Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
Aw, I want an answer to how and when the soul develops. All sorts of important implications there.
This world has suffered for millennia because of people like you forcing your insane fantasies onto us as law. We're finally beyond it. We're not going back.
So, souls are there from the moment of conception? But, other organisms do not have souls...or at least some do not. Single celled organisms presumably don't.
So at some point, humanity evolved souls. Are all humans guaranteed to have souls? What about the other species of humans that previously existed, did they have souls? Was there a transitional creature, which had some members have souls, and some did not?
Going back a bit, lots of conceptions don't lead to a live birth, so should there not be a huge religious kerfuffle about that?
(Actually, probably better that there isn't)
So at some point, humanity evolved souls. Are all humans guaranteed to have souls? What about the other species of humans that previously existed, did they have souls? Was there a transitional creature, which had some members have souls, and some did not?
Going back a bit, lots of conceptions don't lead to a live birth, so should there not be a huge religious kerfuffle about that?
(Actually, probably better that there isn't)
The thing you need to understand is that, to me, everything you believe is pointless. My mind does not distinguish between the things you actually believe and these "stupid" questions because to me they are the same thing. Your job, as someone who wants to tell me and everyone else how to live their lives, is to actually demonstrate the value of your position in a way that does not rely on the arbitrary assumptions imposed by your own beliefs.
I'm bored of you just repeating over and over again that a fetus is a person while doing nothing to make that position accessible to anyone who doesn't already believe it. That isn't relevant to me.
Which you also think is killing.
Oh sorry, I forgot it's not killing if the people doing it are sad.
Still, I guess we answered the question of who decides the exception..
Again, I really, really need you to understand that your beliefs mean nothing to me. I do not secretly believe everything you believe and am not pretending otherwise for the sake of perversity. I think what you believe is stupid. I think believing that a fertilized zygote is equivalent in value to a fully developed human being is stupid. I don't believe in or care about souls. I care about the material reality in which we live, and in that reality there is very little difference between a zygote and any of the skin cells I shed today, or if DNA matters in this moral equation for some reason any of the abnormal precancerous cells my immune system has destroyed. You have provided nothing that would challenge this in any way. All you have done is to repeat this same statement that a fetus is a person over and over again and act incredulous when anyone points out that that's kind of stupid.
A fetus might gradually become a person over time and at some point it becomes necessary to make the judgement as to when that line has been crossed. But a zygote is not a person. You can believe that it is important and you can believe that it is morally wrong to kill it. Those are irrational statements which, while arbitrary and unprovable, are nonetheless entirely consistent and reasonable to believe. Claiming that a zygote is literally a person is meaningless. It's as nonsensical as claiming that bacteria are people because they are "alive".
Last edited:
Yes, they very much are a continuation of this... the death rates are no where near as high and you can't legally whip them to death. They were so much worse
Those prison are very much trying to turn the clock back 100 years
Well yes, but also no. The body is the aspect of a human being subject to the restrictions of time and space. A soul can't be there, it's not a physical object to be anywhere, and it isn't affixed in time to be there at any specific moment even if it could. So there is a soul for you at conception, but it's not like a ghost hiding inside the single cell.
You owe all of science to people like me, most of your views rest in superstition anyway, and none of the talk about souls is dictating laws.
Again, you seem to think your inability to understand something is a point against it. Logic is not subject to the limitations of your mind.
If you were an honest and intelligent person, you could think of dozens of differences off the top of your head without me saying a word. I suspect you make the active choice not to, as you'd rather not know those differences when they hurt your argument. I am, however, open to the possibility that you are entirely honest and just rather dull.
Being unable to understand stupidity is not the read you think it is.
In order for me to understand you, I need to know your reasoning. If there is no reasoning then it's pointless to try and understand. If you're just going to repeat that fetuses are obviously people while getting increasingly mad that noone is blown away by your genius, then I see no benefit in trying to understand you. You can't even conceive of the possibility of authentic disagreement, what understanding do you think you are owed?
Of course I can. What I can't lower myself to attempt to understand is why those differences are somehow more significant or important than the vastly, vastly more profound and obvious differences between a zygote and a human being, compared to which there is very little difference between a zygote and a skin cell.
But then, I am not burdened by the compulsive need to validate my own regurgitated beliefs. I want to be wrong. Being wrong is a chance to learn. But I'm not stupid enough to think there's anything to be learned here.
