that objectuve morality exists tells me more.

          You are very good at regurgitating. Not so good on engaging.

          Edit::

          By phone, a few minutes later. My comment changed substantially in the last 5 minutes

        • MR

          I personally have some empathy for Ameribear’s position. He loses me completely with his dishonesty.

        • Susan

          some empathy for Ameribear’s position.

          I have none. It is a position without empathy.

        • MR

          Yes, I’m sorry. I have empathy for the abortion question. I’d forgotten about some of the things Ameribear has said in the past. It…, stunned me, frankly. I’d forgotten. The dishonesty rather pales in comparison.

        • epeeist

          I have a couple of outstanding posts from Ameribear which I could respond to, but I really do wonder whether it is worth the effort.

        • Susan

          I have a couple of outstanding posts from Ameribear which I could respond to, but I really do wonder whether it is worth the effort.

          As a former and current lurker, I would say your responses are always worth the effort. I’ve learned so much from them and continue to do so.

          You’re not going to make any progress with Ameribear. He’s a right wing catholic with PRATTs galore and bluster. But no reason to let him ruin the real discussion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          To follow on from what Susan said, if it was only for the benefit of Ameribear that you were replying, then I to would say “fuck it”, what a waste of time, but your replies’s benefit the wider audience. Particularly those like meself who are a lot less well read and a more shallow thinker on the philosophical side of such discussions as these.

        • Pofarmer

          I feel like I understand why people oppose abortion. I do sympathize with that position. What I don’t sympathize with is when those people then oppose effective ways of reducing those abortions. It pretty quickly gets to looking more like it’s about misogyny, control, and religious dogma than having an effective program. That’s why they studiously ignore the rather large drop in abortions during the Obama administration. They were achieved with methods they don’t support, even though over and over their methods have proven counterproductive. Dogma is easy when it’s not your body or your health or your family.

        • MR

          Right. And for me what’s clear is that very religious people have very different views on the topic. To hear the anti-abortion religious folk, this is the defining issue, and yet, the word doesn’t even appear in the Bible. Weird. Even from a biblical perspective, there’s no silver bullet answer. How do you declare something objective for Christians, let alone for non-Christians? Views vary across cultures, religion, space and time. Not being a woman, that’s another rift that makes it hands off for me.

        • Pofarmer

          Abortion is mentioned specifically in the Didache, so it’s considered a very old position by the church.

          2:2 {Thou
          shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt
          boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not
          deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by
          abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods,
          thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt
          not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded
          nor double-tongued;

          http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

          I wonder how many Evangelicals and Baptists realize that they’ve adopted a very old Catholic position? Although, as has been pointed out, that position has changed a few times.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is tangential, but why is there no term to distinguish between a pro-lifer who is pro-life only for themselves and a pro-lifer who wants to impose their views on the rest of the world?

        • Pofarmer

          I’d go so far as to say it’s a position specifically designed to short out empathy.

        • Ameribear

          There
          you go flogging the sentience dead horse again. No, we cannot have an honest discussion
          about sentience because you’re the one who’s to dishonest to even attempt to resolve
          all the consequences of your screwed-up insistence for making sentience the
          basis for personhood.

        • Susan

          There you go flogging the sentience dead horse again.

          Good luck making it through a course on ethics simply proclaiming sentience a dead horse. Especially if you can do nothing but appeal to sentient beings when you try to push our moral buttons.

          I love when you get all blustery when you have nothing to support your position.

          Now, back to your claim of objective morals. Calling an indoctrinated position “objective” does not make it so.

          As BlackMamba 44 pointed out (and you ignored), all you’ve done is claim your subjective opinion is based on some imaginary “objective morality” that you can’t show.

          When asked to show it, you resort to bluster.

          But we’re used to that from you.

          What is “objective morality”? How do you know? Demonstrate it.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear is a Catholic so any ethics course he would have taken was probably based on souls and woo.

        • Pofarmer

          No one has argued that sentience is the basis for personhood. But it is fairly widely agreed that sentience is one aspect that is necessary for personhood. How can something that can’t interact with other persons have the rights of a person?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Liars gonna lie…especially liars for Jesus…especially, especially Roman Catholic liars for Jesus.

        • Ameribear

          Do you believe that anyone who is comatose but does not require any external means to keep them alive other than food and water is not entitled to the same rights you are? What about someone who’s anesthetized or sedated? Is anyone who’s sentience is underdeveloped or damaged only entitled to some but not all rights?

        • Pofarmer

          Do you believe that anyone who is comatose but does not require any
          external means to keep them alive other than food and water is not
          entitled to the same rights you are?

          Yes, and the medical profession believes that too.

          What about someone who’s anesthetized or sedated?

          This is disingenuous, and stupid, and has already been explained to you multiple times.

          Is anyone who’s sentience is underdeveloped or damaged only entitled to some but not all rights?

          Uhm, yes, this is actually obvious, as people who are mentally handicapped frequently don’t get to make their own medical decisions, for instance.

        • Ameribear

          Perhaps I need to be a bit more specific. Are the less or non-sentient
          entitled to the same protection under the law as the more sentient?

        • Kodie

          Once a person is a person and has been sentient, usually we regard them differently. They have families who care what happens to them. They have an established life they might want to get back to. That means it’s illegal and unethical for the surgeon to kill the patient under anesthesia. They were sentient already and will be again unless the surgery isn’t successful, for example. If there’s no chance of regaining sentience, different rules apply. Something that doesn’t have a brain yet isn’t going to miss itself. And being that the only place it can grow is inside of a woman’s uterus, it’s totally legal and ethical for her to determine whether it should be there or out of there. If a family doesn’t want to pull the plug on their loved one, that’s their choice, if they’re given a choice.

        • Ameribear

          Once a person is a person and has been sentient, usually we regard them differently.

          Sentience begins around the end of the first trimester doofus.

          They have families who care what happens to them.

          So now you’re not a person unless someone cares about you.

          That means it’s illegal and unethical for the surgeon to kill the patient under anesthesia.

          Why? None of what you said has any bearing on that. A patient under anesthesia isn’t sentient so they’re not a person.

          Something that doesn’t have a brain yet isn’t going to miss itself.

          You’re still linking personhood to development. By your own standard you aren’t developed enough to be a person either.

          And being that the only place it can grow is inside of a woman’s uterus, it’s totally legal and ethical for her to determine whether it should be there or out of there.

          And by the scientific definition of what exists after conception, it’s still first degree murder.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sentience begins around the end of the first trimester doofus.

          Ballix it does..doofus.

          It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.

          In fact, we know that the brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks, while the conscious processing of sounds is only made possible after the 26th week. Even when the fetal brain possesses all its adult structures, scientists are cautious to assume it posesses what we refer to as ‘consciousness’. This is mainly because the low oxygen levels and a constant barrage of sleep-inducing chemicals from the placenta ensure that, until birth, the foetus remains heavily sedated.

          Didn’t you do a rudimentary Google search into the science before typing out that rubbish that what you think you know is totally not what is scientifically known…doofus.

        • Pofarmer

          Didn’t you do a rudimentary Google search into the science before typing out that rubbish

          Hahahahahahah. No.

        • Kodie

          I don’t think sentience happens at the first trimester, but we have no problem, you and me, aborting a fetus less than 12 weeks (which most of them are), right?

          It doesn’t have a brain to have capacity for sentience. It’s more harmful to a mouse to trap it or to fumigate your house for termites, definitely to slaughter a cow or a pig or a chicken. Not at all to the sentience-less, brainless, feelingless, lifeless, planless, dreamless 12-week fetus. It wasn’t there and then it was and now it’s not again. What’s so holocausty about that? If people like you would just get your shit straight and not try to guilt girls and women out of abortions they want, or find other political obstacles to delay them, everyone who wanted an abortion would get one within the 1st 2 weeks they learned of being pregnant. Nobody has a difficult choice to make – either you want to have a baby or you don’t, or you can’t right now. If you made the wrong decision, just go get pregnant again as soon as possible. That choice doesn’t work the other way around.

          Tell me again how I want fewer women in the world, when all you want are plenty of breeding cows.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A patient under anesthesia isn’t sentient so they’re not a person.

          More ignorant poppy cock. A person under anesthesia is unconscious aka sleeping, as opposed to non-conscious…the difference is important. A fetus has never attained consciousness, so it is non-conscious, not unconscious.

          And even sleeping brains are not as unconscious as was once considered.

          Falling asleep leads to a loss of sensory awareness and to the inability to interact with the environment [1]. While this was traditionally thought as a consequence of the brain shutting down to external inputs, it is now acknowledged that incoming stimuli can still be processed, at least to some extent, during sleep [2]. For instance, sleeping participants can create novel sensory associations between tones and odors [3] or reactivate existing semantic associations, as evidenced by event-related potentials [4-7]. Yet, the extent to which the brain continues to process external stimuli remains largely unknown. In particular, it remains unclear whether sensory information can be processed in a flexible and task-dependent manner by the sleeping brain, all the way up to the preparation of relevant actions. Here, using semantic categorization and lexical decision tasks, we studied task-relevant responses triggered by spoken stimuli in the sleeping brain. Awake participants classified words as either animals or objects (experiment 1) or as either words or pseudowords (experiment 2) by pressing a button with their right or left hand, while transitioning toward sleep. The lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological index of response preparation, revealed that task-specific preparatory responses are preserved during sleep. These findings demonstrate that despite the absence of awareness and behavioral responsiveness, sleepers can still extract task-relevant information from external stimuli and covertly prepare for appropriate motor responses.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25220055

          Furthermore, the unconscious can experience pain, the non-conscious cannot. A fetus cannot experience pain.

        • Pofarmer

          No. And the completely non sentient less so.

        • Ameribear

          So anyone who is developmentally disabled or comatose can be
          exterminated, can have their organs harvested, can be experimented on, or can be bought and sold as property because the protections under the law against having any of these things done to you or I don’t apply to them.

        • Pofarmer

          If a child were born without a brain, or just a brain stem, could the parents consent to have it’s organs harvested? If a 14yr old were brain dead because of an accident, could the parents consent to have their organs harvested?

        • Kodie

          And yet, we allow families to make decisions to terminate life support for their comatose non-sentient loved ones. We allow a machine to stop keeping them alive, but you won’t allow a woman to stop being pregnant. YOU HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS – you can’t claim the horse is very dead, because you ignored me when I wrote this over a month ago.

        • Ameribear

          I have addressed this dozens of times but you keep choosing to ignore it. I am specifically referring to comatose patients who do not require the use of any external means to maintain normal biological functions. Any one who’s brain has died and requires a machine to keep their heart beating or to keep their breathing going isn’t a person anymore because they’re dead. I’ve also pointed out dozens of times that sentience varies throughout our lives which means the only one who is truly a person is someone in perfect physical condition. If sentience determines personhood, then anyone without perfect eyesight or hearing for example is only a partial person. These are just some of the logical consequence YOU KEEP IGNORING.

        • Kodie

          So, a fertilized egg doesn’t have a brain, and requires external machinery called a woman to keep its heart, which it also doesn’t have yet, beating, and to feed it oxygen until the lungs finish forming. That’s the bullshit clump of nothing you want to force a woman to continue pregnancy for. It’s NOT A PERSON, you DOLT.

        • Ameribear

          Yes, that’s called providing a basic standard of care for a living,
          growing, developing human person who keeps doing exactly the same thing well after birth. That you wish to refer to as a bullshit clump of nothing only serves to proudly display your profound ignorance, immaturity and inability to think for yourself for all of us to marvel at. It is a person which you still haven’t disproved you DOLT!

        • Kodie

          So says you, and we know you’re an idiot. There’s no person to care for, and only one self to think about. It’s a choice.

        • MR

          So says you, and we know you’re a dishonest idiot.

          FTFY

        • Ameribear

          So says embryology for quite a while now. You have continually
          ignored all the evidence and testimony proving your dead wrong and are forcing your opinion of what a you think a person should be on another person. That makes you no different than any other blood thirsty tyrant that has or ever will exist.

        • Kodie

          Embryology doesn’t determine that it’s a person. Embryology doesn’t demonize women for having sex and not wanting to carry a growing fetus inside them, and build it out of her own tissue.

          You’re the judgmental asshole who wants to enslave women for breaking your rules.

          There’s no other reason to have your opinion.

        • MR

          I have repeatedly pointed these areas out, as have others, yet you choose to continue to misrepresent my position. Go back and read my comments again if you are really interested. Clearly you are not. Your misrepresentation of my position is not at all how “I have presented it.” You’re intellectual dishonesty is duly noted. Your claims of objective morality fall flat when you’re own dishonesty belies your own belief system.

          You don’t provide evidence for objective morality because you can’t. You yourself demonstrate subjective morality in your own arguments. Your moral views differ from others: subjective. QED. Evidence for objective morality? “I don’t have to….” Childish excuse. You’re not fooling anyone.

          [edits]

        • BlackMamba44

          You yourself demonstrate subjective morality in your own arguments.

          Like this one:

          You’re right, I do follow the morals of the society I live in precisely because I believe for the most part they, are objective. The ones I believe are immoral or unjust I speak out against.

        • Ameribear

          You’re claiming subjective morals are not entirely a matter of personal opinion. What else are subjective morals supposed to be a matter of?
          The only thing the epeeist offered was that they “may be agreed inter-subjectively.” Which I understand to mean simply agreed on by more than one person and change over time. If that’s not a correct definition then what is? If that is a correct definition I don’t see how it makes any difference in any of the logical consequences of subjective morals.

          My morals do differ from others and are shared by others. That has no bearing on the objectivity of morals.

        • MR

          And I have pointed out others that you haven’t addressed. I see no logical consequences that lead to objective morality, nor do I see any indication of objective morality. You base your moral beliefs on the subjectivity of your religion. You’re allowed to. You cannot demonstrate they are objective. There is no reason to believe objective morals exist. Good and bad are weasel words; you really on the ambiguity inherent in those words.

        • Ameribear

          I have pointed out to you and others some of the ludicrous logical
          ends the subjective morals you have brought up leads to along with asking some questions just to make sure I understand you, but you haven’t replied to them. As far as I’m concerned, the incoherency of moral subjectivism is all the proof necessary to refute it. If you want to address some or all of the logical consequences I mentioned then we’ll see where that takes us, until then the ball is in your court.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have pointed out to you and others some of the ludicrous logical
          ends the subjective morals you have brought up leads to

          Like what? All I’ve heard you say is that the absence of objective morality means that you can never say that the Holocaust was really wrong and similar.

          Yup, that’s true. Maybe you can sit at the adult table once you wrap your mind around that rather obvious fact.

          So I’m missing any ludicrous consequences. Show me.

          And BTW, the rather large challenge you have is (1) show that objective morality exists and (2) show that we humans can reliably access it.

          As far as I’m concerned, the incoherency of moral subjectivism is all the proof necessary to refute it.

          Yes, you’ve made that clear! Moral subjectivism is yucky or unpleasant or whatever, so therefore objective morality must exist. It doesn’t work that way in the same way that “evolution has these problems; therefore Creationism” doesn’t work (though I’m not sure if that example is as powerful to you as it is for me).

        • Ameribear

          Yup, that’s true. Maybe you can sit at the adult table once you wrap your mind around that rather obvious fact.

          I appreciate your honesty, and I won’t hesitate to say that’s about as screwed up as it gets and all the proof I need to validate my point.

          So I’m missing any ludicrous consequences. Show me.

          If all acts are morally neutral, the good or evil in them is only a matter of one’s subjective opinion. The Las Vegas shooter obviously had a good enough reason to do what he did so now the intentional, premeditated murder of dozens of innocent civilians has now been deemed morally acceptable.

          Anyone who can get a majority of people to agree with him
          gets to do whatever he wants to whomever he want’s so now the holocaust has been deemed morally acceptable.

          If there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, then why bother with laws in the first place?

          And BTW, the rather large challenge you have is (1) show that objective morality exists and (2) show that we humans can reliably access it.

          No, I don’t have to show any of that. Moral subjectivism is sufficiently incoherent all by itself and it’s not my problem that you refuse to acknowledge or address that. It’s only a matter of time before anyone foolish enough to attempt to base anything on it goes the way of everyone else who’s ever attempted the same thing.

        • Susan

          If all acts are morally neutral

          What do you mean by morally neutral?

          No, I don’t have to show any of that.

          Of course you do. The fact is, you can’t.

        • Ameribear

          I mean that no act is intrinsically good or evil.

        • Susan

          no act is intrinsically good or evil

          What does that mean?

        • MR

          “Good” and “Evil” aren’t very helpful terms. They’re nebulous labels used to describe incredibly complex concepts.Any real meaning is lost when these terms are used.

        • Susan

          “Good” and “Evil” aren’t very helpful terms

          They’re good place markers but they MUST be unpacked, not just flung about in a tantrum. I’m asking Ameribear to make an effort.

          To engage in the subject instead of fling terms around like “good” and “evil” and “intrinsically moral” instead of just fling them about like an infant flings toys.

          That is, not to come back with synonyms but to roll up his sleeves and do some thinking on the subject instead of regurgitate the dogma that means he can feel right without making an effort.

          Te apuesto a que no va a aceptar mi invitacion sincera..

        • MR

          Pensar? No creo que sepa hacerlo.

        • Susan

          Pensar? No creo que sepa hacerlo.

          Es evidente que no sabe hacerlo.. Y que no quiere esforzar.

        • Ameribear

          It means that it is not good or evil in and of itself. The goodness or badness of the act is determined by how it’s perceived.

        • adam

          Yes, it is subjective.

          I guess that’s why so, so, so, so, so many catholics are silent about child abuse.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Susan

          It means that it is not good or evil in and of itself

          I’m asking what it means to be “intrinsically good or evil”. Give me an example.

          Explain how the example is “intrinsically evil” and why.

        • MR

          So, in other words, you have no evidence for objective morality and can only twist words to get them to mean what you think you want them to say?

        • Joe

          Moral subjectivism is sufficiently incoherent

          You haven’t shown it to be incoherent. “Incoherent” doesn’t mean “I personally don’t like the consequences.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I appreciate your honesty, and I won’t hesitate to say that’s about as screwed up as it gets and all the proof I need to validate my point.

          Cool! Make a point then.

          If all acts are morally neutral,

          They’re not from my standpoint. Yours?

          The Las Vegas shooter obviously had a good enough reason to do what he did so now the intentional, premeditated murder of dozens of innocent civilians has now been deemed morally acceptable.

          Nope. Hard to believe anyone could misconstrue a position so badly. You must’ve been trying hard.

          Anyone who can get a majority of people to agree with him
          gets to do whatever he wants to whomever he want’s so now the holocaust has been deemed morally acceptable.

          Wrong again.

          If there’s no objective standard of right and wrong, then why bother with laws in the first place?

          My suggestion: repeat school and pay attention this time.

          “And BTW, the rather large challenge you have is (1) show that objective morality exists and (2) show that we humans can reliably access it.”
          No, I don’t have to show any of that.

          I know. Justifying your position is so hard, isn’t it? Better to just state it and bluster when anyone disagrees.

        • Ameribear

          You just said “that the absence of objective morality means that you can never say that the Holocaust was really wrong and similar…Yup, that’s true.”

          That means it can never be said that regardless of anyone’s personal opinion, there are no circumstances where that should ever be allowed to happen again.

          They’re not from my standpoint. Yours?

          Then it’s only your perception of it that makes them good or bad.

          Nope. Hard to believe anyone could misconstrue a position so badly. You must’ve been trying hard.

          But it was through his subjective morals that he justified his actions, and his subjective morals are no better or worse than yours or anyone else’s.

        • GalapagosPete

          “That means it can never be said that regardless of anyone’s personal
          opinion, there are no circumstances where that should ever be allowed to
          happen again.”

          Sure it can. I can say it. And I can get together with other people who agree with me to try to keep it from ever happening again.

        • adam

          ” I won’t hesitate to say that’s about as screwed up as it gets and all the proof I need to validate my point.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e2565900b7ef6446c3378d68882448ba1b5f3b2598a635dd81ab599c58e05c0.gif

        • MR

          Er…, no, you strawmanned those arguments. Repeatedly. You haven’t addressed them and give no indication that you will. Nothing in your rebuttal even touches on anything I’ve actually said or believe, so your claims of “ludicrous logical ends” are empty. This is the game you play; you’re not fooling anyone. [Your intellectual dishonesty has been on display for months.] If you are truly interested, go back and address the real arguments. The ball for that is in your court. In the meantime, all I’m interested in is evidence for objective morality. You’ve been an excellent example for subjective morality, you’ve shown no evidence for objective morality. What evidence do you have for it?

          [edits]

        • Ameribear

          You keep repeating that I strawmanned your arguments, but you haven’t showed me where. I did go back and reread yours and other’s comments and stated in my previous reply what I believed you were saying. If I’ve
          misinterpreted or misrepresented what you said, then please restate your point/argument more clearly.

