re: The next time a pro-abortion zealot denies that status, show them this.

Duuuude, sorry to bogart your thread.

quote:

---

Sounds like the “primary function” might be “to have fun,” with reproduction being a side-effect.

---

So society has dictated....

If you're rationalizing the mechanical/chemical dismemberment of a human fetus for the sake of birth control (literally), then your determination that the primary function of sex is pleasure is the least surprising thing I'll read all day.

quote:

---

So society has dictated....

---

Western society has dictated a nuclear family, too. I don't see any of you jumping at the chance to oppose that.

quote:

---

Ag Zwin

---

Not often that one sees someone trying to kill his own thread.

quote:

---

I am disappointed. This is the first cheap and intentionally disingenuous point raised during this civil discussion. We have been discussing the point at which rights VEST, not the removal of already-vested rights.

---

That's all fine for you and the other posters you've had a discussion with up until this point, but I'm not them and I might not make the same concessions they've made.

Philosophically speaking, why should an organism maintain its rights when what's essentially been used to define them as a person (being self-aware - for example) is no longer applicable, even if it's only temporarily so?

Pointing to rights already vested is simply saying "there's this cool system that man created that says we shouldn't be allowed to remove rights without due process." Ok, cool. That's just pointing out a system that's in conflict with the question above, it does nothing to provide an answer to that question.

Moreover, there are notable examples of human adults that do not have the mental facilities necessary to be self-aware. These notable examples cause notable problems, namely, can I go up to one of these organisms (not using the term people to adhere to your stance) and, using giant forceps, start yanking them apart?

And that's not the only issue. Say I were to destroy a nest of turtle eggs from an endangered species. Philosophically speaking, have I done something wrong? Using your line of thought, the organisms in those eggs lack something essential about being a "turtle" and therefore aren't a "turtle" and shouldn't have protections that "turtles" have. Maybe you can argue that if an animal is "endangered" then we should even protect potential versions of that animal. But that has implications for humans as well. If we became "endangered" would a woman's right to choose just vanish? Why?

It seems reasonable that what constitutes a person is a relatively stable definition, and doesn't need all sorts of different standards and caveats to work in different contexts that in essence aren't really all that different.

quote:

---

So, basically, it's off topic (hijacking) to disagree with the OP?

Glad the totalitarians are only on the left...

---

Good lord, dipshit.

A) It was a joke. Do I sound like I am seriously complaining?

B) A thread with over 200 replies, but only 11 of them to the OP is not all that indicative of the thread disagreeing with it.

One of the posts above was right. Some of you need to go watch YouTube videos of kittens playing.

It's just a prank bro, but also...

quote:

---

A thread with over 200 replies, but only 11 of them to the OP is not all that indicative of the thread disagreeing with it.

---

quote:

---

Some of you need to go watch YouTube videos of kittens playing.

---

Waiting for the battery on my electric chainsaw to finish charging before cutting some limbs on a willow tree I should have removed when it was much smaller.

But thanks for the concern

I knew he'd come through.

quote:

---

Waiting for the battery on my electric chainsaw to finish charging before cutting some limbs on a willow tree I should have removed when it was much smaller

---

.

I hope that willow isn’t anywhere close to your foundation or pipes. Nasty, aggressive roots on those buggers.