I wonder how the religious pro life crowd feels about the incredibly high rate of miscarriage in the first trimester. God must be kind of a dick, giving those cells a soul at a stage where they can "die" with noone ever even knowing they existed.
(20% rate on known pregnancies with an unknown number of occurrences in undetected pregnancies.)
(20% rate on known pregnancies with an unknown number of occurrences in undetected pregnancies.)
I'm neither mad nor expecting you to be blown away by my genius. I'm saying the things that matter, because this next part:
I doubt you genuinely want to be wrong here, but your far more important priority is that I am wrong. At this point, whatever I say, you will say whatever it takes to oppose it. The more I state of my reasoning, the further you push away reason itself. The only way to actually convince you of anything now is to make you do it yourself.
Therefore: you are being too lazy or dishonest to understand me. Make me wrong.
I'm not one for trying to predict the future of how something will play out when it comes to morals. I will be for a law that enables choice for the beginning of pregnancy but if you had a gun to my head and I had to pick what was morally right (and there was a clear right answer), I think I'd answer abortion is morally wrong (outside of most circumstances most everyone agrees it's OK). And, I'm not at all religious, I've never been to a church outside of like weddings and funerals.
It doesn't matter if covid mandates aren't a thing now. The point is they were and people got fired over them, students couldn't go to school, etc. For the students being forced not only the vaccine but the boosters as well is just completely anti-science, they were forced to take a medical intervention that overall did them more harm than benefit. A kid couldn't go to the SCIENCE museum in California if they didn't get the booster. The covid vaccine at no point (not then, not now) has ever been shown to provide community benefit. A mandate shouldn't have ever been a discussion (let alone mandate) until that was proven in some manner.
Would I prefer that abortion dont happen? Yes. Would I want to force women to carry just because I dont like abortion? No
Yes, it absolutely does, and the mandate needed to happen and people should be fired if they are going to be so reckless with other people's lives
The answer, if you are at all interested, are in those two questions
Here's the mantra for both these issues. You can do whatever you want, but when it hurts someone else, there needs to be laws
Just to make sure we are clear here
The vaccine mandates ARE like banning abortion. You've just had it backwards
The mother is the one following the anti-abortion mandate. Just like workers had to follow the vaccine mandate. (There were also slight exception to both)
The person being affected is the fetus in the abortion issue and the person who gets sick if you don't follow the mandates
Nominally, we should not be making people do things. We should not need to stop any pregnancy or make anyone take a vaccine
But we DO because it can hurt another person. That's way I'm in favour of TEMPORARY mandates until we have herd immunity and TEMPORARY allowance of abortion til about half way through the pregnancy
The vaccine mandates ARE like banning abortion. You've just had it backwards
The mother is the one following the anti-abortion mandate. Just like workers had to follow the vaccine mandate. (There were also slight exception to both)
The person being affected is the fetus in the abortion issue and the person who gets sick if you don't follow the mandates
Nominally, we should not be making people do things. We should not need to stop any pregnancy or make anyone take a vaccine
But we DO because it can hurt another person. That's way I'm in favour of TEMPORARY mandates until we have herd immunity and TEMPORARY allowance of abortion til about half way through the pregnancy
If we go from the moment of conception, it is actually much, much higher. How much higher seems to be debated to some degree as most spontaneous abortions occur before the point they become detectable. In total, somewhere between 50% and 75% of embryos don't survive.
None of what you are saying matters. It might matter to you because you already believe it, but it's irrelevant to me because I don't. Your task, if your intention is to convince me that what you believe matters, is to explain why you believe what you believe in terms that are accessible to me as someone who does not share those beliefs.
I don't think you can do that though, because I don't think any of your opinions is actually the product of rational thought. I think you simply regurgitate what you have been told by people you see as authority figures and occasionally attempt to retrospectively shore up the failures in what you have already decided you believe, and thus I think telling me why you believe the things you believe would actually be deeply embarrassing for you.
I don't need you to be wrong at all.
It would cost me absolutely nothing to concede a point to you if you had one to make. You seem to believe that everyone is like you, that we cling to our worldviews for dear life because our sense of self would fall apart without them, but in my experience most educated and intelligent people aren't like that. The problem is that you seem to think that what you believe is far more reasonable and persuasive than it actually is.