        • MR

          Chasing my tail is fun! Nothing you said in your rebuttal to me is what I said or believe. That’s your strawman. That’s your game. You do it over and over. If you can’t restate, let alone counter, my position, that is not my problem and I’m not going to play that game. My only interest is evidence for moral objectivity. You’ve demonstrated that morality is subjective. As far as I can see, that is all we have. Unless you can present evidence for objective morality, all we can say with certainty is that morals are subjective.

        • Ameribear

          Nothing you said in your rebuttal to me is what I said or believe.

          Are you or aren’t you claiming subjective morals are not entirely a matter of personal opinion?

        • MR

          Morality/Ethics is a far more complex subject than your simple false dichotomy. Until you tackle that entire field and win your Nobel, I guess we’ll just have to hope that evidence for objective morality presents itself.

        • epeeist

          Morality/Ethics is a far more complex subject than your simple false dichotomy.

          Absolutely, he doesn’t appear to have any actual knowledge of the subject, simply unthinkingly regurgitating the dogma of his church.

        • Pofarmer

          Well, duh.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s the God Goggles restricting blood flow to his brain.

        • Kodie

          He’s afraid we’ll abort him next.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re very curious about subjective morals but surprisingly silent about your own claim of objective morality.

          I’m still waiting for a demonstration. Morality is objective? Show us.

        • epeeist

          If 100% subjective opinions are all morality is grounded in

          The standard false dilemma, morals are objective or “100% subjective”. You ignore other possibilities, particularly the case that morals may be agreed inter-subjectively.

        • MNb

          Sure, but for a First Locomotive Blunderer like Ameribear such a possibility is way too complicated.

        • Pofarmer

          I don’t know if he’s just this stupid or just this brainwashed. He’s actually noted and arguing slavery as objectively morally wrong while we know that there are places in the world today where slavery is happening and people apparently have no problem with it. Hell, the Pope Censured the Knights of Malta for distributing Condoms-to sex slaves, for Pete’s sake. Talk about your fucked up subjective morality. Of course, Ameribear could just demonstrate this objective morality and end the discussion……….

        • epeeist

          I don’t know if he’s just this stupid or just this brainwashed.

          As I have said before, he doesn’t make arguments, he just bases everything he says on RCC dogma.

        • Pofarmer

          And then hopes his reader is too stupid to realize the consequences of that dogma. Or maybe he doesn’t realize it himself? He certainly won’t respond to it.

        • MR

          “Must. not. think. for. self.”

        • Ameribear

          If Inter-subjectivity just means a subjective opinion that’s agreed on by more than one person I don’t see how that changes anything.

        • epeeist

          If Inter-subjectivity just means a subjective opinion that’s agreed on
          by more than one person I don’t see how that changes anything.

          Because we are social animals. Our justice systems are not objective, they are agreed between members of society and change over time. Our political systems are not objective, they too are agreed between members of society and change over time. So too are money, property, the languages we speak and the ethical systems we abide by.

          If you want to claim that any of these, and in particular ethical systems, are “objective” then by all means do so. However I will want to see some working for your demonstration that this is so.

        • Ameribear

          It used to be agreed between members of societies that owning other humans as property and rounding up members of various ethnic and
          religious groups for systematic extermination was morally acceptable. Times have indeed changed and thankfully this is no longer the case. My question is just because some societies agreed at one time that slavery and genocide were morally acceptable, did the fact that they agreed on it justify it? Does the possibility that some group of people might agree on a certain type of moral action always justify their actions?

        • epeeist

          My question is just because some societies agreed at one time that
          slavery and genocide were morally acceptable, did the fact that they
          agreed on it justify it?

          What counts as “moral justification”?

        • Ameribear

          Was their agreement on it the only thing necessary to make it acceptable?

        • epeeist

          Was their agreement on it the only thing necessary to make it acceptable?

          I’m sorry, this doesn’t appear to be an answer to the question I asked.

        • Ameribear

          The grounding of the act. The basis for making the act legitimate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          did the fact that they agreed on it justify it?

          Depends on who’s doing the justifying. No if it’s me; yes if it’s them.

        • Ameribear

          Then any act is morally justifiable.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I suppose you could justify murder if you wanted. I wouldn’t likely buy your argument, but go ahead.

          The buck stops with me, remember? (And with you and with everyone else.)

        • MNb

          Applause. Finally you wrote something sensible. Still compareing brands of beer is a favourite pastime for beer enthousiasts. Two favourites of mine:

          http://www.whatalesyou.co.uk/ugc/beer/SAB%20Miller/Grolsch/grolsch.jpg

          http://image.blingee.com/images16/content/output/000/000/000/548/411008561_428652.gif

          Canned dishwater:

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nS0WK2m_Qbo/ThwLApPRJ8I/AAAAAAAAAoQ/iasevFqtPB0/s1600/PBR.jpg

          Just as their isn’t be a method to decide objeciively which one tastes better there isn’t any method to decide which morals are superior. Still I can easily and endlessly waffle the ears from your head explaining why Grolsch and Parbo taste so much better than Pabst. Interested?

        • Ameribear

          Just as there isn’t be a method to decide objectively which one tastes better there isn’t any method to decide which morals are superior.

          Then your grounds for correcting anyone else’s to your morals are the same as those for correcting anyone else to your favorite beer.

          Still I can easily and endlessly waffle the ears from your head explaining why Grolsch and Parbo taste so much better than Pabst. Interested?

          I do not doubt that you can but the only thing that would accomplish is to make me very desirous for a cold one and make it difficult to get through the rest of my work day. I fully agree with your opinion of PBR and most of the rest of the mass produced domestic swill. I will definitely be on the lookout for your favorites on my next trip to the local beer cave.

        • MNb

          A miracle just has occurred. I have to upvote you.

        • Kodie
        • MNb

          No. Because the view that treating other people as property is morally subjective comes from the subject called BobS (and other subjects, like MNb).
          You’ll have a better chance asking the Pope in which circumstances he would accept buddhist Nirvana as a catholic doctrine.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pofarmer? I see no post from Pofarmer in this sub-thread…can you link to it?

          If you meant Greg’s post, then define what you mean by “superior” if you didn’t get it in his comment. He uses the word “fairness” and even then admits that there are those that can be skewed into thinking that they are morally justified in having slaves.

          Fair is synonymous with lawful btw.

        • Pofarmer

          Disqus seems to be a bigger cunt than usual about hiding sub threads. I assume it’s this comment being referred to. Hell, it may be in another thread altogether.

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/7_tips_for_arguing_with_a_chance_of_changing_someones_mind/#comment-3681700544

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, that’s the one. It was displayed as part of the sub-thread and it wasn’t in my e-mail notifications yet so I had no reference for his comment and other than your handle, I had no other reference point.

          Some comment notifications are not hitting my inbox until 3 or 4 days after being posted and it can become a right pain in the arse.

          By way of example, a comment to Greg from MN posted 2 days ago has just hit my inbox a few hours ago.

          Disqus has indeed become a bigger cunt of a thing since they fiddled about in an attempt to improve things I can only think.

        • Ameribear
        • Ignorant Amos

          Ta

        • Ignorant Amos

          So, after reading Po’s comment, I don’t see where superior comes into it.

          One society, A, believes action x is just, under their moral norms, while another society, B, believes action x to be immoral, under their moral norms. Ergo, subjective.

          When an immoral act is viewed so immoral that society B deems it necessary to act, then that’s when things happen. The level of intervention will depend on a complicated set of variables that not everyone agrees on, but that is a different debate.

          Of course both societies A & B think they are morally correct and a tipping point will have to be found…that will oft times involve conflict. Slavery in the US and the American Civil War is a prime example where the moral norms came into conflict where two societies within a larger society differed dramatically. And get this, southern plantation owners believed they had the moral norms of the bible to support their position, and on the face of it, so they had. But even there, a largely Christian society opposed it as immoral and was prepared to go to war over it.

          We decide for ourselves what we believe to be the most morally just position when conflict between positions arise. The side that has the more convincing position wins the day. That is still subject to change, making it subjective. And quite often things do change. I hope that the winners have the correct and just moral position from my perspective, but that’s all it is, from my perspective.

          You think abortion is immoral and unjust, I don’t. The thing is, in the US, society has deemed it moral and just because the woman has autonomy over her body and reproductive system.

          Now here, in Ireland, even in the British bit, historically, society has deemed abortion immoral and unjust, except under the most extenuating of circumstances. Here the woman hasn’t got autonomy over her reproductive system. But all that means that for those that can afford it, they travel to mainland UK, and for those that can’t, it is done illegally and the woman risks incarceration. It doesn’t mean there are less abortions.

          Fortunately things are changing here and the majority of society want’s abortion legalised. Legislation just has to catch up. The problem here is that religion and sectarian politics go hand-in-hand and are hampering the issue. But get this, it is the Catholic political side that are more pro-choice…or at least for lowering the restrictions on who can have an abortion and when. The electorate don’t represent the political view…but that’s party politics for ya.

          ETA amendment “historically”

        • epeeist

          One society, A, believes action x is just, under their moral norms, while another society, B, believes action x to be immoral, under their moral norms. Ergo, subjective.

          I would amend this slightly, the standard theist trope seems to be either a god provided, “objective” morality or the false dichotomy of everyone does their own thing subjective morality.

          What you have in the above is society having particular norms which are inter-subjectively agreed.

        • MR

          inter-subjective

          I’ve been arguing this concept for some time but only recently came across this term in the book Sapiens.

          Also, there is an innate aspect of morality shared by all of us by virtue of the fact that we’re all human beings. Morality has a funny way of evaporating when we’re not talking about humans. We don’t morally judge animals when they lie, cheat, and steal. (Fine, “deceive” for you literalists.) We don’t apply terms like “murder” and “rape” to the animal kingdom. That’s our first clue that “objective” morality doesn’t exist.

        • MR

          And just for fun….

          My spell check comes up for literalist, so I did a quick Google and stumbled across the following meme. @disqus_a9H6kflDom:disqus, I think we found the 500 you’re always asking about. Adam, here’s another one for you if you don’t already have it. (Adam, doesn’t appear in the drop down…, because he has no comments on this page?)

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0508164837d48d3c93b707c38b09eda368588725fb077643359eda185be24fae.jpg

        • epeeist

          I’ve been arguing this concept for some time but only recently came across this term in the book Sapiens.

          As ever with some theists you get the combination of false dichotomy, their preferred god-oriented position, and a straw man, in this case the “anything goes” purely individual scenario. It is necessary to demonstrate that this doesn’t hold.

          Another term that you may come across is “universal”, i.e. held by all. With this theists will equivocate this and “objective” being the same.

          We don’t apply terms like “murder” and “rape” to the animal kingdom.

          I recently went for an early morning “deer walk” at this place.

          The ranger who took us round was telling us that they had shot the alpha male of the herd with an anaesthetic dart. When the beta males noticed that he was somewhat wobbly on his legs they immediately started to gore him with their antlers.

          Bambi these guys aren’t.

        • MR

          Thanks for the link. I’ll keep that in my list of off the beaten path places to visit.

          When the beta males noticed that he was somewhat wobbly on his legs they immediately started to gore him with their antlers.

          “Et tu, Brudolph…”

        • Greg G.

          “Et tu, Brudolph…”

          Nice!

        • Ameribear

          One society, A, believes action x is just, under their moral norms, while another society, B, believes action x to be immoral, under their moral norms. Ergo, subjective.

          Right, and both societies are relying on exactly the same basis to establish the superiority of their respective positions over that of their opponents.

          When an immoral act is viewed so immoral that society B deems it necessary to act, then that’s when things happen. The level of intervention will depend on a complicated set of variables that not everyone agrees on, but that is a different debate.

          That description gets used by both sides. Any genocidal dictator can frame his case to invade any neighboring country and kill all its inhabitants using that line of reasoning.

          We decide for ourselves what we believe to be the most morally just position when conflict between positions arise. The side that has the more convincing position wins the day.

          Then nothing ever improves. It’s all remains one continuous power struggle to the last man standing.

          You think abortion is immoral and unjust, I don’t. The thing is, in the US, society has deemed it moral and just because the woman has autonomy over her body and reproductive system.

          No in the U.S. abortion is legal because of a 1973 supreme court decision regarding the right to privacy not bodily autonomy. It remains legal largely because the vast majority of our population are indifferent to the issue.

        • Kodie

          Abortion has no victims, while opposing abortion has lots and lots of victims. You’re all “tough nuts” on the women because they had sex and deserve to be punished.

        • Ameribear

          Abortion has tens of millions of victims. Your narcissism doesn’t change that. You’re all “tough nuts” on the unborn because you’ve decided to redefine who is and isn’t a person to suit your personal preferences.

        • Kodie

          My definition lines up with reality.

        • Ameribear

          Your definition lines up with your version of reality.

        • Kodie

          Which is reality. There isn’t more than one version of it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wise ta fuck up.

          Female genital mutilation.

          FGM is carried out for various cultural, religious and social reasons within families and communities in the mistaken belief that it will benefit the girl in some way (for example, as a preparation for marriage or to preserve her virginity).

          However, there are no acceptable reasons that justify FGM. It’s a harmful practice that isn’t required by any religion and there are no religious texts that say it should be done. There are no health benefits of FGM.

          FGM is illegal in the UK.

          It is an offence to:

          perform FGM (including taking a child abroad for FGM)

          help a girl perform FGM on herself in or outside the UK

          help anyone perform FGM in the UK

          help anyone perform FGM outside the UK on a UK national or resident

          fail to protect a girl for whom you are responsible from FGM

          Anyone who performs FGM can face up to 14 years in prison. Anyone found guilty of failing to protect a girl from FGM can face up to seven years in prison.

          https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/

          Ergo, one societies intervening in another societies morally held fuckwittery, because it see’s that fuckwittery as immoral. And dare I say, harmful?

          Ameribear the ignorant knuckle-dragging tit strikes again.

        • Ameribear

          What the hell does this have to do with what we’re talking about right now?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is an example of one societies to believe they have the right to criticise and intervene in another societies egregious offences.

          One societies morality is indeed better than the other societies to the point where there have been laws made to allow intervention.

          The point being made is that while the intervening society has the more just morality from my perspective, and yours I’d suspect, call it better or superior if ya like, the the society whose cultures advocate the hacking off part of a wee girls sex organ for nothing more than woo woo, do not. I’m of the same opinion when it comes to wee boys too, but my society has yet to catch up with my views, so I can do nothing more than suck it up, and just hope that societies catch up on my morality.

          But perhaps I’m misinterpreting your point…it does happen.

        • Ameribear

          The point being made is that while the intervening society has the more just morality from my perspective, and yours I’d suspect, call it better or superior if ya like, the the society whose cultures advocate the hacking off part of a wee girls sex organ for nothing more than woo woo, do not.

          You and I both agree that FGM is horribly morally inferior and that something should be done to stop it, but the ones committing the act believe in the superiority of their morality with the same conviction you and I believe about ours.

          How do you demonstrate the superiority of your morality over theirs if all morality is relative?

        • adam

          “Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a
          matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any
          other.”

          NO, you are a LYING IDiot

          Moral issues are a matter of SOCIETAL VALUES

          THAT’s WHY so few can understand people like you defending an organization that protects PEDOLPHILES
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png

        • Ameribear

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of societal norms and that no one set of norms is superior to any other.

        • MNb

          “Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of societal norms”
          You think that hard?
          1. Your utter failure to demonstrate that morals are objective – you have done nothing but issuing decrees.
          2. As Pofarmer already pointed out: our 21st Century norms and moral issues are different from 100 years ago (when a YHWH abiding American president introduced racial segregation for instance). Both are vastly different from Aztec society 500 years ago and Roman society 2000 years ago.
          3. Your favourite Holy Book provides evidence in the form of “eye for an eye” issued a few hundreds years before “turn the other cheek”.

          “and that no one set of norms is superior to any other.”
          Not at all. Just like I can maintain that Mozart’s music is superior to Haydn’s I can maintain that my set of norms is superior to yours. It’s just that I am honest enough that it’s just my personal opinion and not the result of objective logic or evidence.
          But hey, that’s how Ameribear sails – always demanding unreasonable if not impossible things from unbelievers but never even trying to do the same for his own views.

        • Ameribear

          Not at all. Just like I can maintain that Mozart’s music is superior to
          Haydn’s I can maintain that my set of norms is superior to yours.

          On what basis?

        • MNb

          In the end: personal preference. That’s what subjectivity means. I just need to fill in “I prefer Mozart to Haydn because …….”. At the end of this sentence of string of sentences something subjective will show up. Then someone else can decide to accept or reject it. Honest people will make this clear. Dishonest people like you will try to cover it up. The easiest and most popular cover up is “because YHWH and Holy Bible” or something similar. A more complicated and hence more dishonest trick is the one you played on Greg G – an endless and in the end meaningless semantic game on the meaning of personhood.

        • adam

          “Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a
          matter of societal norms and that no one set of norms is superior to any
          other.”

          All morals issues are a matter of society norms.
          Where do you live?

          That has no bearing on the fact that some norms are superior.

          Like opposing CHILD FUCKING,

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • adam

          Why?
          That doesnt make any sense.

          Even your own Church priests disagree with you

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/121670126727fb70083ce9688c4d61a65733742a289d1710ab2e6475100ee6eb.png

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.
        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.

          They are marrying off their little girls to maximize the value.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s objectively moral then….in a biblical sense a mean…ohhps, wait a wee minute.

        • adam

          “Would slavery still be immoral even if no one believed it?”

          Bible God believes in slavery, is Bible God immoral, or is slavery moral?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/374216f2e0b3eec0b3ca6e44550ffe46cb7a5c39f3ef3ac4234d19295d6e933d.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          No, I’m asking a simple question. Would slavery still be immoral even if no one believed it?

          Let’s think about this for a moment. Boko Haram holds sex slaves in Africa, and, obviously, lot’s of people use them. They apparently don’t find this immoral. For a Twofer, the Pope sanctioned the Knights of Malta for distributing Condoms-to those same sex slaves. So, apparently the Pope sees condom use as worse than sex slavery, or something. Apparently it’s complicated.

          Then you are forced to defend the position that all moral issues are a matter of personal opinion and that no one opinion is superior to any
          other.

          Actually no, as Greg G. elaborated below, “morality” is generally relegated to standings within a given society, and morality certainly differs greatly from society to society. The Taliban believes it’s moral to kill women who have “shamed” the family for whatever reasons, or to cut off the hand of a supposed thief. Most other societies do not. The French have a ratings system that sanctions violence in movies, for instance, but no rating system for sexual content at all. Society.

          If it’s all a matter of personal opinion then everything is moral.

          Again, no, because you’re absolutely missing what morality IS.

        • Ameribear

          “morality” is generally relegated to standings within a given society, and morality certainly differs greatly from society to society.

          So one society deems certain acts as moral another deems the same acts as immoral. If one societies morality is simply the product of their cultural norms then no other society has the right to criticize any acts the first commits nor do they have the right to intervene in the actions of any other society even if it involves stopping genocide. No one societies morals are any better or any worse than any others.

        • MNb

          Ameribear the champ of the non-sequitur strikes again. The right to intervene and the right to criticize do not logically depend on the objectivity of morals.

        • Pofarmer

          So one society deems certain acts as moral another deems the same acts as immoral.

          All the time. Yes. Do you think this doesn’t happen?

          If one societies morality is simply the product of their cultural norms
          then no other society has the right to criticize any acts the first
          commits

          Why not?

          nor do they have the right to intervene in the actions of any other society even if it involves stopping genocide.

          Once again, why not?

          No one societies morals are any better or any worse than any others.

          There is an atheist philosopher named Daniel Finke who used to run a Patheos site called “Camels with Hammers.” He believes in a form of Objective morality, where Objective morality is basically moral ideas widely believed by all societies, and he believes it can rather be negotiated and agreed upon. Not that long ago, it wasn’t seen as immoral to hold slaves. Not that long ago, it wasn’t seen as immoral to kill heretics. Not that long ago, it wasn’t seen as immoral to imprison people for debts. Not that long ago, it wasn’t seen as immoral to enslave women for perceived moral lapses. Not that long ago, it wasn’t seen as immoral to hide the rape and abuse of children if it benefited the religious. All of these things, and many, many more, changed over time as societies values changed.

        • Greg G.

          Finke seems to have agreed on the terminology but accepted a different definition. It’s like philosopher’s who argue for free will with an entirely definition of the word.

        • Pofarmer

          I haven’t read him in quite some time . I’m not sure hes even still active on his blog. He admits that his idea of objective morality isn’t the same as the theological view of objective morality. I’m not sure he wouldn’t be better off coming up with a different term.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve read Finke on morality. His definition of objective morality differs quite a bit from William Lane Craig’s definition.

