Republicans and evangelicals prove the position of "pro-life" is nothing but a myth

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
That's your problem. For all these years and your illogical posts, you don't understand what the discussion about human personhood is actually about. The entire problem is when does one confer rights to the conceptus. When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement? When did they decide when personhood begins? That's what you are getting at with your selective terminology of "human being." Whether something is human or not doesn't matter. A tumor has unique genetics compared to the human individual it was cut out of, does that make it a person? Of course not. Its about what defines personhood and when something should receive rights and protections.

Perhaps you should finally read what is written in Roe v Wade. It may surprise you based on what you continually post about the topic.
The biggest problem here is that the pro life people cannot be honest about what their position really is, even to themselves. Their argument is that human life begins at conception but they are clearly lying when they claim to believe this.

As I have said many times if you had a fire at a fertility clinic and someone is forced to choose between saving a 6 month old baby or trays of 100, 500, hell, a billion embryos they will (rightly) save the baby every time. If they actually thought those embryos were human lives with all the same rights and worth of anyone else they would take the embryos.

I sincerely do not understand why they expect us to pretend we don’t know they are lying.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
If they can extend so far as to kill an innocent, I'd say they extend too far.
And? You believe there is no such thing as bodily autonomy. Period. There's no gray zone whatsoever. You're ok with society compelling anyone to do anything. You made those statement, not me.

You might refer to your own post a few minutes ago.
I am clearly referring to your false dichotomy. Perhaps you should actually explain yourself instead of posting questions that make very little sense.

The point was that society can do those things. A pastor who gets arrested protests by invoking his first amendment rights, not by claiming autonomy. A first amendment claim is confined to the rules of the society the plaintiff agreed to join, whereas autonomy claims that the plaintiff isn't bound by society's rules in the first place, while still reaping the benefit of living in society.

Please point to me where the Constitution or any modern set of code of laws endorses that bodily autonomy can trump any societal rule or regulation. Talk about an inane strawman. Nobody has argued that bodily autonomy is absolute. The whole idea of the first amendment is based on freedom of oneself and others, but even that has its own limitations. Again, you demonstrate how little you've thought of this topic. You think it is a dichotomy of all bodily autonomy or none. You believe in none. Everybody else understands and recognizes it isn't a dichotomy, it is a gradient.

Despite your attempt to divert with an obvious strawman, why can society compel a quarantine in one post, but in another, the Catholic church is free to disregard?
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?
Ah the same illogical argument you always post, yet again. Can you point to me at what point during human development that it has been officially decided that personhood is conferred during pregnancy, and you have an "innocent" person with rights? When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement?
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,746
40,188
136
I don't care much about personhood. I care about what constitutes a human being, because that's an empirical question.

That's a pity, and it shows.

The Constitution deals with people, and people are born. It's been awhile since I went through the document in detail, but I don't ever recall seeing the word 'fetus' mentioned, maybe I'm wrong...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
The biggest problem here is that the pro life people cannot be honest about what their position really is, even to themselves. Their argument is that human life begins at conception but they are clearly lying when they claim to believe this.

As I have said many times if you had a fire at a fertility clinic and someone is forced to choose between saving a 6 month old baby or trays of 100, 500, hell, a billion embryos they will (rightly) save the baby every time. If they actually thought those embryos were human lives with all the same rights and worth of anyone else they would take the embryos.

I sincerely do not understand why they expect us to pretend we don’t know they are lying.
Exactly. And many of his and others' claims are based upon forming a conclusion, then going back and trying to find anything and everything to justify their position. Its why his posting style is nothing but throwing dirt at a wall and hoping something sticks. That's why Atreus21 posts are always slight changes of the same logical fallacy. One day he thinks a textbook decides when personhood is conferred. Another day it is a crappy survey from a PhD candidate. One day society can force anyone and everyone to do something. Another day its ok to defy society. One day Roe v Wade allows any and all abortions for any reason. One day posting photos somehow justifies his preformed conclusion.

People who are genuinely honest with themselves would actually sit down, read about the subject, understand the complex nuances that make up the discussion, and then form a conclusion about the subject. Instead, he resorts back to his performed conclusion without any meaningful analysis of how he made that conclusion in the first place. Hmmm, sounds like his Buttttttt Obama arguments...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kage69

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Please point to me where the Constitution or any modern set of code of laws endorses that bodily autonomy can trump any societal rule or regulation.

You might try the dictionary. Autonomy is defined as the right to self-government.

