The main issue with Christianity

So anti-abortionists base it on theology.
Pro-lifers CAN base it on theology, but they need not do so. Even atheists can be very pro-life, and they have no theology to base that position on. Science and medical community standards of detecting the presence of life work just fine for them, and both of those things work just fine for me too.
 
Pro-lifers CAN base it on theology, but they need not do so. Even atheists can be very pro-life, and they have no theology to base that position on. Science and medical community standards of detecting the presence of life work just fine for them, and both of those things work just fine for me too.

Only theists think a fetus is a person. It is not rational.
 
Which I already addressed.
I asked yes/no questions, but I received answers other than simple yes's or no's. I'll try again:

If God created life (which we have already established as true), then does God have authority over life?

If God has authority over life, does that authority include both the creation of life and the destruction of life?

Your morality is such that you solve Euthyphro by merely decreeing whatever God does is good.
RAAA. (repetitive assertion already addressed).

I've officially lost my patience. From now on, every single repetitive assertion will be met with an 'RAAA' response and every single repetitive question will be met with an 'RQAA' response.

Ergo you have NOT proven the dilemma isn't real.
It is a false dilemma for the reasoning that I've already provided. RAAA.

So who established the Good that God does?
RQAA.

Sorry you are unable to understand this conversation. I wish you had more philosophy classes under your belt. It would be more interesting for me talking to you.
Mantra 12.
 
No difference.
Fine. I'll substitute those words then.

Only theists think a fetus is a [living human]. It is not rational.
Oh really?

[1] What species is the fetus if not human?
[2] What does the fetal heartbeat signify if not the presence of life?

Ergo, the fetus is a living human. And I didn't even need to reference my theism to arrive at that conclusion. I needed to only reference [1] science and [2] the medical community standard for determining the presence of life.

Once again, no theism needed.
 
Evasion. Answer the questions presented to you.


Irrelevant, and continued evasion. Answer the questions presented to you. Here they are again:

[1] What species is the fetus if not human?
[2] What does the fetal heartbeat signify if not the presence of life?

We are done.
 
I confirm the agreement up to this point.


No, I was talking about a 'living human'. A human fetus with a detectable heartbeat is a 'living human', right? If not, then:

[1] What species is the fetus, if not human?
[2] Does the presence of a heartbeat signify that the fetus is living? If not, then what does the presence of a heartbeat signify, and how does the fetus continue developing if it is dead?

It is my opinion...and the opinion of lots of people (I suspect a huge majority of Americans)...that a fetus is not a living human being. Questions about its "species" are irrelevant. It is a fetus.

In any case, it is a unique situation. The fetus is in the body of a single person...the woman in whose body the pregnancy is occurring...and that woman should have the right to choose to end the pregnancy.

You...and many others...disagree.

Fine. You will fight to have your opinion prevail...and I will fight to have mine prevail. We'll see who wins.


The first word (living human) is describing a particular state of life of a particular species. The second word (fetus) is describing a particular developmental stage of various species (including humans).

Stop this crap. A fetus is a fetus...a living human is a living human who at one time was a fetus. While it was a fetus...it was not a living human.



It is most definitely possible for a particular state of life of a particular species (E.g. living human, dead cat, living dog, dead cougar) to be in a particular developmental stage (E.g. fetus, zygote, toddler, adolescent, elderly). Or are you trying to tell me that this is not possible?

I am saying as clearly as possible that a fetus IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN. It is a fetus. And even if it were deemed to be a human...it would be a human in such a unique situation...as to not have the kind of right you want to grant it.


Interesting... so what species is the fetus the day before it is born, the day before it magically transforms into a human? Are you also telling me that the heartbeat of the fetus the day before it is born signifies death meanwhile the heartbeat of the fetus the day it is born signifies life? Please advise.

While it is still in the body of the woman in whose body the pregnancy is occurring...it is a fetus. Even if it were deemed to be a human (which it isn't)...it would be a human in such a unique situation...as to not have the kind of right you want to grant it.


What species is the fetus before it is born? Please advise.

It is a fetus of the species homo sapiens. So what?


So the species in each case is immutable, correct?

Yes. But so what?

So after germination/fertilization, a new oak tree, chicken, and human begin to develop, correct?

Yes, but so what?


Again, this is where you tell me what species the fetus is, if not human, and what a heartbeat signifies if not life. Please advise.

I have already done that above.


What would you consider the condoning/support of killing living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die, especially for the sake of conveniencing another living human, to be, if not shitty? Is that why you keep committing the special pleading fallacy?

The question of the fetus in the pregnancy occurring in a woman's body is so unique as to preclude it from having the kind of right you want to grant it.





I literally just answered your question by saying "I don't know", and you even acknowledged that answer. Now you claim that I'm "still avoiding the question"? How soon you forget! ;)

With apologies to Dr. R. D. Laing:

You are playing a game. The game you are playing is that of not playing a game. But those of us with a functioning brain see that you are playing that game.

I am enjoying watching you play it. I am especially watching how you cannot handle the frustration ensuing because it is so transparent.

hysterical-laughter.gif
 
I asked yes/no questions, but I received answers other than simple yes's or no's. I'll try again:

If God created life (which we have already established as true), then does God have authority over life?

If God has authority over life, does that authority include both the creation of life and the destruction of life?


RAAA. (repetitive assertion already addressed).

I've officially lost my patience. From now on, every single repetitive assertion will be met with an 'RAAA' response and every single repetitive question will be met with an 'RQAA' response.