        • MNb

          Not your best analogy ever – there is no established definition of free will.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Irrelevant for the evaluation of Greg G’s analogy for two reasons.

          1. Your cartoon doesn’t provide a definition of free will.
          2. Theological definitions are not accepted by neurobiologists.

        • Greg G.

          But I had no choice.

        • adam

          x1000 upvotes

        • Ameribear

          All the time. Yes. Do you think this doesn’t happen?

          Yes of course it happens.

          Why not?

          All you said in your previous post comes down to different societies have different norms that determine their respective morality. You said nothing about whether or not any particular societies morality is any better than any others nor whether or not some societies have a duty to interfere in the affairs of others in the interest of stopping injustices.

          He believes in a form of Objective morality, where Objective morality is basically moral ideas widely believed by all societies,

          The moral ideas widely believed by all societies is usually the result of the most powerful and influential members of said societies exerting their interests on the less powerful and influential. That’s not objective and it in no way guarantees morality will improve.

          All of these things, and many, many more, changed over time as societies values changed.

          You are making a false assumption that over time morality improves yet you advocate for redefining personhood to suit your personal interests because it’s been negotiated and agreed upon.

        • Pofarmer

          All you said in your previous post comes down to different societies
          have different norms that determine their respective morality. You said
          nothing about whether or not any particular societies morality is any
          better than any others nor whether or not some societies have a duty to
          interfere in the affairs of others in the interest of stopping
          injustices.

          That wasn’t really the issue.

          The moral ideas widely believed by all societies is usually the result
          of the most powerful and influential members of said societies exerting
          their interests on the less powerful and influential. That’s not
          objective and it in no way guarantees morality will improve.

          Sounds like the Church. I think he believes it should be a wee bit more democratic, but, it’s been a long time since I’ve read him.

          You are making a false assumption that over time morality improves yet

          I’m actually not. I’m advocating that morality changes. Which I believe is easily demonstrable.

          you advocate for redefining personhood to suit your personal interests
          because it’s been negotiated and agreed upon.

          Uhm, asshole, yes, I suppose I’m redefining personhood. I’m actually advocating that full grown women are persons. Revolutionary.

        • Ameribear

          Sounds like the Church. I think he believes it should be a wee bit more democratic, but, it’s been a long time since I’ve read him.

          The influence of the church has ebbed and flowed over the centuries. Secular influence ebbs and flows along with it.

          I’m actually not. I’m advocating that morality changes. Which I believe is easily demonstrable.

          I completely agree that it changes, just not necessarily for the better.

          I’m actually advocating that full grown women are persons. Revolutionary.

          To the exclusion of another entire class of humans/persons.

        • Pofarmer

          I completely agree that it changes, just not necessarily for the better

          Folks like Stephen Pinker(yes, I know you hate him) would strongly disagree. Statistics disagree with you, though.

          To the exclusion of another entire class of humans/persons.

          This is your imagination which you haven’t been able to prove. And is also faulty logic, which we, IMHO, have been able to prove.

        • Ameribear

          Disagree all you want. Your basis for morality is based simply on whoever does the better job of convincing the most people they’re right and their opponents are wrong. Every single tyrannical regime up to the present day has and still does function under exactly that concept of morality. They all believed they were morally superior and relied on that sense of superiority to rally support and justify their actions. Legal abortion exists today for exactly the same reasons and is proof positive that your basis for morality sucks.

          This is your imagination which you haven’t been able to prove. And is also faulty logic, which we, IMHO, have been able to prove.

          It’s not my imagination and you haven’t proven jack. It’s plain and simple. If personhood can be redefined by any group of persons to suit any particular personal or national interest, no one is safe and morality will never get any better. With you it’s still all relative.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m sorry that reality is hard for you. Truly I am. The problem is, that whether a regime is “Tyranical” or not, the basis for morality is more or less the same. The powerful make the rules. That’s kind of the reality of it. I don’t see why the existence of legal abortion proves that anyone’s basis of morality sucks. Countries without legal abortion tend to have grinding poverty. Countries without legal abortion have stolen babies from single mothers and sold them into the adoption market. Countries without legal abortion have enslaved women, sometimes for the “crime” of being too much of a temptation or being too pretty. Countries withough legal abortion have forced single mothers into “orphanages” to have their babies where the death rates of those children were abominable. Countries without legal abortion have, and still are, imprisoning women for having miscarriages. Countries without legal abortion tend to have much higher abortion rates than countries that DO have legal abortion. Countries with legal abortion tend to have better maternal mortality rates than countries without legal abortion. Children born to single mothers are much more likely to grow up in poverty, much more likely to commit violent crimes, much more likely to commit property crimes, much more likely to wind up in prison. I know whose basis for morality I think sucks. Asshole.

        • Ameribear

          I’m sorry that reality is hard for you. Truly I am. The problem is, that whether a regime is “Tyranical” or not, the basis for morality is more or less the same. The powerful make the rules. That’s kind of the reality of it.

          I never denied that that isn’t true but it doesn’t make it right. Just remember you won’t have any reason to bitch about it when the powerful decide you’re expendable.

          I don’t see why the existence of legal abortion proves that anyone’s basis of morality sucks.

          Abortion is and always will be the most powerful members of society forcing their will on the weakest and most vulnerable and nothing will ever justify it. As long as you continue to advocate for it, you have zero grounds for criticizing anyone else’s atrocities. I’m sorry you can’t understand that you are no better than any other bloodthirsty tyrant in history but judging from your understanding of morality, you’re probably OK with that.

        • Pofarmer

          “Abortion is and always will be the most powerful members of society forcing their will on the weakest and most vulnerable and nothing will ever justify it.”

          Are you fucking kidding me? What is being argued is EXACTLY the opposite of that.

        • Ameribear

          Only in your completely screwed up alternate universe.

        • adam

          “No one societies morals are any better or any worse than any others.”

          Why not?

          You OBVIOUSLY think the child abusing catholic society is better than atheism.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb3cf31802ee6a04952cbcc243fc939a9c7733dab0b439304cafbbd0cdb0c969.jpg

        • MNb

          No (im)morality is ever binding, except for those people who hold the morals. It would still be immoral for the minority of people who object it. That’s basically the history of abolitionism.
          Great job not answering BobS’ question and instead confirming that morals are subjective.
          Also thanks for confirming your incapability of understanding views that go against your predetermined conclusions.

        • Greg G.

          NO. There is no objective morality. There are things nobody likes and things everybody likes. There are things some people like and other people hate. Everybody likes not floating off into space. Gravity is objective. Everybody likes to eat. Food is objectively necessary but the types of food is varied and the favorites are subjective. Slave owners like slavery more than slaves like it. It is subjective. If somebody has the power to impose slavery on you, your preference and morality don’t matter any more than a murderer can make you the victim. Perhaps you can avert slavery or murder by other means. We agree to not murder or enslave one another because we prefer that way.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Nothing is objectively immoral. The morality of slavery comes from the minds of humans.

        • adam

          “So why wouldn’t the morality of slavery be objectively immoral?”

          Because Bible God condones it.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb4831e1694c2ba934736efcb24fc7f67501a3f169ecaeac7e1a8fd31de3d3f6.png

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ouch! Hoist by his own Bible.

        • adam

          Doncha just wish that these mouth breathers would actually READ their own bible before trying to defend it?

        • adam
        • adam
        • epeeist

          what is your definition of objective

          Something that is independent of mind.

        • MNb

          No, not me. I can condemn and praise perfectly without the silly “necessarily” requirement. It’s sad that you can’t; this shows how christianity stimulates the opposite of what it aims for: (lack of) empathy. Empathy is what you lack. The question is: do you lack empathy because your particular brand of belief or have you picked your particular brand of belief because you lack empathy? Perhaps it’s a process of iteration?

        • Greg G.

          One does not have to believe something is objectively immoral to oppose it.

          Is it objectively immoral to fail to seek medical attention for a rattlesnake bite? Was it objectively immoral to fail to seek medical attention for a rattlesnake bite a couple of hundred years ago? If the answer is “it depends,” then it is not an objective morality question. It is either rational or irrational. Lack of knowledge can result in irrational decisions but religion and/or superstition can overrule knowledge and rational decisions.

          If you rely on the Bible, then you must accept that slavery is not immoral.

          BTW, the Bible solution to a snakebite is to look at an image of a snake on a stick. Not a damn thing about producing antivenin or how to administer it.

        • adam

          “Tell me then, since the law once declared blacks as non-persons
          and that they could be bought and sold as slaves did that make slavery ok?”

          You do know where this comes from, doncha?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb4831e1694c2ba934736efcb24fc7f67501a3f169ecaeac7e1a8fd31de3d3f6.png

          “The laws of other countries once declared Jews and the disabled as non-persons and that it was ok to exterminate them. ”

          You do know where this comes from, doncha?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78d2605305eadcda78155977377e79721c970efc02c864dedd893cd1d7e34a5d.jpg

          “Just because the law said so does that justify the holocaust?”
          No FAITH in an IMAGINARY being justified the holocaust.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e80ae3342e94d0907369de9b1ee6138bd97ae2280fa9634600d5ad09d36f6ca2.jpg

          Oh, here are some of your Church leaders, sieg heiling the Fuhrer.

          Currently the law declares personhood at birth, that has already been demonstrated.

          But then when do catholics care about law?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/151925a51e6a55d5bd1418d3a12f8fa99b39d9a82fb1f8468f8e6fcd942470f3.jpg

        • Ameribear

          No FAITH in an IMAGINARY being justified the holocaust.

          You are an intellectual slug.

          https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Sorry-Whoopi-Hitler-was-no-Christian

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

          https://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-religion/

          Currently the law declares personhood at birth, that has already been demonstrated.

          So in your opinion if the law says anything is ok then that makes it right.

        • adam

          And you are an LYING slug.

          “https://www.premierchristia…”

          Most certainly Hitler was a christian, loved by your catholics no less

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d58911033ac590ee151a7a0d48d802e5b092aeafde3d7766adbc386e5f3a84ce.png /e80ae3342e94d0907369de9b1ee6138bd97ae2280fa9634600d5ad09d36f6ca2.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c95e927c4e95d2cffdd3ef1e9366cb46bfed529f568bfad72911e50e30e88468.jpg

          “So in your opinion if the law says anything is ok then that makes it right.”

          It makes it the LAW

        • Ameribear

          You are a colossally lazy dumb ass and your revisionist bullshit isn’t cutting it any more.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

          It makes it the LAW

          Then anything that gets passed into law by your definition is by default moral and just. It doesn’t have to be based in any sound reasoning, it only has to have enough people conned into believing that it ought to be the LAW and it’s just tough for anyone else who disagrees.

        • MNb

          “Then anything ….”
          Excellent combination of non-sequitur and strawman. Adam wrote nothing but “It law makes it the law”. That doesn’t imply anything about morals. It’s christians like you who want to force their morals (like your view on abortion) on the rest of society by law. Ah well, christian hypocrisy knows no limits.

        • Ameribear

          It’s lying hypocritical atheists like you who say crap like this and never realize you’re doing exactly the same thing. You want to force your morals like your view on abortion on the rest of society by law only you’re to full of yourselves to realize it.

        • epeeist

          You want to force your morals like your view on abortion

          This is a fucking lie. When has anyone here (or who is pro-choice more generally) insisted that women should have abortions in cases where, for whatever reason, pregnancy may or may not be the best thing. What is being said here, and in the pro-choice movement, is that women should have a choice.

          The ones who wish to force a particular view on society are ones who want women to be coerced into giving birth regardless of circumstances.

        • Ameribear

          I am not inferring that you are for forcing women to have abortions against their will. What you are forcing is your redefinition of personhood on the unborn. Every aborted child/person/human being is the victim of someone else’s definition of personhood being forced on them.

        • Kodie

          They kind of have to have feelings and thoughts to be a victim. It’s like you’re defending the clogged drain from me pulling the hair out of it. You are trying to force me to think of a clogged drain as a person having rights, and it could not give a shit less. You have a superstitious regard for the embryo that is out of line with what personhood actually is, meanwhile disregarding women’s rights and needs and lives. You are forcing a definition of personhood on women. Every woman you force to go through pregnancy is a victim of your definition of personhood being forced on her.

        • MNb

          “What you are forcing is your redefinition of personhood on the unborn.”
          Excellent example of an apologist who incorrectly thinks semantics has decisive power on more than just the meaning of words.
          May I assume that you understand that there is a difference between a newborn and a just fertilized egg? Person is nothing but a label. If you don’t like it give us another one (with thanks to BobS). The argument won’t change (except of course in the eyes of First Locomotive Fools and lovers of “you want to force your views on us poor religious folks howlers”).

        • epeeist

          What you are forcing is your redefinition of personhood on the unborn.

          Am I, or am I acknowledging the two entities involved are a person in actua and a person in potentia involved here rather than simply the latter.

          Every aborted child/person/human being

          Do you actually have any intellectual integrity at all? “Child”, “Person” and “Human Being” are not synonymous.

        • Ameribear

          You are imposing your definition of “potential” on actual persons. You correctly deduced in an earlier exchange that I see personhood as
          binary and based on something unchanging. This is how it must be defined if one wishes to avoid excluding living persons from the group or creating sub sets of partial persons. I make no distinctions based on any continuous properties for that reason. Embryology defines a zygote as a whole, new, separate, living, growing human organism and in my view that’s all that’s needed for it to be a person.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          First point: when you accuse someone, back it up. Provide the relevant quote. Demonstrate how it justifies your accusation. You wouldn’t want to be guilty of false testimony, would you? As the good christian you are? Oh wait – good christians don’t exist. Can’t exist. Because they all are sinners. So stupid of me that I tend to forget it and instead to assume the same honesty I strive for.
          Second point: you are wrong about my morals. My dear Ameribear, actually I am personally against abortion. If a woman gets pregant of me I will try to convince her to keep it. I will be willing (unlike pro-forced birthers like you, I add) to accept all the consequences: full responsibility of raising the baby. If it were medically possible I would even take over the pregnancy. However as long as that’s not possible we face a legal problem when I have failed to convince the woman. Then law must decide. Given the fact that the woman carries the heavier burden I think the law should side with her.
          Third point: exactly because I am personally against abortion and would prefer to lower the rates I am an enthusiast supporter of open sex education and easily accessible contraceptives. Like many of my compatriots (35 000 in 2004 alone) I have had vasectomy exactly to avoid this legal problem – to make sure no woman ever will have my embryo aborted.

          My dear utterly stupid Ameribear, I don’t force my morals on anyone (but myself). On the contrary. Unlike you I accept all the consequences of my morals. You however want others to bear the consequences of yours. That’s the crucial difference between me and you, why I can say that I have empathy and you can’t.
          In short: in my totally subjective view you are a piece of shit.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You want to force your morals like your view on abortion on the rest of society by law

          And how does giving you a choice to do whatever you want “force” you to do anything?

        • epeeist

          You do realise that by giving people a choice that you are persecuting Christians in general and the RCC in particular…

        • Pofarmer

          Just like Catholics think “Freedom of religion” is the freedom to force their religion on others.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Curses! Outed again.

        • Kodie

          Pro-choice isn’t forcing anyone to have an abortion. But then we know a lot of people want to have an abortion and all you can do is harass them with obstacles and guilt based on superstition.

          If that makes you feel like a wonderful person, you’re not.

        • Greg G.

          Then anything that gets passed into law by your definition is by default moral and just.

          You are strawmanning. That is a fallacy. Fallacies are the only arguments you have.

        • adam

          “Fallacies are the only arguments you have.”

          Stupid is as stupid does.

        • adam

          Table Talk has long ago been discredited.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d58911033ac590ee151a7a0d48d802e5b092aeafde3d7766adbc386e5f3a84ce.png

          “Then anything that gets passed into law by your definition is by default moral and just.”

          NO, you are just an asshole.

          Personhood has a definition by LAW, you want to change personhood, you are going to have the change the law, but the LAW IS CURRENT.

          “it’s just tough for anyone else who disagrees.”

          Exactly, but that doesnt mean it is right for YOU TO LIE ABOUT IT, over and over and over and over and over again.

          All it does is remind us how the Catholic Church LIED about child abuse, over and over and over and over again.

          GROW UP

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb70ebc9c906ff76ff95ab2f328671605e8b757c39c1f322041ffd4c501d54e.gif

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then anything that gets passed into law by your definition is by default moral and just. It doesn’t have to be based in any sound reasoning, it only has to have enough people conned into believing that it ought to be the LAW and it’s just tough for anyone else who disagrees.

          So, by what “reasonable” metric do you think you in the US should use to decide what is moral? Who should decide “personhood” and by whose standard?

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

        • Ignorant Amos

          Richard Weikart? Is this you trying to be serious ya fuckin’ moron?

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Weikart

          You are one class A knuckle dragging imbecile. A loser of the highest order…it must be getting near time ya got fucked right off this forum.

        • Ameribear

          You are the standard bearer of intellectually incompetent frauds. No one on this forum has shot himself squarely in the ass as many times as you have. Keep up the good work.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Second paragraph: ‘atheism (a concept he linked with Communism and “Jewish materialism”) had been “stamped out”,’
          Third paragraph: ‘In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he affirmed a belief in Christianity.’

          Quote from 1941 (there are many more similar ones from the 1940’s): “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
          The Wikipedia also carefully neglects all such quotes.
          It is guilty of a false dilemma. It argues that Hitler was an opportunist to confirm that he was not a christian. Of course this implies the No True Christian fallacy. Christians perfectly can be opportunists. 1700 Years of christian dominance has demonstrated it. When christians needed Biblical support for slavery they had no problem at all to find and develop it either. The first African christian theologian wrote a thesis that defended slavery.
          What Hitler opposed and suppressed was christian institutions that had authority. That’s nothing special either. The RCC did the same for many centuries. Protestant churches after the Reformation tried the same, but usually just lacked the political power. Still in the Netherlands the RCC had to go underground for 250 years thanks to protestant bigotry.
          Argue that Hitler perverted christianity and I’ll be with you. Again that’s nothing new or special. You are not any more responsible for it than I am for the views and actions of Pol Pot. But a christian he was, just like Pol Pot and Martin Bormann were atheists.
          Quit your attempt to demonstrate christian moral superiority. Read the Gospels again. Your attempt is anti-christian, or more specific: anti Jesus.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaahaahaahahh!

          You have not once demonstrated that any scholar I have cited is an intellectually incompetent fraud, so pah!

          You seem to think that because you assert something, everyone else here needs to suck it up. But here you are, citing a fuckin’ creationist whose scholarship has been slated by his peers, not some fuckwit on an internet forum.

          As for your link on Hitler’s religious views. Hitler was a Christian in the same sense as Christians have used the religion throughout history. Christianity is as diverse a religion as there has ever been. Hitler’s version might have been just as perverse as orthodox Catholicism, but on his own terms. But he preached Christianity, cited it in his speeches and writings. He was a manipulator, which is the epitome of what Christians have done since day one.

          Hitler and his cronies created their own version of Christianity. Not that unusual since Christians have been doing just that from day one. Was he a Roman Catholic? I’d say not, though looking around at some well known Roman Catholics today, that is debatable. i.e. Mel Gibson and his da.

          Did Hitler use his knowledge of Catholicism to his own ends? Absolutely.

          It is well established that Hitler quickly drew away from the esoteric world of the volkisch movement, because he did not want the kind of secret society of initiates that characterised that tradition. He wanted to build a mass movement. As a result, in Mein Kampf he wrote strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma. This was not out of any love for the content of church doctrine, but because he believed that the Nazis could use such forms to create their own “political confession,” moving from “volkisch feeling” to an absolute faith in the rectitude of Nazi racial nationalism.

          http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm

          What Hitler’s true religious faith was, is debatable, but really not the main point.

          Get this, your RCC put him in power, licked his arse when he got that power. Facilitated his regime for their own selfish reasons. Never excommunicated him. So whether he was a true Scotsman…ahem…Christian isn’t even the point. Your version of the cult believed he was at the time and treated him as such….and Hitler was not adverse to utilising that treatment to the max.

          Hitler’s Germany was a Christian nation. His people followed Christian values.

          “We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state’s existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good.” ~ Article 24. The Nationalist Socialist Party, 1920

          Your Church was contributory to that situation, so fucking own it ya weasel.

          After 1945, the silence of the church leadership and the widespread complicity of “ordinary Christians” compelled leaders of both churches to address issues of guilt and complicity during the Holocaust—a process that continues internationally to this day.

          https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

          Btw, Hitler persecuted atheists, so the “Hitler was an atheist” trope is just plain fuckwittery.

        • Greg G.

          No one on this forum has shot himself squarely in the ass as many times as you have.

          You have, each and every post.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • MNb

          Thanks to IA underneath I just learned that the incompetent fraud Weikart is one of your sources!
          Kind is looking for kind, as we Dutch say.