Talk about an inane strawman. Nobody has argued that bodily autonomy is absolute.

Then why can't we restrict it when it seeks the death of an innocent human being?

Despite your attempt to divert with an obvious strawman, why can society compel a quarantine in one post, but in another, the Catholic church is free to disregard?

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I didn't mischaracterize your argument.

At any rate, you acknowledge that the state is empowered to compel churches not to hold services during a pandemic like this, correct?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Ah the same illogical argument you always post, yet again. Can you point to me at what point during human development that it has been officially decided that personhood is conferred during pregnancy, and you have an "innocent" person with rights? When did all those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology, who previously were unable to arrive at any consensus regarding this, are now in complete agreement?

I didn't say anything about pregnancy. Just answer the question.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
The biggest problem here is that the pro life people cannot be honest about what their position really is, even to themselves. Their argument is that human life begins at conception but they are clearly lying when they claim to believe this.

As I have said many times if you had a fire at a fertility clinic and someone is forced to choose between saving a 6 month old baby or trays of 100, 500, hell, a billion embryos they will (rightly) save the baby every time. If they actually thought those embryos were human lives with all the same rights and worth of anyone else they would take the embryos.

I sincerely do not understand why they expect us to pretend we don’t know they are lying.

Well if you know we're lying, what use is it trying to answer your challenge honestly?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
You’re asking if we know you are lying what’s the use in no longer lying?

No, I'm asking what's the use in telling the truth to someone who's convinced you're lying? If you say you'll take me seriously I'd be happy to answer your challenge, again. But if you're going to accuse me of lying anyway, it's a waste of my time.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
You might try the dictionary. Autonomy is defined as the right to self-government.
Good grief. How does that statement mean that autonomy is absolute? This is about as dumb as your statement about "seasonal" vs "swine flu."

Then why can't we restrict it when it seeks the death of an innocent human being?
Nobody has said that bodily autonomy is absolute. Please quote me where I have argued it is absolute. Thanks.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I didn't mischaracterize your argument.

At any rate, you acknowledge that the state is empowered to compel churches not to hold services during a pandemic like this, correct?

So the only response after posing an obvious strawman, and you get torn apart for offering it, all you have to argue against my post is another question? I'm not the one running around telling everyone that bodily autonomy does not exist and society can compel anyone to do anything; and then magically another day, you run around contradicting yourself. Very weak Atreus21. Why bother posting if you cannot even defend your bad posts and horrible contradictions?
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
I didn't say anything about pregnancy. Just answer the question.
Moot question as I have already pointed out several times and you've purposefully avoided after several posts. You don't understand personhood, which underlies your claim of "an innocent human being." That has to be defined first. When are those rights and protections conferred? You repeating your question over and over demonstrate how little you've actually thought through your statement/question.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Moot question as I have already pointed out several times and you've purposefully avoided after several posts. You don't understand personhood, which underlies your claim of "an innocent human being." That has to be defined first. When are those rights and protections conferred? You repeating your question over and over demonstrate how little you've actually thought through your statement/question.

Are newborn babies "persons"?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
You’re asking if we know you are lying what’s the use in no longer lying?
I don't think it is accurate to say he is lying because I think he is telling you the truth as he sees it. What he is doing is lying to himself based on unconscious assumptions he does not realize he would prove false if examined. I do not believe that our self lying is under voluntary control, nor do I think he can be held responsible, or rightly put down for it. In my opinion Atreus is a highly moral human being who believes that life is sacred. It is only his assumptions about how that should translate into the real world that I find to be wrong. I think that liberals tend not to see this. I love him for his faith that life is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
I don't think it is accurate to say he is lying because I think he is telling you the truth as he sees it. What he is doing is lying to himself based on unconscious assumptions he does not realize he would prove false if examined. I do not believe that our self lying is under voluntary control, nor do I think he can be held responsible, or rightly put down for it. In my opinion Atreus is a highly moral human being who believes that life is sacred. It is only his assumptions about how that should translate into the real world that I find to be wrong. I think that liberals tend not to see this. I love him for his faith that life is good.

I do agree that a lot of this is them lying to themselves and not examining the obvious contradictions in what they are saying but still it seems pretty unfair of them to demand we pretend not to notice that.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Are newborn babies "persons"?
Define newborn. Given your post history in not knowing what was meant by ectopic pregnancy and other precise words, it is clear you don't define words in ways others do. Are you trying to say a neonate after parturition?

Anyways, perhaps you should read Roe v Wade if this is where you are going:

"We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."