Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

In the way I am using the terms, the unborn is neither vulnerable nor innocent, or at least no more so than a cabbage or a corpse. Would you call either of them vulnerable or innocent?

Rape victims are both vulnerable and innocent. Obviously not all women are rape victims. Some are however, compared to no unborn children.

As I said, the argument is specious, a sideline to the real issue. Typically, all you can address is the specious sideline.
So why do you compare a woman with a cabbage? Can you not tell the difference?
What is a woman ?
 
So what nothing.

I know what both sides claim. What do YOU claim? Who is innocent and venerable, say you? Why?

Dude, seriously? This is as ridiculous as when you attempted to compare the issue of abortion as a religious issue with religious dietary laws. Yes, the issue of abortion is just like Friday abstinence from meat, or the Jewish kosher laws. :rolleyes: Let me tell you something: If Joe Biden was pro-life---he can go right ahead and eat meat on Friday in Lent. My point? Some issues are far more weightier that others. I assure you--Biden is not going to get into heaven becasue he struts about with a Rosary and a Bible, is very best excellent friends with Pope Francis, and abstained from meat on Friday during Lent. No one does.

You sound like Sonya Sotomayor-who apparently doesn't know the difference between a corpse and a living person either. Inanimate objects are harmless, to be sure. But they do not have rights becasue they are not persons. A corpse is an inanimate object. A fetus on the other hand is a child at a certain stage of development. Now, you, sir, can be excused for not knowing this, a SCOTUS justice should be able to tell the difference. I mean---we are talking the SCOTUS here. How does someone get on the SCOTUS who doesn't know the difference between a corpse, which is dead, and a fetus which is alive? Well, then again, you have lawyers who, when asked "What is a woman" reply "I am not a biologist. I cannot speak to that." As if you have to have a PhD in human biology to know the difference between a man and a woman. You also have people who think men can get pregnant. So I guess I should not be surprised when you cannot tell the difference between a corpse and a fetus.

Funny thing with abortion supporters: they think animals should have rights. In the state of New York, it is illegal to get you cat declawed becasue declawing cats is cruel. No it isn't--but the point is that cats have more rights than actual people in New York. If we can give animals rights, why not unborn children?

Why should location have anything to do with personhood? What makes birth the definitive marker? What was that person just prior to birth? Why should we NOT consider it a person just becasue its location is the womb?

Yeah---if you cannot tell the difference between cabbage and a fetus, sure it isn't persuasive.

Then again, you banging on and on about "women's rights" "healthcare" "choice" "freedom" blah, blah, blah, isn't persuasive either--becasue those are red herrings.

If a fetus isn't a person no one would care about abortion.

Well, that and sentience. A cabbage is alive but not sentient. Also, while a fetus is not yet able to reason, it has the capacity to reason--which is what makes it different from a corpse, cabbage, or animal.

Actually, my argument is that a fetus should not be murdered becasue a fetus is a person.

Yeah--you and Justice Sotomayor.
No idea who Justice Sotomayor is, so comparing me with them is rather lost on me.

Without wasting time, I see that you agree with me. Notions of innocence and vulnerability are useless without resolving the central question of whether or not an unborn child is a person. We are as far apart as ever on this, and likely to remain so. I reject your argument as completely as you reject mine. I find your argument ridiculous, insulting and faulty, just as you think the same of mine. Throwing insults around doesn't help either of us. We can either have a sensible discussion around the subject of personhood, that doesn't assume the conclusion from the start, or we can agree to differ. I'm easy either way.
 
No idea who Justice Sotomayor is, so comparing me with them is rather lost on me.

Without wasting time, I see that you agree with me. Notions of innocence and vulnerability are useless without resolving the central question of whether or not an unborn child is a person. We are as far apart as ever on this, and likely to remain so. I reject your argument as completely as you reject mine. I find your argument ridiculous, insulting and faulty, just as you think the same of mine. Throwing insults around doesn't help either of us. We can either have a sensible discussion around the subject of personhood, that doesn't assume the conclusion from the start, or we can agree to differ. I'm easy either way.
Person is just a word Temujin. Calling the unborn a person or foetus doesnt change the fact its a human being. Facts dont care about your feelings. So your argument doesnt have any validity
 
No idea who Justice Sotomayor is, so comparing me with them is rather lost on me.

Without wasting time, I see that you agree with me. Notions of innocence and vulnerability are useless without resolving the central question of whether or not an unborn child is a person. We are as far apart as ever on this, and likely to remain so. I reject your argument as completely as you reject mine. I find your argument ridiculous, insulting and faulty, just as you think the same of mine. Throwing insults around doesn't help either of us. We can either have a sensible discussion around the subject of personhood, that doesn't assume the conclusion from the start, or we can agree to differ. I'm easy either way.
Well, yeah, I would say we agree.