        • Pofarmer

          Hold on, are you saying the intellectual slug is actually Ameribear?

        • adam

          “Kind is looking for kind,”

          Lying kind is looking for lying kind, as I say.

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam
        • Pofarmer

          Laws, agreed upon by societies, are generally seen as the best way to govern a collection of individuals. Everyone won’t like every law.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

        • Ameribear

          Laws agreed upon by some members of societies have forced incredible amounts of pain and suffering on other members of societies.

        • Pofarmer

          And?

        • Susan

          have forced incredible amounts of pain and suffering on other members of society

          Your church provides countless examples of those sorta of laws.

          A cell is not a member of society nor can it suffer.

          How many hundreds of comments later and you still appeal to the suffering of sentient beings while denying that sentience is relevant.

          Try again.

        • MNb

          All such laws were justified by imagined objective morals. The most cruel dictatures of the 20th Century provide excellent evidence; so does the dominance of your very own RCC. The best remedy against dictatures (whether religious or secular) issuing laws forcing incredible pain etc. is …… accepting that morals are subjective.
          You remain the champ of the noble sports shooting yourself in your own feet.

        • Ameribear

          They were justified by subjective morals that some falsely believed were objective.

        • Susan

          Sproingg!!!

        • Pofarmer

          It’s. Just. Wow. With this one.

        • MNb

          Yet you are determined to make the same mistake.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. There are lots of people claiming to know objective truth who probably don’t. So what’s the solution? How do you tell if a moral statement is objectively true?

        • Ameribear

          It seems pretty obvious that if no one can come up with a subjective convincing argument to justify an evil like slavery or any number of others then it’s objectively wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again. In fact, it’s just the opposite: the varying moral positions on subjects like slavery (through time) and abortion (today) argues that either objective morality doesn’t exist or that we humans can’t reliably access it.

        • Ameribear

          If objective morality does not exist, then you would have to concede that there could be morally legitimate reasons to allow slavery and other evils like it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I see no morally legitimate reasons, so I guess you’re wrong again.

          Show me some legitimate reasons, and then I’ll agree with you.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, and many of those types of laws are based on religion. Even slavery in colonial America was based on the Bible. Slaves were foreigners bought from foreigners. They had indentured servants, even.

        • adam

          Laws agreed upon by some members of societies have forced incredible amounts of pain and suffering on other members of societies.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • adam

          Laws agreed upon by some members of societies have forced incredible
          amounts of pain and suffering on other members of societies.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbee2ae71608c49ff6cd3778051384d5ac950eab0a8c65082bd7d40a20822ade.jpg

        • adam

          Laws agreed upon by some members of societies have forced incredible
          amounts of pain and suffering on other members of societies.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96e15c847654824bdcec5148602fe87f0403e7c6c661f25a61bc19e1d593846d.png

        • adam

          Laws agreed upon by some members of societies have forced incredible
          amounts of pain and suffering on other members of societies.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8405941ed9f5c1c9bf717f00591e0b5455633b20f6c5705754c71d7decaa52be.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems to me that the “some members of societies” that are the lawmakers that you have all these issues with, were /are Christians ya Burke. So much for objective morals gleaned from the buybull.

        • adam

          It was CHRISTIANITY that justified the holocaust:

          And you are merely a Liar.

          Luther’s major works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ), both published in 1543, three years before his death.[209]
          Luther argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but “the
          devil’s people”, and referred to them with violent language.[210][211] Citing Deuteronomy 13, wherein Moses commands the killing of idolaters and the burning of their cities and property as an offering to God, Luther called for a “scharfe Barmherzigkeit” (“sharp mercy”) against the Jews “to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames.”[212] Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis
          from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, and smashing up their
          homes, so that these “envenomed worms” would be forced into labour or
          expelled “for all time”.[213] In Robert Michael’s view, Luther’s words “We are at fault in not slaying them” amounted to a sanction for murder.[214]
          “God’s anger with them is so intense,” Luther concluded, “that gentle
          mercy will only tend to make them worse, while sharp mercy will reform
          them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!”[212]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78d2605305eadcda78155977377e79721c970efc02c864dedd893cd1d7e34a5d.jpg

        • adam

          “So in your opinion if the law says anything is ok then that makes it right.”

          It is not my opinion that it is the law, but fact.

          And the law is pretty clear on that personhood, you keep lying about.

        • adam

          ” The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim and you are
          claiming a person in the earliest stage of development is not a person
          with absolutely zilch to back that claim up. ”

          The LAW backs it up, you IDiot.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/374216f2e0b3eec0b3ca6e44550ffe46cb7a5c39f3ef3ac4234d19295d6e933d.jpg

        • Kodie

          You are using a non-thing to enslave women in order to oppress them for having sex without wanting a baby. It’s not a baby yet, it doesn’t become one without her consent.

          Pretending a non-thing is “innocent and weak and vulnerable,” or whatever cute adjectives you want to pick doesn’t mean you’re correct. Those are your biases against women. Anti-abortion means hating women and wanting to steal their lives and reroute them for your own interests. The non-thing doesn’t have a voice, it doesn’t even have a brain, language, a mouth, thoughts, wishes, hopes, dreams, prospects. You know as well as I do that any proposed future an embryo has is a projection by its parents. They wish to have a son, or a daughter, they think about the schools they might attend, the friends they’ll make, whether they will be smart, or a doctor, or be athletic – and plenty of times, it is the child’s will to become what it will, despite, in spite of, without regard to, whatever its parents wanted when they didn’t know. They are making up a life story for a thing without a life yet. They don’t think about all the little details, things that can go wrong, things that may surprise them, qualities of the child they may have to adjust to. They are making a generic wish on a generic blank slate, not a person. You want everyone to do what you want. You take the voice from the non-person and pretend what you say is what they’d want. They can’t want, they don’t want, and if they’re never born, they cannot regret the difference and wish that their parents had chosen to let them live. Without a personality, you are deciding to make that determination for them against the woman’s own wishes for her own life – that she continue her education, that she not die in childbirth, that she knows what size family she wants and is all set and not want to go ’round with a new infant to take care of. You don’t think about her, you think about what she did and how dirty it is and how she needs to be punished for it. That’s all you have to say, that’s all you make your disturbing and heinous excuses for – so that a non-thing can enslave her because you said so.

          Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

        • adam
        • Pofarmer

          Without the mother, the zygote ain’t “directing” anything.

        • Ameribear

          It is genetically distinct from both parents from conception so it genetically self directs it’s development from the start.

        • Greg G.

          If the zygote is autonomous, then you shouldn’t have any complaints of a woman taking Plan B contraceptives to prevent its implantation in her uterus. An autonomous being has no right to use the organs of another autonomous being without consent so you shouldn’t have an issue with someone removing an autonomous being from being implanted in an organ.

          You shouldn’t even consider it your business and you should disassociate with any organization that thinks it is their business. Especially if the organization justifies its existence based on fairy tales.

        • Kodie

          The problem I have with Ameribear’s idea is that it isn’t even anything yet. It is materially nothing without physical input from the woman. Like, a baby will eat food and grow into a toddler and into a child and into an adolescent and into an adult. Fuel is needed not just to be alive, but to grow. The zygote is materially nothing. It isn’t a body, it isn’t a brain, it surely isn’t a person. Just because, if allowed to hang around, it will unconsciously become a baby in a few months, it is by charity of the woman to allow it to not only use her body as a place to grow, but as a buffet to fuel its growth. It doesn’t know what it’s doing. It is, how he calls, the “nature” of it, that it will grow into a baby, but it is also like a weed that has no conscious intention of doing so. It isn’t feeling like a person who could have a life, it is feeling like a dandelion seed that found itself on a lawn of intentionally grown grass. It’s going to bloom if you let it, and it’s not going to mind, because it has no mind, if you eliminate it at your earliest convenience. Plants do the same “autonomous” thing a zygote does – let be, it will establish itself where it is.

          Look, if an act of procreation made a tiny animate, conscious homunculus that was conscious of the world outside and the life it might look forward to, I might think otherwise, but early pregnancy is the grace period where you can decide if the future with a child is what you want. The person here is the one who is conscious of the future and what kind of life they want. I would say this is also true in the cases of a person in a coma with no real hope of getting out, including but not exclusive to brain-dead. If someone is brain-dead, they are dead. If they are not brain-dead, what kind of life could the patient have if they came out of it. Using miracle stories is not helpful and people should not feel guilty. The person in the coma will not know they didn’t come out of it, either. They will if they do, and they can’t talk or speak or know how to feed themselves, etc. Life isn’t just life, it is quality and potential for quality. Being dead, there is no regret. We are indoctrinated at least in the Western world, that one must not die with regrets. That you might lie on your death bed, knowing the end is near, and wishing you had gone to Paris, or had that wild passionate fling, or bought that sports car instead of the minivan, or been more generous and kind, etc. But once you are actually dead, it’s not like you can leaf through your memories and feel success or failure in life. If someone pulls the plug on you, oh well. What difference either way, maybe you’d wake up one day and get right to your bucket list, if you could even understand what a bucket list was? A lot of times, people hang around because other people need them to. If you don’t pull the plug on Daddy, and you wake up one day, your kids get to have a Daddy who didn’t die! But maybe that is worse than death for you. We’re just superstitious about life and about death, and generally, if someone is in your life, you don’t want them to die, but maybe they’d rather. They’re not going to miss Christmas, you’re going to miss Christmas with them. They’re not going to miss fucking you, or hugging you, or working for your rent and groceries, but it might put you not only in a tough spot but heartbroken. People around us comfort us, we are selfish in our need to have these people stay alive when there’s a chance they might die. The living miss the dead, not the other way around.

          Now, living in terror is another thing – people all over the world are hungry and dying very slowly and painfully and consciously. People all over the world are in terrible conditions, children working in factories, etc. People with consciousness who aren’t able to die just yet, and hope for things to improve someday, people who might be rounded up and enslaved, or tortured, or captive, knowing death is near, but not any time soon enough. That is a horrible way to treat people. We should not be triggered into thinking abortion is like a holocaust. Fetuses aren’t rounded up just because they are fetuses, are they. It’s because they will start needing things we can’t or don’t want to give them. They won’t know it’s taken away. There is no “what if that child was meant to grow up and cure cancer?” – there’s no fucking destiny like that. Conscious people think about cancer, and some of them desire to solve that problem.

          Beyond that, I’m not awfully sentimental about people in general. The people there already are and will be (by choice), are not pre-specialized at solving the world’s problems. The ones that do so become so by having awareness and access and opportunity. What if making abortion illegal crowded them out? Most people seem interchangeable to me. If I did not have this doctor, I would have another doctor. I wouldn’t miss a friend out of my life because they were never born, I mean, a lot of potential people were never born because their potential mother was already pregnant, or whatever. If someone wasn’t born to build your tv, the factory hires someone else, and you still have tv. We’re not short on persons to do stuff and fill roles. We only miss people who already exist and who are already in our lives. It’s not like the person you were meant to marry died in a bus accident on the way to the chance meeting at the book store, it’s not like It’s a Wonderful Life, where George Bailey was never born, so Mary Hatch can’t marry someone else. She wouldn’t fucking miss George. When he’s envisioning life without himself, he scares the shit out of her – if he were meant for Mary anyway, she would have dropped her library books and fallen madly in love with him. Without George around, she would have married Sam Wainwright, hee haw, and moved to New York City.

        • epeeist

          The problem I have with Ameribear’s idea is that it isn’t even anything yet.

          He doesn’t have ideas, he has dogma. By definition anything that contradicts the dogma must be wrong.

          We see this not only in the debate on abortion but on the child abuse scandal in the church. Reason and empathy are disregarded when it comes to anything that is critical of the church.

        • Ameribear

          An autonomous being has no right to use the organs of another autonomous being without consent so you shouldn’t have an issue with someone removing an autonomous being from being implanted in an organ.

          It’s autonomous only in the sense that it’s genetically distinct from both parents so it’s genetic development is autonomous from the genetic development of the mother. It’s not autonomous in the sense that it can survive or act on its own. Once again you are choosing to define your own terms instead of taking the time to more fully grasp what embryology has revealed.

          You shouldn’t even consider it your business and you should disassociate with any organization that thinks it is their business. Especially if the organization justifies its existence based on fairy tales.

          It’s not my problem if you have to resort to calling the reasoning fairy tales because you can’t grasp or refute it. You should disassociate with any worldview that justifies the existence of persons based on what they can do instead of who they are.

        • Greg G.

          It’s autonomous only in the sense that it’s genetically distinct from both parents so it’s genetic development is autonomous from the genetic development of the mother. I

          You are equivocating. That is not what you meant in the post I replied to. Either your reply to IA is wrong or your reply to me is wrong. Either way, your argument fails, again.

          You should get rid of your religion. It has ruined your mind.

          It’s not my problem if you have to resort to calling the reasoning fairy tales

          The Bible starts with a talking serpent and ends with a four-headed monster. Those are fairy tales. When people who don’t know where the sun went at night start with “In the beginning”, they are saying “Once upon a time.” It is a fairy tale. Everything in between is midrash after midrash of the original bullshit. Do you want me to apologize for calling the bullshit “fairy tales”?

        • Ameribear

          No I’m not equivocating, that’s exactly what I meant in my reply to IA. You’re the one who’s imposing your own definitions on things again
          because that’s what weasels do. Either read more carefully or stop stepping in your own BS when you post.

          Once again you demonstrate your weasleiness by trying to divert attention away from your ignorance and obfuscation. Stick to the subject or shut the hell up.

        • Greg G.

          Merriam-Webster
          https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/autonomous
          free, independent, sovereign, autonomous mean not subject to the rule or control of another. free stresses the complete absence of external rule and the full right to make all of one’s own decisions.

          The inability of a zygote to make a decision negates that it is autonomous, especially in the sense of being an autonomous person. You are doing major equivocations to even apply the word and major equivocations to avoid the whole implications of the word. You are twisting back and forth in this subthread.

          Once again you demonstrate your weasleiness by trying to divert attention away from your ignorance and obfuscation. Stick to the subject or shut the hell up.

          You are not fooling anyone that you are not arguing this from a religious viewpoint. You try to remove the religious words, like “soul”, but that is your whole problem. You equate person = soul = human. Nobody is buying your initial assumption (which is an equivocation, too) so you are getting nowhere and won’t.

          Your argument is not based on reason. You argue because you cannot admit that you stupidly fell for a religion. Don’t worry. There is no kingdom of heaven or a hell. Those are parts of the fairy tale, too. Purgatory isn’t part of that fairy tale, it is a new one invented to try to solve the undesirable implications of the biblical fairy tales.

        • Ameribear

          The inability of a zygote to make a decision negates that it is autonomous, especially in the sense of being an autonomous person.

          You are once again deliberately trying to weasel out of this by ignoring what I said and forcing your own meaning on this. Show me where I said it was autonomous in any other sense other than genetic development or go take a flying leap. Free independent and sovereign means you have to be free, independent and sovereign from some external rule. The zygotes genetic development is free, independent and sovereign of the rule of its mother’s genetic development but you’re clearly to compromised to ever make that connection. Those terms apply to more than thoughts or decisions dimbulb. DUH!

          You are not fooling anyone that you are not arguing this from a religious viewpoint. You try to remove the religious words, like “soul”, but that is your whole problem. You equate person = soul = human. Nobody is buying your initial assumption (which is an equivocation, too) so you are getting nowhere and won’t.

          I defy you to show me where I’ve pointed to the soul and where I’ve assumed anything in any of my reasoning. You are beating a strawman here because you clearly have no case to support your butchery. You haven’t refuted squat and you’ve once again magnificently displayed your abject lack of any ability to think for yourself. I never cease to be amazed at how you cannot see how you are everything you accuse us of and more. You’re unbelievable.

          Your argument is not based on reason. You argue because you cannot admit that you stupidly fell for a religion. Don’t worry. There is no kingdom of heaven or a hell. Those are parts of the fairy tale, too. Purgatory isn’t part of that fairy tale, it is a new one invented to try to solve the undesirable implications of the biblical fairy tales.

          And the diversions and distractions continue on and on because you’re an empty suit. You’ve got nothing but might makes right to defend your holocaust with and when someone comes along and points that out to you can’t handle it so you resort to distorting what they said. You also shown that you still can’t stick to the subject at hand.

        • adam

          “Show me where I said it was autonomous in any other sense other than genetic development”

          So you take it out of its host, does it continue genetic development autonomously or does it die?

        • Ameribear

          Does feeding and hydrating a born living baby change what it is? If you starve a born living baby does it continue genetic development or does it die?

        • adam

          So you take it out of its host, does it continue genetic development autonomously or does it die?

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          There’s a meaningful difference alright, but it’s not what you’re trying to establish it to be.

          If there’s a meaningful difference, then give me a word that describes it. “A baby is a ___, while the single cell isn’t.” Go.

          Yes, there is an enormity in development but that does not mean the person isn’t there from the start.

          Say—I have an idea! If person isn’t the right word, how about you give us a better word?

          I’m not eliminating the spectrum, I’m only saying that it applies to development not to personhood.

          1. I am not wedded to “person,” though apparently you are.

          2. What’s the rule for deciding personhood?

          Which brings me to the real enormous difference you and everyone else here either doesn’t understand or does but won’t admit it. Every human life begins in the “form” of a single cell but the “nature” of the zygote is worlds apart from any other human cell. They are by nature autonomously developing human beings from the start and continue to do so way, way past birth.

          The Argument from Potential again? Yeah, that fallacy is an oldie but a goodie.

          “I’ll admit that it ain’t a person now . . . but it will be!” Yup, it will indeed be. Get back to me in 9 months and then we can celebrate the person.

          You insist on linking personhood to development while you refuse to ever
          address the pitfalls and all those excluded by that line of reasoning.

          Pitfalls? Who am I excluding?

          I, on the other hand, link personhood to the nature of what comes into existence after conception which doesn’t change from that point onward. It is a living human being from the start and that has to be all it takes to be a person because that definition of person excludes no one.

          You’re confusing enough as it is. Don’t now introduce “human being” if what you mean is “person.” Or is human being different from person?

        • Kodie

          You can.

        • Ameribear

          Then explain how that’s legitimate.

        • Kodie

          I have.

        • Susan

          Every time you’ve referred to a zygote as a single cell.

          It is a single cell. How is that a category error?

          You are declaring a cell a person. How is that not a category error?

          I really meant it when I asked “Do you even know what a category error is?”

          And I provided an introductory link on the subject. To help you show where I’ve made one. But it was in vain. You don’t click on links. That is, you’ve never addressed them. BASIC links.

          The brain is present from conception in it’s earliest stage of
          development just like every other vital organ.

          No. There is no brain present. It is a cell. No kidneys or spleen either. Do you know what “present” means?

          That means that it exists… in reality. A cell is not a brain. Not even a kidney. There is no person there. Unless you believe in imaginary souls. But that would be silly because there is no evidence for imaginary souls.

          It is a cell.

          You’ve asserted that over and over but never addressed any of the
          problems I keep pointing out to you

          You’ve mentioned children, murdered babies, slaves, Jews, holocausts and genocides. All of which are handled easily by the moral position that sentience is necessary but not sufficient .

          When a brain is present, that brain has hope for the future. That is, there is a “person” who hopes that if they go into a coma, that the assumption will be made that they don’t want to die,

          A cell has no thoughts on the subject of its existence. Feels no hope. Because it’s a cell.

          Yes I do reject sentience for the reasons I previously pointed out
          to you numerous times

          Because you insist a cell is a person by defining it so Even though there’s no there there. And then, you call people Nazis for not accepting that defintion. Because, that means we don’t care about persons.

          Do you know what “begging the question” is?

          A whisker is not a beard.

        • Pofarmer

          You don’t click on links

          Why should he? He already has all his answers. His priest told him.

        • Greg G.

          How can you doubt someone who speaks dead languages? That’s a miracle, isn’t it?

        • Ameribear

          It is a single cell. How is that a category error?

          I’ve repeated to you over and over again what embryology says is really is along with numerous links showing what it really is and you
          still refuse to acknowledge the facts. You are intentionally being a
          dishonest and misleading liar doing the bidding of the abortion
          industry.

          You are declaring a cell a person. How is that
          not a category error?

          I am declaring new, unique, genetically distinct, human organism
          in the earliest stages of development a person. It’s a new, unique,
          genetically distinct, human organism in the form of a single cell.
          You a always are being deliberately vague and dishonest.

          And I provided an introductory link on the subject.

          I provided you links to definitions of what a category error is.
          Did you read them?

          No. There is no brain present. It is a cell. No
          kidneys or spleen either. Do you know what “present” means?
          That means that it exists… in reality.

          It does exist, in reality, in the earliest stage of development. A
          zygote develops, it doesn’t stay a single cell. Everything is there
          in the earliest stages of development. No vital organs or systems get added from outside. Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of fetal development is psychotic.

