Stupid things religious people say

[TheWhiteMarten]

The depth and breadth of the ignorance displayed by TheWhiteMartinet in this tread alone is truly fucking staggering. It boggles the mind that one person can be so fundamentally wrong on so many different topics.

Whatever you say, buddy.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Whatever you say, buddy.

Whatever you say, buddy.

[Paleophyte]

The crux of my argument is derived from the problem you described; that unending grey zone of human opinion and the philosophical defenses of them simply cannot be used as a basis for legal doctrine - unequivocally so when the topic at hand is human rights.

We thus then can only turn to one source - science. 

The notion that a fertilized cell is human in any but the most rudimentary and reductionists sense is the entire point; *all* humans, even those at the most earliest stages of their development, deserve the basic human right of life. 

That isn't scientific, kindly stop pretending otherwise. The notion that a single cell deserves the same rights as a fully developed human and that those rights should override the mother's is utterly preposterous. Let me give you a quick example. There's a fire in a fertility clinic and you're the only one who can possibly do anything to help. You have the choice of either (1) saving two infants in room A, (2) saving 20 single-celled cryogenically preserved embryos in room B, or (3) fuck them all, I have internet arguments to win!

I am again perplexed by this idea that women are so fundamentally ignorant of sexual intercourse that they don't understand the risks of pregnancy and how it always somehow devolves into, "Men bad, hurt men."

I'm equally perplexed that men can't figure it out but I'm certain that castrating a few will solve the problem. Think of the babies it could save!

[The Architect Of Fate]

I am again perplexed by this idea that women are so fundamentally ignorant of sexual intercourse that they don't understand the risks of pregnancy and how it always somehow devolves into, "Men bad, hurt men."

No ones ever argued women are ignorant about sex and pregnancy there knowledge of it is irrelevant to subject of abortion

[The Architect Of Fate]

The crux of my argument is derived from the problem you described; that unending grey zone of human opinion and the philosophical defenses of them simply cannot be used as a basis for legal doctrine - unequivocally so when the topic at hand is human rights.

We thus then can only turn to one source - science. 

The notion that a fertilized cell is human in any but the most rudimentary and reductionists sense is the entire point; *all* humans, even those at the most earliest stages of their development, deserve the basic human right of life. 

That isn't scientific, kindly stop pretending otherwise. The notion that a single cell deserves the same rights as a fully developed human and that those rights should override the mother's is utterly preposterous. Let me give you a quick example. There's a fire in a fertility clinic and you're the only one who can possibly do anything to help. You have the choice of either (1) saving two infants in room A, (2) saving 20 single-celled cryogenically preserved embryos in room B, or (3) fuck them all, I have internet arguments to win!

I am again perplexed by this idea that women are so fundamentally ignorant of sexual intercourse that they don't understand the risks of pregnancy and how it always somehow devolves into, "Men bad, hurt men."

I'm equally perplexed that men can't figure it out but I'm certain that castrating a few will solve the problem. Think of the babies it could save!

Oh but according to his partisan conservative  advocacy group it is ......

[Sheldon]

Yes, it is because the phrase is factually correct, since a blastocyst or zygote, is microscopic, it is a clump of cells, and it is insentient.

Cool; so what species does that blastocyst or zygote, microbic as it is, a clump of cells without sentience, belong to?

Oh so you're just going to roll past your lie that my factual statement describing a blastocyst, was rhetoric, I see. It says a great deal about your posturing here, that it requires constant sophistry, and outright duplicity. You also seem to have ignored a raft of questions, and my point about letting someone live by using the body of another against their will. Also the biblical references, and questions, all ignored. 

What species do your finger nail clippings belong to? Would you describe them as a human being? You claimed abortions involved killing children after all, that you either don't know, or don't care that this is an egregious lie, says it all. 

Now I will ask again, as you keep ignoring my question. You claimed abortions "denied a basic human right" "the right to life". Yet we never grant anyone the right to live, by using the body of another human being against their will. So if you think a blastocyst should have this right over the woman's body it is topologically connected to, and a part of, would you grant it to actual children after they are born, say forcing a father against his will to harvest his kidney to save the life of his child, if he was the only viable donor and refused to give it up?

The longer you dodge this question, the more I must infer that you realise your claim was facile rhetoric, but lack the integrity to acknowledge this fact, and the open mind to examine what that means for your position.

Now, do you think it was immoral when the deity you imagine to be real, tortured a newborn baby to death in the bible, or when it committed genocide using a global flood? Including all the pregant women of course, so much for the notion you care about the "right to life".

[Sheldon]

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

Oh I am dubious he thinks that at all, I think it was pure mendacity on his part. Rather than honestly address arguments that tear his own facile ravings apart like warm bread he is once again resorting to dishonest and vapid rhetoric. 

Lies for Jesus, is quite a common tactic I have seen religious apologists indulge many times.

[Sheldon]

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.

What has this to do with your lie that an abortion involves "killing a child"? 

Rather than removing a microscopic clump of insentient cells, which is what the vast majority of abortions involve?

[Sheldon]

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

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

Go ahead and read that one back to yourself.

It is a factually correct statement, unless you imagine the billions of cells we all shed daily are "fully human"? It's hard to imagine even you would push your mendacious facile rhetoric this far, but I would like an answer, just to be sure.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My toenails have human DNA. Does that mean my toenail clippings are fully human? If so, then they should be protected under human rights laws.

TOENAIL CLIPPINGS OF THE WORLD - UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CUTICLES!!

Boru