It is a false dilemma for the reasoning that I've already provided. RAAA.


RQAA.


Mantra 12.

C'mon!

Get real!
 
We are done.
Aweeeeeee, wuddle baby BidenPwesident gonna swink away into the cowner and powt wike a wuddle cwy baby?

I'll give ya another shot at it:

[1] What species is the fetus if not human?
[2] What does the fetal heartbeat signify if not the presence of life?
 
Aweeeeeee, wuddle baby BidenPwesident gonna swink away into the cowner and powt wike a wuddle cwy baby?

I'll give ya another shot at it:

[1] What species is the fetus if not human?
[2] What does the fetal heartbeat signify if not the presence of life?

go fuck yourself
 
It is my opinion...
Science is not an opinion. You are choosing to deny science, and deny truth, because they both make you out to be a very dishonest and shitty person.

and the opinion of lots of people (I suspect a huge majority of Americans)...
Irrelevant. Science is not a popularity contest.

that a fetus is not a living human being.
"There you go again!" (as the late Ronald Reagan would say)

Once again, you are inserting words into the questioning that are quite simply not there.

Questions about its "species" are irrelevant.
The question contains the word 'human', which is the specific species that is being discussed. Questions about species are completely relevant in this discussion.

What is the species if not human? (you've already admitted to the fetus being human)

It is a fetus.
Yes, the LIVING HUMAN being discussed is in the fetal stage of human development.

In any case, it is a unique situation. The fetus is in the body of a single person...the woman in whose body the pregnancy is occurring...
What's unique about that situation? It happens all the time upon pregnancy.

and that woman should have the right to [kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die in order to convenience another living human].
A REALLY shitty position to take if you ask me... especially because you quickly dive away from it the very moment that YOUR life is the subject of discussion...

You...and many others...disagree.
Irrelevant. Science is not a popularity contest.

Fine. You will fight to have your opinion prevail...and I will fight to have mine prevail. We'll see who wins.
Science is not an opinion or a fight.

Stop this crap.
Now you're sooooo angry that you're referring to science as "crap".

A fetus is a fetus...
... and a tugboat is a tugboat... and a mosquito is a mosquito... and a light is a light. VERY GOOD!

a living human is a living human
... and a dead cat is a dead cat... and a living porcupine is a living porcupine... and a dead fly is a dead fly... VERY GOOD!

who at one time was a fetus.
Correct (as living human has been defined here).

While [the living human] was a fetus...[the living human] was not a living human.
Interesting...... How does THAT work, exactly?? Please advise.

I am saying as clearly as possible that a fetus IS NOT A LIVING HUMAN.
Clearly as possible?? hahahahaha You have outright rejected logic at this point to continue running away from the truth.

[1] What species is the fetus, if not human?
[2] What does the presence of a fetal heartbeat signify, if not life?

It is a fetus. And even if it were deemed to be a human...
One of your countless paradoxes at this point... You've already admitted the fetus to be a human, but now you are denying it... Which is it?

it would be a human in such a unique situation...
What is soooooo unique about a sperm joining an egg, forming a zygote, forming an embryo, forming a fetus which eventually exits his/her mother's womb upon birth? Seems to me to be the common way that human childbirth occurs, eh?

as to not have the kind of right you want to grant it.
Irrelevant.

While it is still in the body of the woman in whose body the pregnancy is occurring...it is a fetus. Even if it were deemed to be a human (which it isn't)...it would be a human in such a unique situation...as to not have the kind of right you want to grant it.
You have now resorted to chanting repetitious phrases in an effort to ward off the science and truth that you so desperately hate. Doesn't work that way, dude...

It is a fetus of the species homo sapiens. So what?
Continued paradox. Now you're back to claiming that the fetus IS a human, after claiming that it isn't, after claiming that it is, after claiming that it isn't... ... ... WHICH IS IT?!

Yes. But so what?
Yes, but so what?
I have already done that above.
Continued paradoxes... Continued evasion of the questions asked of you.

The question of the fetus in the pregnancy occurring in a woman's body is so unique as to preclude it from having the kind of right you want to grant it.
Continued chanting.

With apologies to Dr. R. D. Laing:

You are playing a game. The game you are playing is that of not playing a game. But those of us with a functioning brain see that you are playing that game.

I am enjoying watching you play it. I am especially watching how you cannot handle the frustration ensuing because it is so transparent.

hysterical-laughter.gif
Projection.
 
But you were calling a fetus "very young." A fetus IS NOT a living human.
If you weren't being intentionally dishonest, your misunderstanding could be correct with a little education in short order; however, dishonesty precludes you from learning, no matter how much information you receive. I'll let you demonstrate this in your own way.

Human fetuses, human infants. Human toddlers, human teenagers, human adults, middle-aged humans and human senior citizens are, in fact, all humans. All those with a heartbeat are living.

An acorn is not an oak tree. A chicken egg is not a chicken.
An oak seed (acorn) and a full grown oak plant (tree) are very much both oaks. It is not the case that one is somehow of a different species from the other.

A chicken embryo (in the egg) and a chicken adult are very much both chickens. It is not the case that one is somehow of a different species from the other.

Here's a freebie for you. A maggot is a fly, even though it can't fly.

Does this new information, which corrects your previous misunderstanding on which your erroneous conclusions were based, alter your conclusions any?

You avoided those questions. I suspected you would.
Pot calling the kettle black. You EVADE all my questions. Those you do answer you answer with contradictions and/or outright lies.
 
Back
Top