          A cell is not a brain. Not even a kidney. There is no person there.

          A zygote is in the form of a cell but is worlds apart from any other cell. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained that to you. You brain washing will never ever allow you to concede that. Your still a liar and that’s probably all you’ll ever be.

          Unless you believe in imaginary souls. But that would be silly because there is no evidence for imaginary souls.

          Yet another attempt at beating a straw man and changing the subject.

          You’ve mentioned children, murdered babies,
          slaves, Jews, holocausts and genocides. All of which are handled
          easily by the moral position that sentience is necessary but not
          sufficient.

          I’m really tired of your refusal to answer any of the challenges to your worthless assertions. You have not and cannot address the
          problems of using continuous properties to define personhood yet you keep repeating them. Address the problems I pointed out or admit what I think you’ve known all along.You haven’t offered anything in defense if the indefensible.

          Because you insist a cell is a person by defining it so Even though there’s no there there. And then, you call people Nazis for not accepting that defintion.

          I call you Nazi’s because you’re advocating exactly the same type
          of thuggery the Nazi’s and every other tyrannical regime throughout history used to justify their atrocities. You’re declaring that we get to decide what is and isn’t a person and then we get to do what ever the hell we want with all those we decide aren’t persons. It’s might makes right.

          Because, that means we don’t care about persons.

          You don’t care about the ones you’ve decided for yourselves aren’t
          persons. You’ll make damn sure though, that you’ll always be members of the group you declare to be persons.

        • Susan

          I’ve repeated to you over and over again what embryology says is really is along with numerous links showing what it really is

          Embryology refers to it as a cell. “Personhood” is a philosophical issue. I’ve explained this forever and you haven’t made a dent on the subject.

          Just parroted lies from forced birth sites.

          So, no. You haven’t established it’s a person.

          A zygote is in the form of a cell but is worlds apart from any other cell. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained that to you

          A zygote is a cell. It is not wolds apart. It is a cell. It is not a person. Even if it were worlds apart, it wouldn’t make it a person. You have to make a case that it’s a person.

          I’m really tired of your refusal to answer any of the challenges to your worthless assertions

          All I’ve asserted is that you haven’t made a case that a cell is a person. Only people who believe in unevidenced souls claim a cell is a person.

          That neutralizes your accusation that I can enslave, murder and have holocaust parties of sentient beings.

          Also, that I can murder babies, children and homeless people whenever I feel like it.

          I call you Nazi’s because you’re advocating exactly the same type
          of thuggery the Nazi’s and every other tyrannical regime throughout history used to justify their atrocities.

          But that’s a dirty, fucking lie that you and your forced birthers keep repeating.

          The argument against enslaving Africans in America wasn’t about Africans and their descendants feasting on a person’s body, nor was the argument against putting Jews in concentration camps and ovens.

          I’ve about had it with that lie. It’s obnoxious and completely inconsistent with what you’re attempting.

          What you want is for women to be slaves to cells, no matter what their circumstances, no matter what their medical condition, no matter what the condition of what they’re carrying, no matter whether they were raped or not.

          You’re the Nazi. In every single stage of the argument for the rights of actual person.

        • Ameribear

          Embryology refers to it as a cell.

          Nope. Failed again.

          Langman, J. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition:

          The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

          Larsen, WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd edition:

          This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

          O’Rahilly, RR and Müller, F. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition:

          [F]ertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed….

          Moore, KL. Essentials of Human Embryology:

          This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

          Carlson, BM. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology:

          Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the
          starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

          Gilbert, S. Developmental Biology. 7th edition:

          Fertilization: Beginning of a New Organism

          “Personhood” is a philosophical issue. I’ve explained this forever and you haven’t made a dent on the subject.

          You’ve done no such thing. You’ve repeatedly asserted sentience with nothing to support it and you’ve repeatedly refused to address the logical consequences of that assertion. It is you who hasn’t made a dent in the subject. You also keep whining about personhood being a philosophical issue and not only have you’ve never come close to offering anything remotely resembling a philosophical argument, you completely ignore the philosophical differences between a cell and a zygote. Physician heal thyself.

          A zygote is a cell. It is not worlds apart. It is a cell.

          Things have forms and things have natures. You insist on referring to only the form of the zygote and completely ignoring the nature which is indeed worlds apart from any other cell. I’ve shown you clear, unambiguous, unbiased evidence and you are being intentionally misleading in the face of it and I think you know it. Don’t lecture me about philosophical issues when you keep ignoring the one that drives a stake through the heart of your argument.

          Even if it were worlds apart, it wouldn’t make it a person. You have to make a case that it’s a person.

          It is a person from the start continuous properties notwithstanding. If it isn’t then you cannot define the unborn as non-persons without also including some segment of born persons. This is your dilemma, not mine.

          Only people who believe in unevidenced souls claim a cell is a person.

          There is no mention anywhere of a soul in the previous statement. You are continually forced to fall back on your favorite straw man because you have no other arguments.

          That neutralizes your accusation that I can enslave,
          murder and have holocaust parties of sentient beings.

          Also, that I can murder babies, children and homeless people whenever I feel like it.

          It does no such thing.

          The argument against enslaving Africans in America wasn’t about Africans and their descendants feasting on a person’s body, nor was the argument against putting Jews in concentration camps and ovens.

          The argument was and is about reserving the right for yourselves to decide who is and isn’t a person to suit your own interests which is EXACTLY the same thing you’re doing. Own it.

          I’ve about had it with that lie. It’s obnoxious and
          completely inconsistent with what you’re attempting.

          It’s completely consistent with what you’re attempting.

          What you want is for women to be slaves to cells,

          What I want is to expose you and your ilk for the heartless, lying misanthropes you are and to end this bloodbath once and for all.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Langman, J. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition:

          The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

          So two cells then? Still, I don’t read person anywhere.

          Larsen, WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd edition:

          This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

          No mention of person anywhere there either.

          O’Rahilly, RR and Müller, F. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition:

          [F]ertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed….

          Still not seeing the word person anywhere here.

          Moore, KL. Essentials of Human Embryology:

          This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

          Ah, we are back to it being a single cell again….still, no person being mentioned though.

          Carlson, BM. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology:

          Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

          Defo a single cell then….where does it say it’s a person though? I’ve missed it.

          Gilbert, S. Developmental Biology. 7th edition:

          Fertilization: Beginning of a New Organism

          And last, but by no means least…no person mentioned anywhere.

          Science can’t help you out am afraid to say, so best ya stop with this nonsense already.

          WHY SCIENCE CAN’T SAY WHEN A BABY’S LIFE BEGINS

          But even fertilization isn’t a clean indicator of anything. The next step is implantation, when the fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the mother’s uterus. “There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant,” says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant.

          Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves. As a doctor, Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

        • Pofarmer

          “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

          Whoa, whoa, whoa. A Woman? making a decision about her reproduction? What the fuck? What comes next, wearing shoes? Working outside the home? I mean, can yoiu even fathom what the repercussions of this world view might be?

        • Ignorant Amos

          By a woman doctor no less too. I ask you…liberties being taken. //s

        • Ameribear

          Myth 13: “A human person begins with brain birth, the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling.”

          Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between “brain death” and “brain birth” is scientifically invalid. “Brain death” is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. “Brain birth” is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

          Myth 14: “A person is defined in terms of the active exercising of rational attributes (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of sentience (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure).”

          Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is that the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both “rational attributes” and “sentience,” is not actually completely developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:

          “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25.” (Emphasis added.)

          One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a “person” is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of “rational attributes” or of “sentience.” What would this
          mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished
          “rational attributes”: e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded,
          the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished “sentience,” e.g., the comatose, patients in a “vegetative state,” paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a “split” between a human being and a human person?

          https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m aware of Irving and her fuckwittery.

          The problem with her facts is that not everyone agrees with them and everything in science is provisional.

          Irving also employs that religious tactic of lying, cherry picking, and redefining words to suit her argument.

          Person: applies only to all living human beings from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms – regardless of age, race, sex, gender, capacity to function, condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of sexual or asexual reproduction used, whether existing in vivo or in vitro.

          http://www.humanlifematters.org/2011/10/personhood-language-2008-2011-by-dr.html

          Person: An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

          http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx

          The problem you can’t seem to grasp is that the world is changing and your religiously based argument is being stuffed the bin.

          Of course Irving isn’t at all biased though, is she?

          Oh, wait a wee minute……

          Dr. Irving represented the Catholic Medical Association and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations. The paper is written for several attending audiences. The short main text is written for the lay audience. The very extensive references are written for the academic scholars, especially scientists, physicians, hard-core philosophers, and theologians.

          https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2773

          I see your expert and raise you a professor.

          In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

          Now fuck off Ameribear…your nonsense is getting boring now and your argument has already lost in most places, even in those places where abortion is ordinarily illegal.

        • Ameribear

          Irving also employs that religious tactic of lying, cherry picking, and redefining words to suit her argument.

          SSSSSSPPPPPPRRRRRROOOOOOIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!. There went every irony meter in existence. You are the uncontested king of the hill when it comes to lying, cherry picking, and redefining words to suit your argument and you don’t even realize it. WHAT A GOBSHITE!!!!!

          The problem you can’t seem to grasp is that the world is changing and your religiously based argument is being stuffed the bin.

          The problem you can’t seem to grasp is you are advocating
          barbarism and have never, ever come anywhere near defending it. Show me the references to religion in any of her or my explanations boot-sucker.

          In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences.

          I presume this is the “Singer” you’re referring to.

          “In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, the recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys, are persons but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons.”

          I see once again you’ve completely ignored all the reasons that I’ve given and that were in the paper I linked to why personhood cannot be defined by any of those things. As always you just post something by someone with a PHD after his name because you think that’s all it takes to be right. You’ve offered NOTHING countering those all the rest of the problems inherent in any of the verbal dogpiles you’ve posted and I’m betting you never will. You’ll simply keep reverting to the same tired tactic of attempting to deflect attention away from the accurate description of you in your screen name.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are the uncontested king of the hill when it comes to lying, cherry picking, and redefining words to suit your argument and you don’t even realize it.

          Until you can demonstrate where I have done that, it is just another example of you being a lying cunt and will be ignored.

          WHAT A GOBSHITE!!!!!

          Bwaaahahaha….now that did pop an irony meter.

          The problem you can’t seem to grasp is you are advocating barbarism and have never, ever come anywhere near defending it.

          It ain’t barbarism ya dogs dick. Just because dwindling fuckwits like you claim it is, doesn’t make it so.

          I don’t need to defend anything ya imbecile. It is a recognised human rights issue in favour the mother. A human rights issue that you are trying to trample all over. Making you the jackbooted fascist goose stepping Nazi bastard.

          Read it and weep…

          UN experts and agencies consistently call for the full realization of sexual and reproductive rights, including access to safe, legal abortion. This includes the UN “treaty bodies,” which are expert groups that monitor states’ compliance with international human rights treaties.

          https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/24/qa-human-rights-law-and-access-abortion

          You lose, dry yer eyes and suck it up.

          Show me the references to religion in any of her or my explanations boot-sucker.

          Ameribear, try reading for comprehension. We all know that your position is driven by your religion, even if you haven’t the ball’s to admit it.

          As for Irving, yer kidding, right?…

          The recent announcement from the Vatican2 on the “revival” of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy was rather shocking to many who heard the news. As a former bench research biochemist/biologist, as an Aristotelean Thomist myself, and having used St. Thomas’ classic realist philosophical system as the basis for my own position in my doctoral dissertation on the nature of the early human embryo,3 it was with great joy but also with some trepidation that this news was received.

          http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_185revival.st.thomas1.html

          I see once again you’ve completely ignored all the reasons that I’ve given and that were in the paper I linked to why personhood cannot be defined by any of those things.

          I don’t care. The decisions have been made and you have lost the argument. It has been put to you more than once that even granting you the single cell at conception is a full person, it doesn’t get dibs over and above the rights of the mother.

          As always you just post something by someone with a PHD after his name because you think that’s all it takes to be right.

          Ah, I see…when I cite a credentialed expert in support, it’s because that’s all it takes to be right, but when you do it, that’s different. No hypocrisy there the, ya wank-stain.

          Thus the question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical (or using a different discipline, a theological) question — and a realist philosopher would begin by deriving his or her philosophical concept of “person” inductively from the correct natural philosophy, which in turn is derived from the correct basic sciences. The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is a strictly scientific question, and it is the basic science of human embryology which properly studies this question, because it alone has the proper subject matter and epistemology to do so.

          Today, however, the very content or subject matter of the basic sciences has been corrupted,15 in turn leading to the use of the wrong epistemologies or methods, in turn leading to the wrong “scientific” conclusions about whether or not the human embryo or fetus are in fact human beings, and when these human beings begin their lives as individual persons. ~ Dr. Dianne Irving P.hD

          You’ve offered NOTHING countering those all the rest of the problems inherent in any of the verbal dogpiles you’ve posted and I’m betting you never will. You’ll simply keep reverting to the same tired tactic of attempting to deflect attention away from the accurate description of you in your screen name.

          You are really struggling with the concept of winners and losers. You are a loser because your argument that a single cell is a person with all the rights afforded to an individual is complete and utter fuckwittery and has failed to convince anyone but fellow fuckwits. The ICHR says you are on the loosing side and that is all I need to counter your crappy position, loser.

          As for my screen name, you knob-jockey’s fall for it every time, usually as a last refuge of the scoundrel. The thing is, we are all ignorant on most subjects, the difference between us is that I know it, loser.

        • Ameribear

          It ain’t barbarism.

          It is barabarism and just because goose stepping jack wagons
          like you claim it isn’t doesn’t mean it isn’t

          I don’t need to defend anything ya imbecile. It is a recognised human rights issue in favour the mother. A human
          rights issue that you are trying to trample all over. Making you the jackbooted fascist goose stepping Nazi bastard.

          You think you don’t need to defend anything because you’ve
          clearly demonstrated you’re too stupid to accomplish that task and you need something to hide behind. You don’t think you need to defend your barbarism simply because you believe you have gotten enough fellow goose steppers going along with it. You’re too brainwashed to realize you’re no different than any other tyrannical
          state throughout history.

          We all know that your position is driven by your religion, even if you haven’t the ball’s to admit it.

          We all know you lack the ability to think for yourself and back up anything you’ve asserted your posts. You demonstrate again that you can’t back up this claim either so you attempt another diversion.

          I don’t care. The decisions have been made and you have lost the argument. It has been put to you more than once that even granting you the single cell at conception is a full person, it doesn’t get dibs over and above the rights of the mother.

          I haven’t lost anything. You nor anyone else here have come
          anywhere near refuting what I’ve said and you know it. The only thing that’s been put to me are bullshit abortion industry talking points that you’re continually forced to prop up with more bullshit. You’re the one who lost only your too full of yourself to realize it.

          Thus the question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question

          Ok then, let’s have your definition of what a person is based on everything Dr. Irving is suggesting should be the basis for it. Did you bother to actually grasp what Dr. Irving is talking about in that article? Apparently not because Dr. Irving is laying the ax to everything your side is guilty of. You really are your own worst enemy.

          You are a loser because

          Your idea of right and wrong is determined by pack mentality and nothing else. It’s might makes right and anyone left out because of what we decide is just SOL. Nothing that has ever been based on that way of thinking has ever lasted and it makes me fell warm and toasty right down to my toes when jack-booted baboons like you put it on full display for all of us to marvel at.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Loser.

        • adam
        • lady_black

          It’s a cell.

        • Ameribear

          What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • lady_black

          The nature of the cell? Totipotent.

        • Ameribear

          Totipotent: having the potential for developing in various specialized ways in response to external or internal stimuli.

          Totipotency is a very general description of the nature of bodily cells and zygotes. It denotes various specialized ways but goes no further.

          ”What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.”

          The differences in the specialized ways they develop are worlds apart. One will become some other type of bodily cell and nothing else. The other is a human organism/being/person in it’s earliest stage of development.

        • lady_black

          No. A totipotent cell is an UNSPECIALIZED cell. It isn’t a muscle cell, or an epithelial cell or a cardiac cell. It can potentially develop into any type of specialized cell, and eventually will.
          Some of the cells will become the embryo. Some will become the placenta, the amnion and other pregnancy tissues. That is, if all the genetic material needed to build a viable pregnancy are present. Otherwise, the zygote could also become a full or partial molar pregnancy, or even trophoblastic carcinoma.
          Totipotent is the only scientific answer to the “nature” of the zygote. Like the nature of any cell, it depends on how much error happens during initial formation, and duplication. After all, all cancers arise out of perfectly normal cells that just undergo out of control and error-filled division.

        • Ameribear

          No. A totipotent cell is an UNSPECIALIZED cell. It isn’t a muscle cell, or an epithelial cell or a cardiac cell. It can potentially develop into any type of specialized cell, and eventually will.

          I agree, but it’s still just a cell not an organism and will never develop into a human being.

          Totipotent is the only scientific answer to the “nature” of the zygote.

          The scientific answer to the nature of a zygote is a genetically distinct, whole separate human organism in it’s earliest stage of development. Other totipotent cells will develop within it but it’s nowhere near being like any other type of cell. You’re deliberately conflating the difference between cells and organisms.

        • lady_black

          It’s a cell. It’s obviously not a whole human organism, and more likely not to become one than to become one.

        • Ameribear

          You are denying the science. It’s a genetically distinct, whole human organism from conception. The likely hood of it making it to full
          development doesn’t change that.

        • Greg G.

          A person with no legs is a person but not a whole human organism. A zygote is not a whole human organism either. It lacks a brain capable of producing a human mind so it is not a person, either.

        • adam

          “t’s a genetically distinct, whole human organism from conception.”

          In the same way a chicken egg is a whole chicken from conception.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbde758ba5f4b72f0f90fe6ed10489dff5857c51f801273e6f554e8f08f20666.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a30e9ed4b50a7e4300c82eaf37aa43977e3a7c62ef12a69841080dde4d693a5.jpg

        • lady_black

          Genetically distinct. So is carcinoma. In fact, I just used a test for colon cancer, based on that scientific assumption.

        • Ameribear

          You are singling out one attribute and are ignoring the nature of the zygote.

        • adam

          You are singling out one attribute and are ignoring the nature of the zygote.

          Pot meet kettle

        • lady_black

          No, I am not. The zygote, in a vacuum, is a single cell with no future.
          The same thing cannot be said of the other participant in the dance.

        • Ameribear

          Uh, huh. And a fish out of water isn’t a fish anymore.

        • Kodie

          If I eat that fish, will it keep growing and changing into a big watermelon size for 9 months until I have to push it out my vagina? I mean, if it’s inside me, is it still a genetically distinct organism?

        • adam

          Fish hater.
          You only come here to hate fish

          LOL……….

        • adam

          “And a fish out of water isn’t a fish anymore.”

          Then what is it?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dfd14937ba4403166dc5aff8c1c36f1e176eb719e7dec5813da81663fe07e7c6.jpg

        • adam

          “And a fish out of water isn’t a fish anymore.”

          But here’s the picture demonstrating that it IS.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2357c8477c245afe09398aa594646db248b0529c51c63e0d1e1b97b79212a0af.jpg

        • lady_black

          Of course it is. But it’s going to be dead.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          Who cares that it is genetically distinct? It doesn’t have substance. Whatever you think is its “nature” is some esoteric bullshit and not the same thing as substance. It’s still the argument from potential – it isn’t made yet. It isn’t what or who it would be. It doesn’t have personhood, it is gloop. It is a parasite. Nobody has to have that living and growing and feeding inside them. There is plenty of time at the beginning of pregnancy to say “get it out of me before it becomes a huge problem.”

        • Ameribear

          Who cares that it is genetically distinct?

          That proves that it’s not a part of the mothers body.

          Whatever you think is its “nature” is some esoteric bullshit and not the same thing as substance.

          There’s nothing esoteric about natures. If you came across a
          container of clear liquid in a lab and the nature of that liquid could be either to hydrate and refresh mammals or to burn holes in a metal plate you’d need to be aware of its nature before you decided to take a swig. Nature is a basic philosophical term that applies to everything including you and me and ignorance of them can be fatal.

          It’s still the argument from potential – it isn’t made yet. It isn’t what or who it would be. It doesn’t have personhood, it is gloop. It is a parasite.

          That isn’t true and I’ve explained why numerous times. You don’t
          get to arbitrarily redefine something as important as personhood to suite your whims because you don’t understand and/or are ignoring the philosophical basis’.

          Nobody has to have that living and growing and feeding inside them. There is plenty of time at the beginning of pregnancy to say “get it out of me before it becomes a huge problem.”

          It is a new, unique, member of the human race and a person
          in it’s earliest stage of development. To attempt to redefine it as anything else puts you in the position of having to defend all the logical consequences that go along with that which you have not done. You don’t get to ignore the reasoning and redefine it in the name of fictitious rights or sexual license.

