Quote:That is certainly a take.

Yup merely having human DNA is not enough to be fully human

Quote:I do.

No you don't you don't give a fuck about them

Quote:I don't think of them as political tools for my ideology to be manipulated as an emotional trump card in an argument.

Good thing none of us are doing that it's your side who needs to use emotional manipulation to push ideology and as a trump card
 

Quote:P.o.s.

No you

Quote:"The number of people killed over the last two centuries in the name of secular ideologies has dwarfed by magnitudes those killed in the name of religion,

The fact anyone is killed in name of religion moots this point

(March 27, 2025 at 5:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @TheWhiteMarten

Quote:Absolutely; pre-natal care is an act that is going to require the government to take by force resources from one group of citizens and redistribute it to another group of citizens... that is to say, you are actively harming someone else without their consent to help others. 

ALL government actions require the redistribution of resources, you numbwit. It’s called ‘taxation’ and has been around for a minute.

If you want to object to your taxes helping to fund pre- and post-natal care, go right ahead and object to it. But bear in mind that your objection gives the lie to your claimed pro-child stance. You’re supporting an increase in miscarriage, sickly infants, infant death, and the death of women during childbirth.

Try thinking things through, you ignorant wretch.

Boru

His interesting takes on taxation huh

(March 27, 2025 at 6:44 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 4:00 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Alright, let's look it up together...

Wrong word,...I've underlined and emboldened it for you, try moving your finger more slowly over the screen, see if that helps you understand your straw man here. If that's too subtle note the word dehumanise is not in my post...lets try bullet points for you...

1. The word dehumanise is redundant, since I was emphatically and explicitly rejecting your claim it is scientific that a blastocyst or zygote is a human being. 
2. My description of a zygote or blastocyst is scientifically correct, I know, ironic right?
3. If it were a "human being" it would not justify granting it the right to use another human being's body against their will, even to survive. 
4. Despite your rhetoric, this is not a right we ever grant anyone, so why would we grant it to a microscopic clump of insentient cells? Will you ever answer this I wonder? I don't really, I know from previous exchanges how dishonest you are.

Your dealing with some who thinks your  purposing zygote or blastocyst are a separate species which is clearly a strawman. He's incapable of seeing the difference between something being genetically human and actually being fully human

(March 27, 2025 at 10:05 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 9:59 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Think of the women who were raped and the choice they had...

I do.

I don't think of them as political tools for my ideology to be manipulated as an emotional trump card in an argument.

P.o.s.

So, you are going with - they deserved it?

Let's hope no woman who is unlucky enough to be in your life ever suffers such.  It's obvious they have suffered enough.

(March 27, 2025 at 10:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(March 27, 2025 at 10:05 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: I do.

I don't think of them as political tools for my ideology to be manipulated as an emotional trump card in an argument.

P.o.s.

So, you are going with - they deserved it?

Let's hope no woman who is unlucky enough to be in your life ever suffers such.  It's obvious they have suffered enough.

I think he was implying he thinks of them I don't think he means they deserved it though knowing him that may very well be what he's implying

If you outlaw abortion, raped women who are unfortunate enough to get pregnant have no choice.

You can give the weasel a pass. I don't.

(March 27, 2025 at 10:49 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: If you outlaw abortion, raped women who are unfortunate enough to get pregnant have no choice.

You can give the weasel a pass.  I don't.

Fair enough 

Of course forced birthers tend to push the " But the fetus did nothing wrong " or the " Just kill the rapist " line as if either of those makes the women unpregnant with is the actual problem

(March 27, 2025 at 10:09 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:That is certainly a take.

Yup merely having human DNA is not enough to be fully human

If a fetus was only at a state of having human DNA you would have a solid point; sperm and eggs for example both have human DNA and yet are not considered a human, nor are hair floccules or skin flakes.

What separates a zygote and the later stages of fetal development from either sexual reproduction cells or the various components that make a human is that they have begun a roughly 9 month long process known as gestation; this process, unless either interrupted by outside trauma or genetic defect, will result in the birth of the infant and they will then begin their lifelong journey of developing and aging we all must go through.

"Fully human" - define this concept, because you cannot mean that in a scientific sense.

---

"Merely having human DNA is not enough to be fully human."

Go ahead and read that one back to yourself.