I mean--when you cannot tell the difference between a cabbage and a fetus, a corpse and a fetus, it is--sort of difficult to have a sensible discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Person is just a word Temujin. Calling the unborn a person or foetus doesnt change the fact its a human being. Facts dont care about your feelings. So your argument doesnt have any validity
It's a word that is central to the issue of abortion. If you want to use a different word with the same meaning, go ahead. A person is human, born, alive. What word meaning the same would you prefer to use?

Or do you just want to assume the conclusion as I suggested you might?
 
Well, yeah, I would say we agree.

I mean--when you cannot tell the difference between a cabbage and a fetus, a corpse and a fetus, it is--sort of difficult to have a sensible discussion.
Oh I can tell the difference. It seems that it's you that cannot. You have heard of analogy before, haven't you. But as I say, throwing insults gets nobody anywhere.
 
It's a word that is central to the issue of abortion. If you want to use a different word with the same meaning, go ahead. A person is human, born, alive. What word meaning the same would you prefer to use?

Or do you just want to assume the conclusion as I suggested you might?
The word isnt central because the unborn human being is a human being regardless of what word we use.
 
Oh I can tell the difference. It seems that it's you that cannot. You have heard of analogy before, haven't you. But as I say, throwing insults gets nobody anywhere.
Why did you say you couldnt? Clearly both of us can, whats wrong with you?
 
The word isnt central because the unborn human being is a human being regardless of what word we use.
But, I'm not talking about human being, unless you think that human being is the same as person. It isn't, since by definition an unborn human being is not a person.
 
But, I'm not talking about human being, unless you think that human being is the same as person. It isn't, since by definition an unborn human being is not a person.
But the offspring is a human being so.why arent you talking about it?
This is the problem with you and the woke ideologues, the debate doesnt just get framed by feelings.
 
But the offspring is a human being so.why arent you talking about it?
A corpse is also a human being. Human being is a necessary but insufficient condition to being a person. So is being alive. So is being born. Talking about one condition and ignoring the others, is not sensible. Particularly when that isn't the condition that's disputed.
 
Oh I can tell the difference. It seems that it's you that cannot. You have heard of analogy before, haven't you. But as I say, throwing insults gets nobody anywhere.
So you can tell the difference between a cabbage and a human being but you compare a cabbage with an unborn human being.
 
A corpse is also a human being. Human being is a necessary but insufficient condition to being a person. So is being alive. So is being born. Talking about one condition and ignoring the others, is not sensible. Particularly when that isn't the condition that's disputed.
So corpse is a dead human being just like an aborted human being. But a cabbage isnt even human.
 
But, I'm not talking about human being, unless you think that human being is the same as person. It isn't, since by definition an unborn human being is not a person.
The human being is the same entity whether you call it foetus and we call it person. Its irrelevant. Its just a way you concoct to pretend the human being is less than fully human.
 
So you can tell the difference between a cabbage and a human being but you compare a cabbage with an unborn human being.
I do. They share a number of characteristics, including a substantial portion of DNA. And the fact that neither is a person, and hence cannot be, in the sense that I am using the terms, either innocent or vulnerable.
 
The human being is the same entity whether you call it foetus and we call it person. Its irrelevant. Its just a way you concoct to pretend the human being is less than fully human.
Nope. You are confusing the terminology. An unborn human being is less than fully a person. You are just try to concoct an argument that they are the same.
 
I do. They share a number of characteristics, including a substantial portion of DNA. And the fact that neither is a person, and hence cannot be, in the sense that I am using the terms, either innocent or vulnerable.
Does the human being at foetal stage share any DNA with the same human being at adult stage? How can one not be a person then?
 
Nope. You are confusing the terminology. An unborn human being is less than fully a person. You are just try to concoct an argument that they are the same.
No its the same human being. A man who calls himself a transwoman is the same man, and a man, and the human being is the same human being whatever stage of its development.
Your are deluded
 
Does the human being at foetal stage share any DNA with the same human being at adult stage? How can one not be a person then?
Being a person is not determined by DNA, or a cabbage would be a person.
 
Being a person is not determined by DNA, or a cabbage would be a person.
So why mention DNA? But you get the point that a human being is a human being whether you call it a person or.not and a cabbage is a cabbage whether you call it a person or not. Person is irrelevant
 
Back
Top