        • Kodie

          It is true and your explanation is fucking superstitious.

        • adam

          “That proves that it’s not a part of the mothers body.”

          So removal from ‘the mothers body’ allows it to autonomously exist?

        • adam

          “You don’t
          get to arbitrarily redefine something as important as
          personhood to suite your whims because you don’t understand and/or are
          ignoring the philosophical basis’.”

          Pot meet kettle, AGAIN.

          “It is a new, unique, member of the human race and a person
          in it’s earliest stage of development.”

          Already demonstrated that a zygote is not a person.

          So why do you keep LYING

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b914c9ae89d657742ab60de9c6ec87ee18649d8df4086333e70d3eef334774a4.jpg

        • Ameribear

          Already demonstrated that a zygote is not a person.

          Show me where.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          It has been demonstrated to you many times. Scroll up practically any subthread you have been in. Your religiously installed cognitive dissonance sets in when you see it. You have been brainwashed to think of souls. They are pretend concepts to bilk you out of money. Wise up.

        • Ameribear

          No it hasn’t. Not even close. You’re inability to think past your talking points and grasp the point I’m making keeps forcing you to resort to
          the same straw man and religious arguments BS. You need to wise up.

        • adam

          “No it hasn’t.”

          YES IT HAS, you know THE LAW.

          ” You’re inability to think past your talking points and grasp the point I’m making keeps forcing you to resort to
          the same straw man and religious arguments ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/121670126727fb70083ce9688c4d61a65733742a289d1710ab2e6475100ee6eb.png

        • Greg G.

          I understand the point you are trying to make. It cannot work without the premise of a soul. Provide evidence for a soul and you might be able to proceed. The problem you face is that the concept is indistinguishable from imagination and wishful thinking. Imagination and wishful thinking is not persuasive. If you wish really, really hard, you can make yourself believe something but it doesn’t have such an effect on reality.

          Don’t accuse other people of sticking to talking points. It is dangerous for irony meters. You haven’t advanced an idea in months besides your talking points.

        • Ameribear

          I understand the point you are trying to make. It cannot work without the premise of a soul.

          No you don’t. The establishment and defense of personhood in no way depends on any proof of a soul. You’re attempting to divert attention away from the main theme of the discussion because you can’t refute the argument. I’m betting you don’t even understand it.

          The problem you face is that the concept is indistinguishable from imagination and wishful thinking.

          The problem you face is you either can’t or won’t grasp the main point I’m making and are forced to resort to continuously trying to change the subject.

          Don’t accuse other people of sticking to talking points.

          That’s exactly what I’m doing because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

        • Greg G.

          The establishment and defense of personhood in no way depends on any proof of a soul.

          Define “personhood”. Define “soul”. Tell us how your definition of each can be distinguished from an imaginary concept.

        • Ameribear

          Go back and read the replies I’ve posted here over the past several weeks and maybe (but I’m not betting on it) you’ll begin to grasp what I’ve been trying to get through that rock you call a brain.

          The fact that you still have to ask for a definition confirms you don’t have a clue about what I’ve been saying.

        • MNb

          Yawn. All you have been saying a gazillion times is that at the moment of conception the fertilized egg is a human being with personhood who has the right to live. It sucked the first time and you already became a total bore after the fifth time.
          On the contrary, in your reaction to my comment on spectrum you convincingly demonstrated that you are incapable and/or unwilling to let any pro-choice arguments through your skull – thick as a castle wall. And the exceptional few times it does happens your sawdust brain refuses to process it. It’s the same with your first locomotive stupidity. No matter how ridiculous your comments will become, you shall and will remain a pro forced brithers.
          Next time you pray to your imaginary sky daddy you better thank BobS for his generosity. I would have banned you a long time ago, because it has been months since you have brought up anything new.

        • Greg G.

          You’re a funny guy. You could have given a definition of each as easily as typing your response. You asked Bob for a definition of “objective”. http://disq.us/p/1otjo0s He has defined it many times. Why didn’t you go look for it?

          You have never defined either in a way that can be distinguished from your own imagination. The only thing you have expressed is your inability to appreciate the difference between biological life and the mental processes that make life meaningful.

        • Pofarmer

          Yes, and your problem is that your non definition of personhood includes things that wouldn’t ordinarly be called, ya know, people, and then puts their rights and interests(if you cold somehow infer what their interests are) above folks who ordinarily are people. So, if you are unwilling to define personhood in a way that takes into account the rights and interests of sentient entities, what else are you willing to take away their rights for?

        • Ameribear

          You cannot use sentience as a criteria for person hood because you can still be a person without being sentient. It is your definition that fails to take into account the rights and interests of all persons not mine

        • MNb

          You brought up an excellent argument for granting persons without sentience the right to drive cars.

        • adam

          Or own guns.

        • MNb

          Tricky for a Dutchman – nobody in The Netherlands has the right to own a gun. When off duty policemen and soldiers have to hand them over.

        • Pofarmer

          Ameribear seems to think that because someone say, under anesthesia, isn’t sentient at that moment, that he has come up with some kind of defeater argument for the idea that sentience is a requirement for personhood.

        • MNb

          In the end he’s just playing semantic games. He tries to use secular terminology against legalized abortion. Of course proper logic should make sure the conclusions don’t depend on the meaning of words.
          It’s pretty simple. Law grants rights to humans (or human beings or persons or whatever we want to call them) during life. At 60 (Suriname) or 67 (Netherlands) you receive the right to retire from work. At a younger age you receive the rights to marry without permission of your parents, to vote, to drive a car, to carry a gun (in some countries), to receive an education …… and the right to live.
          I think Greg G was mistaken to get himself drawn into that rabbit hole.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Greg ain’t the only one.

          I’m Spartacus too.

        • adam

          I am Sparticus

        • adam

          “I think Greg G was mistaken to get himself drawn into that rabbit hole.”

          Once you let peole like Ameribear CONTROL the LANGUAGE….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a12b82695e277d00f7bbe26fb2c8cfbacddbf83cd13ed81b46c8a47413cd49fc.jpg

        • epeeist

          You cannot use sentience as a criteria for person hood because you can still be a person without being sentient.

          This is simply a bare assertion which you do not justify. It also runs contrary to just about every philosophical consideration of personhood from Locke onwards:

          Locke’s Concept of a Person
          1. A person cannot be a substance, because we never experience the substance; the underlying substance is irrelevant
          2. Consciousness is the experience which creates personal identity
          3. A ‘man’ is a creature (whose identity consists, like a tree, of its life), but a ‘person’ is a particular type of consciousness
          4. A person has the properties of being conscious, self-aware and rational
          5. Consciousness covers current mental states, awareness of our own bodies, and awareness of the past
          6. ‘Person’ is a forensic term, involving praise and blame, and a capacity to obey laws

        • Ameribear

          Consciousness is the experience which creates personal identity

          So how long before newborns sufficiently develop to a level where they experience their personal identities? Is it possible for a person to be mentally disabled enough to have no experience of a personal identity?

          A person has the properties of being conscious, self-aware and rational

          So anyone who is unconscious isn’t a person. Newborns aren’t persons until their personal awareness develops to some predetermined level, some mentally disabled aren’t persons because they can’t be rational.

          Consciousness covers current mental states, awareness of our own bodies, and awareness of the past

          Then what about the mentally disabled and under developed who aren’t aware of their bodies and that standard also leaves out anyone suffering from amnesia.

          ‘Person’ is a forensic term, involving praise and blame, and a capacity to obey laws

          Then personhood isn’t present until newborns develop to the point of being able to obey laws and receive praise and blame. Some mentally disabled aren’t able to even understand the concept of laws let alone obey them.

          If you link personhood to any continuous property you inevitably leave out actual living persons who either do not posses the property completely or in an insufficient level. Continuous properties vary over time so that means personhood varies along with them.

        • Greg G.

          So how long before newborns sufficiently develop to a level where they experience their personal identities? Is it possible for a person to be mentally disabled enough to have no experience of a personal identity?

          At what wavelength does green light become teal and at what wavelength does teal become blue? It’s a spectrum, remember?

        • adam
        • adam
        • epeeist

          So how long before newborns sufficiently develop to a level where they experience their personal identities?

          Given that this was in response to my point on consciousness then we need to look at consciousness in babies. In which case, fairly early, as this article shows.

          Is it possible for a person to be mentally disabled enough to have no experience of a personal identity?

          “Mentally disabled” covers a wide range of possibilities, what are you thinking of precisely?

          So anyone who is unconscious isn’t a person.

          If your claim is that one must be conscious all of the time to be a person then this fails. We all sleep and are therefore unconscious for a period of time each day. If your claim was true then it would imply that there are no such things as persons.

          Newborns aren’t persons until their personal awareness develops to some predetermined level, some mentally disabled aren’t persons because they can’t be rational.

          Nice try, but your first clause misses out the three properties that my response gave and your second cherry picks a single property.

          Then what about the mentally disabled

          Again, what sort of mental disability are you thinking of?

          under developed who aren’t aware of their bodies

          Are you aware of any cases where this actually is the case?

          that standard also leaves out anyone suffering from amnesia.

          Let us assume that somebody becomes a sufferer from amnesia at specific time T. At some future time will they remember back to at least time T?

          Then personhood isn’t present until newborns develop to the point of being able to obey laws and receive praise and blame.

          All of which develop early, babies soon learn what is normative in terms of behaviour.

          If you link personhood to any continuous property you inevitably leave out actual living persons who either do not posses the property completely or in an insufficient level.

          No, all your point does is expose the fact that you see personhood as binary, one either has it or one does not.

          Continuous properties vary over time so that means personhood varies along with them.

          Yes, personhood is a spectrum varying over time.

          Your problem is that if personhood (something that you have yet to provide a description of) is binary then it cannot have temporal parts. As such it is impossible for it to develop or change over time.

        • Ameribear

          Given that this was in response to my point on consciousness then we need to look at consciousness in babies. In which case, fairly early, as this article shows.

          Fairly early is a very general term which allows for a time that it isn’t present. Children in the womb exhibit plenty of behavior traits consistent with consciousness.

          “These results reveal that the brain mechanisms underlying the threshold for conscious perception are already present in infancy but undergo a slow acceleration during development.”

          The article also concludes consciousness develops over time which means person hood develops in conjunction with it.

          “Mentally disabled” covers a wide range of possibilities, what are you thinking of precisely?

          Anyone who is awake but mentally impaired to the point of being unable to respond to normal interaction with others would be one example.

          We all sleep and are therefore unconscious for a period of time each day.

          If personhood is dependent on consciousness then it follows that anyone who is unconscious is not a person. It’s true that we are unconscious for some period of time each day but what about those who are comatose but still maintain their normal biological functions without the aid of any external devices?

          Nice try, but your first clause misses out the three properties that my response gave and your second cherry picks a single property.

          I presume you refer to the properties of being conscious, self-aware and rational. The problem of consciousness is answered above, newborns aren’t self aware for some months after birth and they aren’t able to be rational until years after birth. Some mentally impaired or ill aren’t rational either.

          Are you aware of any cases where this actually is the case?

          Those who are impaired to the point of requiring the assistance of someone else to carry out bodily waste removal for example.

          Let us assume that somebody becomes a sufferer from amnesia at specific time T. At some future time will they remember back to at least time T?

          If personhood is dependent on being able to remember the past then how much of the past should they have to be able to remember before they are or aren’t persons? If they lose their memory at time T are they only persons after a sufficient amount of time has passed to accumulate enough memories?

          All of which develop early, babies soon learn what is normative in terms of behaviour.

          But there is still a period of time before they learn and by your standard that makes them non-persons.

          No, all your point does is expose the fact that you see personhood as binary, one either has it or one does not.

          Yes, that’s right.

          Yes, personhood is a spectrum varying over time.

          Then how does anyone know if they are a true person? If it’s on a spectrum the only one’s who qualify as true persons are those who posses said properties in absolute fully developed perfection. If it’s on a spectrum then how do you prevent one group of persons from singling out another as non-persons and therefore not entitled to equal rights or protection under the law? How much of the atrocities committed by some groups of persons on others was rooted in redefining of the definition of persons to suit their personal interests?

          Your problem is that if personhood (something that you have yet to provide a description of) is binary then it cannot have temporal parts. As such it is impossible for it to develop or change over time.

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

          The nature of the zygote does not change over our lifetimes and every living person possesses that nature. It’s temporal and it never changes.

        • MNb

          “Children in the womb exhibit plenty of behavior traits consistent with consciousness.”
          I’ll grant you that you have about as little consciousness as this three weeks old embryo:

          http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=367

          but even you are not capable of exhibiting the same behaviour traits.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos
        • Ameribear

          You’re really difficult to take seriously.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry, ya must have me confused with someone else. I could give zero fucks Ameribear. You are a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. Any commenting in reply to your asinine mindwankery is for other members reading…and any lurkers there might be dropping by.

          Do you actually think at this stage there is anyone around here taking your ludicrous bullshit seriously? Really?

          Try and wise ta fuck up, ya goat ye.

        • Greg G.

          You’re really difficult to take seriously.

          Anyone who defends the RCC’s response to child molestation is impossible to take seriously.

        • Ignorant Amos

          From a philosophical perspective, I would be inclined to stick with what seems to be the general view: zygotes are not persons. I do accept the obvious: a zygote is alive (as is an amoeba or any cell in my body), a zygote has full human DNA (as does almost any cell in my body), and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being (as does any cell in my body that could be used in cloning). However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person. After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.

          http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3579

        • Ameribear

          a zygote has full human DNA

          You’ve conveniently left of the genetically distinct part.

          and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being

          Now you’re linking being a human being to development. That
          means that anyone under the level of development necessary to be a human being isn’t a human being. What level of development constitutes a human being?

          However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person.

          Then your still linking personhood to development which means
          you’re right back where you started from. What level of development constitutes a person and why?

          After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.

          So this is like the third time you’ve posted someone making
          the same stupid category error. The zygote is no where near anything like any other cell and you still can’t and won’t admit that.

          This is what I was talking about earlier. The crap you keep posting
          is full of the same errors you keep making so it doesn’t prove anything. You bombed again. You really need to find something better to do with your time.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbde758ba5f4b72f0f90fe6ed10489dff5857c51f801273e6f554e8f08f20666.jpg “You’ve conveniently left of the genetically distinct part.”

          Carcinoma

          ” That means that anyone under the level of development necessary to
          be a human being isn’t a human being. What level of development
          constitutes a human being?”

          Birth, covered so many times that your cognitive dissonance keeps you from remembering.

          “The zygote is no where near anything like any other cell and you still can’t and won’t admit that.”

          But CLEARLY not a PERSON

          The crap you keep posting
          is full of the same errors you keep making so it doesn’t prove anything. You bombed again.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfca0255af85259ee0f857563d91ecfc6cb97d776b9e3d512d8ae7e84f4ac9a6.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’ve conveniently left of the genetically distinct part.

          I conveniently left fuck all of the sort out, that would be Michael LaBossiere, professor of philosophy. But get this, DNA is irrelevant in the debate on personhood, so pah!

          Now you’re linking being a human being to development. That means that anyone under the level of development necessary to be a human being isn’t a human being.

          Nope…wrong yet again…that’ll be the same philosophy professor. Try and stay focused, the conversation is about personhood…human being and personhood are not synonymous.

          What level of development constitutes a human being?

          Hellooo? Not relevant. Personhood…a zygote is not a person, remember? Focus! I know ya struggle, but c’mon now, the question was yours after all.

          Then your still linking personhood to development which means you’re right back where you started from. What level of development constitutes a person and why?

          Again, not me, Professor Mike LaBossiere. But here, I’ll give it a go…”there is no definitive answer”, but most agree it isn’t at conception for all manner of reasons, you’d know that if ya bothered to read any of the articles that have been supplied.

          Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a nonperson? What have people got that nonpeople haven’t got? More specifically, we can ask at what point in one’s development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. An ideal account of personhood would be a definition of the word person, taking the form ‘Necessarily, x is a person at time t if and only if … x … t …’, with the blanks appropriately filled in. The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties then (e.g. Baker 2000: ch. 3). Others propose a less direct connection between personhood and mental properties (Chisholm 1976: 136f., Wiggins 1980: ch. 6).

          There is no consensus or even a dominant view on this question.

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

          The thing is, you don’t get to claim it happens at conception, pick up yer ball, claim the game is over and that’s the end of it.

          So this is like the third time you’ve posted someone making the same stupid category error. The zygote is no where near anything like any other cell and you still can’t and won’t admit that.

          And for the third time, it doesn’t matter a fuck in the personhood conversation. I admit the zygote is nothing like any other cell. And that still has fuck all to do with personhood and whether the zygote has it from conception. An embryo is nothing like a zygote. A newborn is nothing like an embryo. A fully grown woman is nothing like a fetus. You want to instill special status on a fertilised cell, but won’t state why. We all know why, but you won’t admit it.

          This is what I was talking about earlier. The crap you keep posting is full of the same errors you keep making so it doesn’t prove anything.

          Ameribear, the so-called “crap” I keep posting is some of the current thinking on what constitutes being a person. You don’t like it, we get it. It runs counter to your contorted worldview, we get that too. You haven’t done a single thing in all this time to demonstrate personhood at conception, it is as simple as that.

          You bombed again.

          Keep telling yerslf that. The thing is, abortion is law, the lawmakers are influenced by the people you are accusing of all these errors and crap talk. Yet, here we are, the error making crap talking ethics making folk are being listened to, because they make more sense. You lose, suck it up monkey boy.

          You really need to find something better to do with your time.

          Spoooiiiinnng! Says the cretin who sought out an atheist site to talk absolute ballix…your a funny guy…am in kinks here.

        • Ameribear

          There is no consensus or even a dominant view on this question.

          So we know that things called persons exist but no one can agree on when the begin to exist. The only reason you could have for posting something like this has to be because you know you’re in so far over your atrophied intellect that your at the point where you’re just throwing anything you can out there to see what sticks. This is nothing less than totalitarian apologetics.

          The butchery you’re advocating for continues on because those who put this bullshit out are counting on knuckle-dragging mouth breathers like you to continue to carry their water for them because you’re to unbelievably thick to even realize the logical consequences of this kind of thinking, let alone resolve them.

          Congratulations. You have, with one single sentence, just validated my entire argument for why person hood begins at conception only your to much of a brick to realize it.

        • MNb

          “no one can agree on when the begin to exist”
          That’s a problem for the more stupid apologists, like you, because they can’t accept the continuity of a spectrum and need to force everything and anything in strictly separated categories. I suspect unbelief is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to get rid of these (your) blinkers.

        • Ameribear

          No, it’s a problem for stupid atheists like you because you can’t accept that the spectrum doesn’t end at birth. You also can’t resolve any of the logical consequences of linking personhood to any continuous property. I suspect unbelief is necessary to maintain those (your) blinders.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          You never disappoint, do you? Where did I ever write that the spectrum ends at birth?! On the contrary, my main argument is this. According to your illogic zygotes should have the right to live. So they also should have the right to vote – because personhood and being human beings etc. etc. However christian hypocrites like you love their double standards and ad hoc arguments, so they – and I predict also you – will quickly bring up some lame wordy excuses.

        • Ameribear

          There is no consensus or even a dominant view on this question.

          So we know that things called persons exist but no one can agree on when the begin to exist. The only reason you could have for posting something like this has to be because you know you’re in so far over your atrophied intellect that your at the point where you’re just throwing anything you can out there to see what sticks. This is nothing less than totalitarian apologetics.

          The butchery you’re advocating for continues on because those who put this bullshit out are counting on knuckle-dragging mouth breathers like you to continue to carry their water for them because you’re to unbelievably thick to even realize the logical consequences of this kind of thinking, let alone resolve them.

          Congratulations. You have, with one single sentence, just validated my entire argument for why person hood begins at conception only your to much of a brick to realize it.

        • Greg G.

          Congratulations. You have, with one single sentence, just validated my entire argument for why person hood begins at conception only your to much of a brick to realize it.

          This is why religious nuts should not be involved in important decisions involving other people. If everyone agrees, the religious nut asserts his position is validated. If other people have disagreements, the religious nut asserts his position is validated. If other people agree against the religious nut, then the religious nut asserts his position is validated. Reality is not considered.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ameribear is adorable. He could easily destroy your argument (and that from that ridiculous site, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) about the definition of “person” by showing that the definition of “person” from every reasonable source matches his view.

          Either he’s holding off out of Christian charity … or he knows that the dictionary in fact doesn’t support his position.

          I can’t wait to turn the page to find out which!

        • Ignorant Amos

          #don’tholdyerbreathonhonesty

        • Greg G.

          You’ve conveniently left of the genetically distinct part.

          That’s irrelevant. Monozygotic twins are not genetically distinct yet they are two different people. There is a non-zero chance that a zygote could be genetically identical to someone else, even a parent, but it would not be the same person.

          Cancer tumors are genetically distinct. Are you opposed to curing cancer?

          If you were cloned, the clone would not be you. Get it through your head. Genetically distinct is irrelevant.

        • Ameribear

          That’s irrelevant. Monozygotic twins are not genetically distinct yet they are two different people.

          Monozygotic twins are genetically identical to each other but are still genetically distinct from their parents.

          Cancer tumors are genetically distinct. Are you opposed to curing cancer?

          Genetic distinction is one property of the human organism that the zygote is. Cancer tumors do not posses anywhere near the same nature of a zygote.

          Get it through your head. Genetically distinct is irrelevant.

          Get it throught your head, genetic distinction is most certainly relevant because it shatters your pathetic “it’s a part of the mothers body” talking point.

        • Kodie

          Nobody EVER said “it’s part of the mother’s body” you asshole. It’s inside of and taking from the mother’s body. No PERSON (not that it is even a person) has the right to enslave any person that way, THAT IS THE POINT YOU HAVE IGNORED, and trying to pretend it’s US who have leaned on “talking points” is ridiculous, since you have to lie to answer. In addition, you haven’t responded to a couple of pointed posts I’ve made this week, must be you can’t think of any adequate lies. I want to tell you a message. You are superstitious. This discussion has gone on for a very long time, and you say nothing new. You have a superstitious regard for the developmental period when a zef has no functional properties as a person, and want to enslave women over it for having sex. That is all you have. Punishment for women, and a superstitious regard for a cell OVER an actualized developed person. Aren’t you fucking done yet? You’re not going to change your mind, and nobody here is going to change their minds. Pretend it’s not about a “soul” but you know deep inside that’s all you care about. Can’t you fucking get it through your fucking thick PIG head, your heinous religious views are not going to win over anyone here? And so you should just have your merry fucking Christmas, eat your ham or whatever, and find a new hobby?

        • Greg G.

          Monozygotic twins are genetically identical to each other but are still genetically distinct from their parents.

          It wouldn’t matter that a zygote is genetically distinct from the parents. It would end up being a different person when the brain develops.

          94% of any two humans’ genes are shared between them. Genes come in pairs and some come with different alleles. It could be a clone of a parent. An ovum gets half of the mother’s alleles and a sperm gets half the father’s alleles. It is conceivable (pun intended) that the sperm could have the other half of the alleles of the mother so that the zygote was genetically identical to the mother.

          People are distinct because they have different brains, not because they have different sets of genes or the same genes.

          This is very basic and easy. I don’t know why you cannot grasp the concept. Just kidding, we all know why you don’t get it.

        • Ameribear

          It wouldn’t matter that a zygote is genetically distinct from the
          parents. It would end up being a different person when the brain
          develops.

          Still linking personhood to development I see. For the gazillionth time what level of brain function determines that a person exists when there wasn’t one before? You’re to damn dense and/or brain washed to grasp any of the consequences of your feckless, shallow, meanderings let alone resolve them.

        • Greg G.

          The point I am making is that you can have distinct biological processes with the same DNA. You keep harping on being genetically distinct when it is irrelevant. A fertilized egg is a distinct biological process from the biological processes of the parents.

          I agree with you that a zygote is distinct from the mother but I disagree that the DNA is the deciding factor. Abby and Brittany Hensel are from the same zygote and have never been distinct biological entities but they have separate brains and are separate persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel

          https://images-production.global.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/images/file/43884/abby-brittany-hensel-2017.jpg

          A biological process is not a person until it has the ability to recognize that it is a distinct biological process even if not in those terms.

          However, a fully aware person with a dozen PhDs living in a womb without consent of the person with the womb would have no right to remain there. So your argument to assign personhood to a zygote is not an argument against abortion.

          A biological process without a brain is not a person. A biological process with a brain that functions might be a person. I am not going to split hairs over the threshold.

        • Greg G.

          Cancer tumors do not posses anywhere near the same nature of a zygote.

          Cancer cells have a distinct set of genes, just like the fertilized egg. A cancer cekk lacks personhood because it doesn’t have a functional brain because it doesn’t even have a nervous system, just like the fertilized egg.

        • Pofarmer

          You’re the Nazi. In every single stage of the argument for the rights of actual persons.

          It’s a typical Catholic ploy, whether he’s Catholic or not. Reversal and guilt trip.

        • Pofarmer

          A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos “joined” or “yoked”, from ζυγοῦν zygoun “to join” or “to yoke”),[1] is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

        • Ameribear

          (this line added to allow a second post)

          Things have forms and things have natures. The only thing a zygote has in common with any other single bodily cell is the form it starts out in. The nature of any biological cell is to remain a single cell and function in whatever organ it was created to for (heart, skin, blood, etc). Any other biological cell is only going to be a single cell for the entirety of it’s existence because that’s all that’s in it’s nature to be.

          A zygote on the other hand is an incredibly complex living and growing organism that by it’s nature is going on to become a fully developed human being. The difference between the two are light years apart. Referring to a zygote only by it’s form is intentionally dishonest and misleading.

          “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.”

          https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

        • Pofarmer

          braiwashed unteachable fucking idiot

        • Pofarmer

          ”Sentience is a continuous property that we all possess different
          levels of throughout our lives.

          If sentience is linked to personhood
          then the level of person varies with the level of sentience.

          The second would not necessarily follow from the first. It could just as easily be that any level of sentience confers full personhood, but it might not confer full rights as a person.

          Which is what actually happens in the real world.

        • Ameribear

          How is that any better or different? What good is being declared a full person but not being entitled to full rights?

        • Greg G.

          What good is being declared a full person but not being entitled to full rights?

          Do you think an infant should have voting rights from day one? Do you think they should be able to buy and consume hard liquor or just beer? Should they be permitted to enlist in the military?

        • Ameribear

          I’m referring to the right to life and equal protection under the law pin head. All the basics person hood is supposed to guarantee.

        • Kodie

          You don’t think a guarantee of personhood is not donating your body? I mean, I need your leg for a couple months, can I chop it off and take it with me?

        • Ameribear

          A guarantee of personhood is supposed to mean that no one gets
          denied a basic standard of care.

        • Kodie

          It’s not a person.

        • Ameribear

          You have not come anywhere near backing that assertion up with a sound argument. You are still reserving the right to declare who is and isn’t a person based on your personal interests. Since you’re doing it, what’s stopping anyone else from declaring you a non-person to suit their personal interests?

        • Kodie

          Because I live outside of a uterus.

        • Ameribear

          Everyone who died in Nazi concentration camps and in the Soviet Unions forced famines all lived outside of a uterus.

        • Kodie

          I’m not a Nazi.

        • Ameribear

          I’m not accusing you of being a Nazi, only of thinking like one.

        • Kodie

          I know, but that’s because you’re fucking stupid.

        • MNb

          Given that spontaneous abortion happens far more often than the provoked version your god thinks like a nazi as well.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Do you really believe that no pregnant women died in those camps and during those famines? Ie including their fetuses?

        • Ameribear

          Yeah, you’re right they did. I can rephrase that to say most of those who died lived outside uterus’ but it still doesn’t change my point.

        • Greg G.

          If you meant ” the right to life and equal protection under the law”, why did you write “being entitled to full rights?”

          Why take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from a living, breathing person in favor of a non-sentient, non-breathing entity that is stealing the lifeblood of a person without consent?

        • Ameribear

          You
          are denying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to another
          human person that you have defined out of existence with a baseless definition, which is exactly what every other totalitarian regime has done throughout history.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          a baseless definition, which is exactly what every other totalitarian regime has done throughout history.

          “Jews are subhuman” is identical to “you can’t see it without a microscope”?

        • Ameribear

          Yes. Both are cases of redefining who is and isn’t a person to suit personal interests.

        • Greg G.

          Sproing!%#*&^ That’s the second irony meter today.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s kind of ironic this has gone on for hundreds of comments on a blog post about how to change some ones mind.

        • Ameribear

          How is that so?

        • Susan

          to another
          human person

          No. A cell is not a person.

        • Pofarmer

          Sentience cannot be used to define a person because is not a property
          possessed only by persons since non-person life forms also possess it.

          Uhm. Only a sentient HUMAN qualifies as a PERSON.

          Well, except corporations.

        • Pofarmer

          If sentience is what defines personhood then anyone who is comatose or anesthetized for surgery isn’t a person.

          I would simply argue that something that has never been sentient, and does not currently have the capacity for sentience, is in a different category. This is just an extension of the category error you keep making.

        • Ameribear

          A zygote most certainly does have the capacity for sentience which doesn’t matter anyway because you still can’t use sentience for the reasons I stated earlier.

        • Pofarmer

          unteachable fucking idiot.

        • Pofarmer

          The brain is present from conception in it’s earliest stage of
          development just like every other vital organ. If you wish to use the
          presence
          of a brain as what defines personhood you have to decide what level of
          brain function establishes personhood. You cannot say X has to be
          present without accounting for the entire spectrum of the functioning of
          X in every living human person.

          this is simply a stupid argument. Stop making it.

          An Acorn is not an oak tree. A single neural cell is not a brain.

        • Ameribear

          No it isn’t because dead bodies still have brains.
          You are also still linking personhood to development which is still discriminatory.

        • Pofarmer

          fucking

          idiot.

        • Pofarmer

          my appeals are to our innate intuitions

          And we know how those always work out.

          It is beyond me why you cannot understand the simple basic problem that
          arises when any group of persons decides for themselves who is and isn’t
          a person.

          It is beyond me why you can’t understand that there is a very real problem that arises when you label something that would normally not be a person, a person. You simply tap dance around it but the fact remains. You’d make a woman a slave to a single cell.

          I don’t have to imagine the disastrous consequences of your position. I can see them.

          No you can’t see them because they aren’t what you think they are.

          This cuts both ways. We can see the results of your preferred policies around the world. And those places are generally overpopulated, poverty ridden shitholes where women have very little status.

        • Ameribear

          You’d make a woman a slave to a single cell.

          It is not simply a single cell and you cannot link personhood to development.
          Development begins at conception and continues well past birth so any point along the spectrum is completely arbitrary.

        • Pofarmer

          idiot.

        • Greg G.

          When they are not inside another person is not an arbitrary point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Many church officials and antichoice Catholics now focus on the argument that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. This view, however, is based on faulty science from the 17th century, when scientists looked at fertilized eggs through primitive microscopes and imagined that they saw fully formed animal fetuses.

          The church hierarchy has since rejected the notion that a fetus is a fully formed person. In its most recent statement, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important Catholic theologians, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person.

          http://time.com/4045227/the-catholic-case-for-abortion-rights/

          Now, boor off ya know nothing imbecile.

        • Ameribear

          The human being must be respected – as a person – from the very first instant of his existence.”

          http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

          You are a pathetic joke and miserable failure.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “The human being must be respected – as a person – from the very first instant of his existence.”

          Bwaaahaahahaaha

          You are quoting the ramblings of some men in dresses as authoritative? I don’t give a flying fuck what you institution says about it, that’s your dish to eat from.

          You don’t get it ya fucking moron. You’re fuckwit institution is all over the parish on this issue. It can’t square the science with it’s antiquated ideas, so it has to fudge it.

          And get this, millions of your fellow Roman Catholics agree. So take it up with them.

          you are the pathetic joke, even in the eyes of your fellow coreligionists ya dickhead.

          21. The role of law is not to record what is done, hut to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person’s rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men’s hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.

          http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

          Pssst….how’s that shit been working out for youse?

          The miserable failure is yours, but you are just too stupid to get it yet. I’ve already won, so jog on.

        • Ameribear

          I’m quoting the source that show’s you’re an ignorant butt head who’s just made a colossal ass of himself. You have no idea of what a complete buffon you make yourself into when you post crap like this. You’re stupid enough to quote sources like Time magazine as authoritative on what the Vatican says and then claim to not care when what the Vatican actually says exposes you for the ignorant dumb-ass you really are. Brilliant.

          As usual the miserable failure is all yours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Let’s indeed not kid ourselves here. The inference is drawn that you, just like so many others here have to constantly resort to the soul straw man and attempting to change the subject because you know damn well you wouldn’t have to if you had any sound arguments for what you advocate.

          The soul straw man is that of the religious, forget about it, if it gives you a hard on and makes you happier, I couldn’t give a fuck either way. The fact remains, you are on the side with the least convincing argument, so suck it up. As for the arguments for abortion and pro-choice, you have been given them. That you don’t find them convincing is hard cheese. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and sing traalalalala. But get this, no matter how hard you try to ignore those arguments, they are the more convincing and are winning. Even among the ranks of your fellow Catholics. Sticks in the craw doesn’t it?

          Anytime you bring up anything mentioned nowhere in previous exchanges it proves I’m right and you’re a feckless boot-sucking lackey.

          Dream on Bozo. The soul at conception is the Catholic position. No soul, then it isn’t a person. If you knew the history of the RCC on this point, you’d know that the position has been fluid. But it doesn’t matter one jot. If your religious beliefs have nothing to do with your reasoning, so what, you are still wrong for all the same reasons. I don’t believe you that your religious views are not accountable for your fuckwittery, but if they aren’t, forget about the soul angle, you are still wrong. I’m just trying to work out the reason why you think the way you do, but now I can’t blame religion on your dopiness, perhaps it’s a mental issue.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then according to you’re jacked up logic, stress and inconvenience is an acceptable reason to intentionally end the life of another person. Hey, we’ve convinced the governments that it’s ok so what the hell!

          It must take some practice to be so dense.

          Let me try one more time.

          A rape victim made to take a pregnancy to term will suffer nine months of stress and inconvenience, but the overriding reason for a termination would be the fact she was a rape victim and should not be forced to have an unwanted baby.

          A woman carrying an abnormal fetus made to take the pregnancy to term will suffer stress and inconvenience from the time she finds out about the abnormality, but the overriding reason for a termination would be the fact that she is carrying an abnormal fetus that will be still born and unwanted.

          A woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy because of whatever to fuck reason she doesn’t want to be pregnant and is forced to take the pregnancy to term, will suffer from stress and inconvenience, but the overriding reason for a termination would be she doesn’t want a baby and the nine months of stress and inconvenience that comes with it.

          You do know what the morning after pill is, right?

          http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

          But hold on a wee minute.

          http://www.dw.com/en/the-church-and-the-morning-after-pill/a-16548688

          http://www.dw.com/en/catholic-bishops-give-cautious-nod-to-morning-after-pill/a-16617795

          Let the weaseling begin.

          Plan B apparently “does not affect pregnancies that are already established, so what’s really the point in doing a pregnancy test?” she asked. “It doesn’t seem to have a scientific validity to it in the way that Plan B, by all accounts, operates.”

          “If the Catholic church wants to put its abortion teaching, its pro-life teaching, in the best light possible, it really has to be accompanied by equally dedicated and aggressive attempts to help women,” she said. “Taking measures to prevent medically appropriate and legally mandated assistance to basics in the name of protecting the unborn — in ways that are indicated scientifically not protecting the unborn anyway — that just seems to undermine the pro-life stance of the Catholic church.

          “So I think politically it’s a really bad idea even in terms of the church’s own goals,” she added. “And practically, it’s a huge injustice to the women who have been raped.”

          https://www.ncronline.org/news/catholic-journal-says-plan-b-does-not-cause-abortions

        • Ignorant Amos

          What I said was that if a woman can legally have her unborn child executed because she wishes to avoid stress and inconvenience or any other reason for that matter then the rights of a class of human persons are intentionally being disregarded or revoked by the state. If you believe this then you must believe that A) the unborn human person is not yet a person or B) that it is a person and that the rights of another class of persons trump their rights. Either way you have to come up with a sound, well-reasoned defense of one or both of the aforementioned positions and so far you and everyone else here has catastrophically failed at that simple task. Try and keep up please.

          You keep banging this drum and it is getting tedious. I provided a well-reasoned defence with the link to a geneticist. You still haven’t demonstrated human person hood at the point of conception.

          Human life begins at conception. But not a human person.

          Thus those in the pro-life camp are correct in this argument. However, the argument does not end with this claim. Why? Because an entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, moral values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person. Consider, for example, if I scratch my arm, many thousands of living human cells will die. However, despite the fact that these cells were clearly “human” in terms of their structure and makeup and were clearly alive (in terms of metabolism, growth, organic complexity, etc.), no one would suggest we need a funeral for each cell that perished. In other words, there is clearly much more to being a person than having human DNA and being alive in the technical biological sense of the term.

          The whole argument is presented here…

          https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201508/when-does-it-become-person

          …but you either won’t read it, or won’t accept the argument as convincing. But it is what it is, your problem, not mine. Repeating that it hasn’t been provided is pure unadulterated lying. It is you that is refusing to keep up.

        • Pofarmer

          I may have even linked to this author in the past. There is one thing I take exception to, though.

          So, according to this logic, should we consider newborns persons in
          the legal sense? Yes and the reason is that their status as such is a
          function of their expected developmental emergence. In other words, we
          should consider them developing persons worthy of full rights and
          protections. Indeed, from the point of conception, the entity can be
          thought of as a developing person. The point of debate should center
          then on how much development needs to occur such that the individual has
          rights that warrant protection. My sense of this leads to me to the
          position that during the first trimester abortions should be safe and
          legal (and as rare as possible!) because the essence of personhood is
          very early and miminal. Beyond the first trimester, the developing
          person has developed enough so that legal and moral rights begin emerge
          such that protection is now warranted. By the third trimester, the only
          justification I could see for ending the life of an emerging person at
          this stage would be that it threatens the life of the mother (a fully
          emerged person).
          By birth, an infant is afforded the rights of
          personhood (even though he or she is not a fully functioning person).

          The bottom line here is that just because human life scientifically
          starts at conception, it does not mean that the legal and moral status
          of personhood should start at conception. If certain folks like
          Rubio have faith that somehow a soul is magically imparted into human
          DNA at conception, then they are free to live their lives based on that
          mystical notion. Our system of laws, however, should not be based on
          ancient faith-based notions, but clear scientific understanding that
          leads to an informed, morally workable framework for human
          exceptionalism and the developmental emergence of personhood.

          I think the other serious justification is for Fetus’s that will emerge severely deformed or will die soon after birth. This is a very common reason given for late term abortions. In fact, it seems like the main one that I’ve encountered. But, it’s pretty much a Red Herring, anyway, as late term abortions are exceedingly rare. Someone who has carried a fetus for 30 weeks is not just going to suddenly decide to have an abortion. It just doesn’t happen. And that’s what the Stats show us. 66 percent of abortions occur within the first 8 weeks. Less than 2% happen after 20 weeks.

          http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

          All these people wailing about “Babies being torn apart” don’t seem to realize or care that most abortions happen when the Embryo is about the size of a kidney bean.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I may have even linked to this author in the past. There is one thing I take exception to, though.

          Yes, but I’m attempting to show Ameribear that there is a volume of different perspectives on this issue, even on the pro-choice side of the debate.

          I think the other serious justification is for Fetus’s that will emerge severely deformed or will die soon after birth. This is a very common reason given for late term abortions. In fact, it seems like the main one that I’ve encountered. But, it’s pretty much a Red Herring, anyway, as late term abortions are exceedingly rare. Someone who has carried a fetus for 30 weeks is not just going to suddenly decide to have an abortion. It just doesn’t happen. And that’s what the Stats show us. 66 percent of abortions occur within the first 8 weeks. Less than 2% happen after 20 weeks.

          Exactly. One of the leading pro-choice campaigners for change to legislation here in NI is the victim of carrying a pregnancy with fatal foetal abnormality to term. The whole fiasco is some repugnant shit.

          The majority of people here want change, but it is the knuckle-dragging bible thumping creationists in government that are standing in the way of reforms. Why aren’t they voted out you might ask? Party politics as a result of Christian sectarianism is the answer.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/16/northern-ireland-strongly-backs-abortion-law-reform-survey

        • Pofarmer

          Well, “here” the “Pro-life” side of the debate is a reliable one issue voter. “Pro-choice” voters who are also fiscally conservative, or whatever, have ignored the “Pro-life” candidates as other issues have been more important to them and there wasn’t any real danger of the “Pro-life” agenda being codified into law in any meaningful way. That dynamic has changed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Both sides of the border in Ireland have yet to have pro-choice codified into law. Even the current legislation being challenged is not intended to result in pro-choice.

          Interestingly, the main Republican (not US type republican) party here, Sinn Féin, who predominantly represent the Roman Catholic population in NI, have changed their position on the abortion issue.

          Sinn Féin members are set to vote on the possibility of liberalising the party’s policy on abortion.
          A motion will be put to allow abortions in cases when “a woman’s life, health or mental health is at serious risk or in grave danger, fatal foetal abnormality and rape or sexual abuse”.

          Michelle O’Neill will back the motion which will set the party policy for both NI and the Republic of Ireland.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42024090

          The motion past at the party annual conference….

          The motion passed by the Ard Fheis states: “The party accepts the need for the availability of abortion where a women’s life, health or mental health is at risk, and in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and in the cases or rape or sexual abuse.”

          And the parties TD’s have been instructed that they do not have a free vote on an Irish referendum on the issue.

          https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-free-vote-for-sinn-fein-parliamentary-party-on-abortion-36332474.html

          Once that concession is made, the fetus life is no longer sacrosanct.

          Ameribear is fucked….he just doesn’t know it yet, or in total denial.

        • Pofarmer

          Well, we’re currently being dragged the other way in the U.S. We’ll see how it all plays out. One of the things in the new Republican tax bill is a line for Education savings accounts stating that you can start an account for an unborn child.

          “Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a
          designated beneficiary or an individual under this section,” the bill
          reads. The bill also defines what an “unborn” child is.
          The term ‘unborn child’ means a
          child in utero,” the bill says. “The term ‘child in utero’ means a
          member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is
          carried in the womb.’’

          http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article182395716.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s scary.

          I notice the article says “inserting ‘personhood’ language”, but stops short of actually saying unborn person.

        • Kodie

          What would happen if pro-forced-birth side gets their little treats, and women are forced to wait, to think, to deliberate, to decorate a baby’s room, paint it, get some kind of ultrasound or other invasive probe, travel to remote locations in their state or over state lines, be forced to wait 24 or 48 hours (or longer, they could see how that goes and just make it a whole extra week before they can return for the procedure), and then what? What would happen if abortions, through policy obstacles, tended to be much later on average, even to the point where someone might say “too late”.

          I seem to be the only one here saying I don’t mind abortions at all. I don’t want them to necessarily be rare. I think prophylactic birth control is a whole lot easier, but I want abortions and I want them controversy-free, rather than making sure they are rare and continue to be stigmatized. There is nothing wrong with having one! Why imply that there is something wrong with having an abortion?

          I’m really not sure how late I feel comfortable with still having an abortion. I know the more it looks like a real little baby, the more emotional the situation gets. The longer you are pregnant, the longer you think it may be fate, or some other shit. You could come to your senses, eventually, but the whole emotional idea that Ameribear and others that being pregnant signs you to an indelible contract could cause some women wait longer than they originally would have. I’m thinking of the kind of teen who is scared of her parents and ends up birthing at the prom and throwing the baby in the trash. Shouldn’t she have had some other way to prevent that from happening?

          That baby might never have existed, and that would have been ok, but it wouldn’t have been murder if she had access to an abortion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I seem to be the only one here saying I don’t mind abortions at all.

          I’m Spartacus too!

          But to demonstrate the ludicrous position of Ameribear and his beloved Roman Catholic woo-woo, the argument must be made in steps. When dealing with such fuckwits, that’s where the datum point has been set.

          Starting with his single cell human is a person asinine ballix and moving from there along the spectrum. We will lose folk on both sides as we travel along that spectrum for sure. But the starting point for me is to show that abortion is an acceptable procedure. As natural as a spontaneous abortion…or a mastectomy.

          I doubt there are any women who choose late term abortion because they just got to a point where they got fed up being pregnant and changed their minds. To my understanding, the ordeal of going through a LTA is very traumatic because the baby was wan’t. Ameribear can’t get that. But even if the pregnant women has just got fed up and wants it out of her for whatever reason, that should be her right. If, depending on the procedure type the fetus survives, then the state can intervene. If it does not, then it is what it is.

          Controversy free? Exactly.

          Furthermore, men like Ameribear should not be taking an active part in the decision.

        • Kodie

          I think for a pro-choice person to imply even subtly that there is some kind of problem with having an abortion is a wedge. There is nothing wrong with it, other than it is less convenient than other methods of preventing having a baby. There is no crisis, there should be no crisis for the woman emotionally, and to imply we should reduce the amount of abortions (a goal one would think pro-forced-birth would agree on), for any reason, either to make the situation less ambiguous for the woman or some kind of less icky philosophically, or whatever, means we’re not getting used to it and we’re always going to stigmatize it and it’s always going to be this hidden secret controversial issue. We have mostly gotten over buying condoms at the store – we no longer have to ask a clerk to get them from behind the counter, they are advertised on tv, etc. Same for some other birth control methods are advertised, but still have to see a doctor and fill a prescription. Having to walk through a protest line is probably not more fun than either of those, but that’s no reason to have a baby instead if it’s the wrong decision for you.

          I think they like to talk about late-term abortions from the position that they can’t ban abortions in any state in the US, but they can make it increasingly difficult and shameful to get an abortion, especially for the women without means to travel to another state, miss work, stay overnight, etc. Talks of invasive up-there ultrasound, waiting periods, painting a nursery, ideas to persuade a woman sentimentally out of abortion by religious guilt.

          Now, you get a woman determined to have an abortion from the beginning being made to save up money, go through all the hoops, and before you know it, it’s late in her pregnancy and she hasn’t changed her mind. Is she a monster if she still goes through with it? I realize it’s most common for women to get it out of the way before it becomes an ethical dilemma for them, but the way the pro-forced-birth angle gets in their way, they are adding to the problem. In addition to shaming women for “getting themselves in that position”, not willing to pay for their slut behaviors before they get themselves in that position, and not wanting to pay taxes for the welfare queens to have as many babies as she can take advantage of the system that way, of course one part of the whole campaign has to deal with what the woman will want when they have to wait too long in their state to get a legal abortion. In their ideal world, women wouldn’t choose abortions, and they can’t make abortion illegal, but they can push policy to stall a woman from getting an abortion until they’ve changed their mind out of guilt or waited until it’s too late to change their mind.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Having to walk through a protest line is probably not more fun than either of those, but that’s no reason to have a baby instead if it’s the wrong decision for you.

          Having experienced the rabid fuckwits myself while running the gauntlet of jeering placard welding holy rollers outside the Marie Stopes Clinic here in Belfast, I can empathise with a young woman who finds herself pregnant with no one to turn to because the world is full of bastards like Ameribear.

          It was about 24 years ago and my partner at the time was quite a bit younger than I. Not nearly ready to have a baby. Fortunately I had just come out of the army, so a bunch of gormless bullies were not about to terrorise me and by extension, her, so I escorted her to the clinic where they provided the details on how to go about sourcing a termination in mainland UK. Fortunately, I was in a position to fund the trip and procedure at a private clinic. Many woman do not have that support, many have no support, and many more fear a negative response from friends and family. It is a friggin’ disgrace altogether. The sooner things change, the better.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the born child is indeed entitled to a basic standard of care from someone from the moment of birth and the state, by acting in it’s proper role, has passed and enforces laws to that effect, then the basis of those laws is that the child from the moment of birth posses something that demands, under the force of law, that the child is worthy of receiving a basic standard of care and that before birth that very same child did not possess something that demands exactly the same thing. The onus is on you stump head, to explain what a born child posses after birth that requires it’s right to life be protected by the state, that it didn’t posses before birth and why.

          As BobS has written elsewhere, it is on a spectrum.

          Returning to the abortion debate, if self-reflective awareness and the capacity to justify is a key aspect of human exceptionalism, then it is immediately clear that a zygote or embryo is not a fully functioning person. Indeed, a potential problem emerges such that the essence of personhood from this perspective emerges much later in development. Even a newborn infant is not a fully functioning person in this sense. And, indeed, I would concede this point and argue that if a new born infant were the peak of human existence and consciousness, then humans would not be all that special. Indeed, I would presume that a mature lion like Cecil has a more complex mental life than a new born human infant.

          So, according to this logic, should we consider newborns persons in the legal sense? Yes and the reason is that their status as such is a function of their expected developmental emergence. In other words, we should consider them developing persons worthy of full rights and protections. Indeed, from the point of conception, the entity can be thought of as a developing person. The point of debate should center then on how much development needs to occur such that the individual has rights that warrant protection. My sense of this leads to me to the position that during the first trimester abortions should be safe and legal (and as rare as possible!) because the essence of personhood is very early and minimal. Beyond the first trimester, the developing person has developed enough so that legal and moral rights begin emerge such that protection is now warranted. By the third trimester, the only justification I could see for ending the life of an emerging person at this stage would be that it threatens the life of the mother (a fully emerged person). By birth, an infant is afforded the rights of personhood (even though he or she is not a fully functioning person).

          So far all you’ve come up with is “So fucking what? Their rights still don’t get to trump the rights of the pregnant woman…that’s a fact that you still don’t get” and World opinion, governments, ethics, and science, say it isn’t murder. so until they do, you can go fuck yerself.

          I’m only paraphrasing the the growing status quo, you don’t like it, but that’s your growing problem, not mine…I’m on the winning side.

          More fair-minded, reasonable atheist brilliance on display for us to marvel at.

          You seem to think this is some kind of an atheist conspiracy, and that nonsense alone makes you look the bug nutty batshit crazy fruitcake ya are.

          Who are all these atheists forcing US legislation on women’s reproductive rights? I’m intrigued.

          Do you think it is the clamouring voice of atheism that has called for a referendum on abortion in Catholic Ireland?

          Is it all the fair-minded, reasonable atheist brilliance that allows for the rights of the pregnant woman to trump those of the unborn child if her life is in peril, even in those places where abortion is still otherwise illegal?

          Wise ta fuck up Ameribear.

        • Greg G.

          It is not cold-blooded murder. It is the removal of something or someone who is taking nutrients from a person’s bloodstream, dumping toxic wastes into the bloodstream, and making physical changes to the person’s body without consent.

          Someday, it might be possible to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host into a willing host. I will expect all Catholic men and women who are calling it murder to become willing hosts. You should start making a list now of everybody who will bear and raise these fetuses.

        • Kodie

          Fuck that. I despise the day science spends a fucking minute trying to figure out how and then creating policy on transfering someone’s mistaken pregnancy to a willing host(ess). Better yet, if this ever fucking happens, male pregnancy should precede it! The problem with Ameribear’s shit and all pro-forced-birth fuckers, is that they think women got themselves into this condition and are forced to provide “basic care” through delivery, but being able to transfer it to a willing host means the original host can’t simply choose abortion, or that society would choose to keep these orphan fetuses in someone else’s uterus like a fucking factory of babies. Let’s be rational. We have laws where the government or any other agency cannot terminate some woman’s pregnancy against her will. If you say these abilities can allow government or any other agency to “terminate” one woman’s pregnancy and continue it in another woman’s womb, or some kind of robotic incubator, that’s tyranny. The thing is, it’s not a person. Trying to control women, even if it alleviates their pregnancy, if you make “being pregnant” the main complaint, is heinous. I mean, say a woman is cool with pre-adoption, and says, “I don’t want to have an abortion, but it’s cool with me if you transfer my 7-week embryo to someone/something else, so I don’t have to go through the pregnancy beforehand” well that’s consent. I just think the ability to do that will make it not only a diversion from the legality of abortion, but something the government might use to control women they don’t see as fit mothers, and nobody should be forced… just like now, nobody is forced to have an abortion, and nobody is forced (although socially and culturally, and somewhat politically coerced) to continue pregnancy. Nobody should be forced to give it away to someone or some agency. Fuck THAT.

          It would be much better if rational humans could get a grip on whatever is being lost here – nothing. NOBODY. Abortions don’t target populations, it’s pretty spread out. We’re not committing genocide amongst “micro pre-humans”. That’s not a class of humans. It’s not a cultural oppression of specifcally embryonic humans. If there are any class factors, lay that on the fucking Catholics and anyone else pro-forced-birth that poor women might seek more abortions than rich people, which I don’t actually think is true. They are prone to the guilt tactics of Ameribear et al, and prefer to raise their own children because that’s what society says makes a person matter. Blame religion for that kind of stigma or stigma-averse members of society who do the best they can with the children they produce, whether they can handle them or not, whether they are honest with themselves or not. People don’t want to give up their flesh and blood and are conditioned to lie to themselves about whether they can handle it or not, realistically.

          That’s why I think abortion should be not uncommon, not emotional, not guilt-racked. The earlier, the better, get it over with, don’t worry you’ll change your mind, don’t get emotionally attached. The other day again I was watching stupid Harry Connick Jr. show and Gene Simmons from KISS was the guest. He feels like telling women not to have kids because it will interrupt their career. Harry said all women were super women. Or something, yadda yadda yadda. GS says women who have children too early often miss out on their opportunity to have a career or interrupt their ability to make their own money, etc. It’s not just hard to have it all, it’s impossible. I wouldn’t know, I don’t have anything. The more I learn about mothers and parents, the more I’m glad to not have children and all the stupid shit you have to think about besides their actual immediate well-being, but thinking about their strategy, their recommendation letters, their enrichments, their absolutely fucking personal problems like being bullied, being a bully, being shy, needing special glasses, signing up for classes, holy shit. Kids at the age of 0 need to have some kind of life plan to make sure they get into a good medical school or whatever. Plus kids are annoying as fuck. No matter what you try to do for them, they want to be children, and you have to let them do that too. There is no person on the planet less interesting to talk to than a 9-year-old who thinks you are interested in whatever Pokemon bullshit they want to tell you about, but as a parent, you have to listen to that shit if you have any hope of them opening up to you about the important shit like sex, drugs, etc. As someone who is not their parent, I still have to put up with it, because? Otherwise, society sees me as a monster if I reject children conversationally from their selfish need to talk about their stupid shit, like there’s any reciprocity taught there.

          So yeah, having kids takes a lot extra than anyone should be expected to give because they had sex. Giving it away to someone who might be more willing (oh, yeah, sure – there are tons of people who think they want to have kids voluntarily, but can’t, but don’t even have the right perspective until they’re in it) should not be an option except voluntarily on the woman who is carrying. I know it’s unsavory, but shouldn’t that woman be compensated just like an egg “donor” is compensated? Just by the way, you see.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Good argument…won me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          One more time brain stump. Your advocacy for abortion forces you into the role of reserving the fundamental right to determine what constitutes a human person and who is entitled to the right to life.

          Sppoooiiiing!

          Of course you with your pro-life from conception whatever the consequences are not doing any of that. Wise ta fuck up, would ya?

          In the real world demanding to hold such an incredibly important office means you’d better be able to make a bullet-proof case for it.

          What part o/f the case is being made that you are struggling to understand? The legislation has/is changing all over the world because the more convincing case is being made and accepted. Get over it doofus, you are on the losing side, so pah!

          In spite of your deluded fantasizing about refuting my points, you along with the rest of your Reich here have bombed spectacularly.

          You can’t smell the coffee can ya, ya poor sorry goatskin. Pro-life is bombing is a reality, and it isn’t because all us atheists can’t produce an effective argument for the pro-choice position either.

          When I said I’m betting the farm that you’re no different, I never dreamed the payoff would be you exposing yourself as a champion for all the blood lust the human race has been forced to endure throughout history. Bravo!

          No different to who? All those millions of pro-choice Christians, many of whom are Catholics, whether in or out of the closet? Get over yerself already. Your desperation to put this issue you have with abortion at the feet of “cold-blooded, goose-stepping, murdering atheists” is not only embarrassing, but it is demonstrating to anyone reading that you are a narrow minded religious bigot and a dopey clown.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Many thanks once again for proving that atheism is total bullshit.

          And since this subject is not one of atheism, many thanks again for proving Ameribear is full of total bullshit bigotry.

        • Kodie

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most vulnerable
          members of society by the strongest members even though you think
          they’re both human persons. Congratulations, you’ve just justified all
          the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty
          tyrant to the present day.

          It’s nothing like cold-blooded murder, and they’re nothing like the most vulnerable members of society. You kind of have to be born to be a member of society, and you have to have sentience to be vulnerable. Before that, it’s a feelingless nothing. Kind of like you are now.

        • Ameribear

          The unborn are members of the larger set of the human race from conception. The society they are born into doesn’t impact personhood. You
          do not have to be sentient to be vulnerable. A comatose patient can be attacked and killed precisely because their state makes them very vulnerable.

        • Susan

          So you’re ok with the cold-blooded murder of the weakest and most
          vulnerable members of society

          No. Not providing your organs to even a sentient being is not murder. A cell is not even a sentient being. Good luck trying to build a murder case. Oh, I forgot. You don’t have to make a case. You just get to point fingers and yell “murder”.

          you’ve just justified all the genocides and holocausts committed by every single blood thirsty tyrant to the present day.

          Hey! Guess what genocides and holocausrs have in common? They are the active destruction of sentient beings. Not the choice to withdraw the use of your organs from a single cell. So, no.

          You believe that if you can just get enough people to go along with what you want, you can get away with doing whatever the hell you want

          No. He believes you’re losing the argument in countries where courts, medical ethics, human rights and such insist good arguments be made on these subjects. That’s where you’re losing ground. In countires where your church has political control, life is pretty shitty. For women, their children and the men who love them.

          The onus is on you stump head

          No. You are claiming a cell is a person. Without engaging in the subject of personhood in any way. You are pretending that a woman who chooses not to incubate that cell and eventually deliver it is a murderer.

          You haven’t shown it. You’ve dismissed sentientce without justification. ALL of your appeals are to sentient beings without exception. That’s cheating. You’ve also never made a case that anyone should be forced to donate their body to medical science even in death.

          You’ve pretended that starving or beating a born sentient being to death, a being that you’ve accepted responsibility for, is somehow connected to not incubating a cell.

          If that’s all you’ve got (and INDEED, it is the best you’ve ever provided), no one’s buying it.

          Address personhood and address biology. A cell is not sentient.. No person is obligated to provide their body to even another sentient being.

          Your advocacy for abortion forces you
          into the role of reserving the fundamental right to determine what
          constitutes a human person

          Your insistence that a woman is obligated no matter what the circumstances to gestate and deliver a single cell qualifies you for what?

          IA is not “advocating abortion”. He’s advocating reproductive rights.

          If there were an “abortion industry”, it would get rich on your church’s political efforts against effective birth control. Nobody “advocates” abortions, any more than they “advocate” hernia operations or chemotherapy.

          In the real world demanding to hold such an incredibly important
          office means you’d better be able to make a bullet-proof case

          Yes. If you’re going to proclaim that a non-sentient cell is a “person” and you’re going to accept bodily autonomy for everyone but impregnated women, you’d better get to work. You’ve made no case at all.

          Many thanks once again for proving that atheism is total bullshit.

          If you held your position for any other reason than that you believed one crazy supernatural story among gazillions across the globe and across the human history of crazy stories, you could make a case that would be convincing to those who don’t.

          But we know it’s about souls. ‘Cause Yahwehjesus. ‘Cause the RCC is the One True Church.

          You haven’t made a case for any of that. Just asserted it and flung poo when asked to support it.

          Just like you’re doing for single cells against bodily autonomy without engaging in either subject.

          I’m going to predict that you’ll ignore every effort to have a reasoned conversation about everything.

          And just repeat.

          Reasonable expectations based on prior evidence.

        • Sample1

          Reproductive rights. Why this can’t be acknowledged as foundational eludes me. Unless, one is in favor of thought crimes. Then it makes sense, if uncivilized.

          Mike

        • Pofarmer

          You just get to point fingers and yell “murder”.

          That’s pretty much become their whole shtick.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Nobody here is disagreeing with that, but your example is a non sequitur to the conversation.

          No one is autonomous when they are in control of the welfare of a child, regardless of their relationship to that child, so you are making a false equivalence. Being the mother is academic.

          Accepting responsibility for the well being of a minor trumps autonomy regardless of whether you are the mother, father, grandparents, Aunt Aggie, godparents, the Church, the state….whoever…once an entity accepts the responsibility for the well being of a child and they fail that due care and attention, they are being criminally negligent and subject to the law of the land. Embryos, or a fetus, are not in the same group. They don’t enjoy the same cover. A woman is not responsible for an aborted fetus through her neglect by smoking, drinking, taking drugs, sky diving, scuba diving, or whatever other autonomous activity she chooses…even up to term…she will not be charged with any crime because until the child is out of the womb and she has accepted it as her responsibility, she is not legally culpable. In exactly the same way as she is not culpable for a child perishing while under the care of others, i.e. schools, hospitals, day out with granny, or adoptive parents because she put the wee’n up for adoption, because she can’t cope. That is all different from all those negligent women in the link you provided, because they selected to take responsibility for the babies in their care, they were not like the women who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy who are not obliged to accept that responsibility, demonstrating that your example is pants and you are talking bubbles. Again.

        • Pofarmer

          Where have we heard this shit before?

          As does the House version of the plan,
          the Senate proposal includes a definition of an unborn child and
          stipulates that they are eligible for a college savings account.
          For
          the purposes of opening a 529 saving account, the text reads, “an
          unborn child means a child in utero, and the term child in utero means a
          member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is
          carried in the womb.”

          http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/senate-tax-bill-amendments-special-interests-industry-groups/index.html?utm_content=buffer263e9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

          T