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

quote:

---

It is ok to murder people in comas according to you.

---

So much for a pleasant evening of intelligent discussion. The dayshift has arrived, and the shitposting has resumed.

That sentence specifically references the VESTING of legal rights.

If you bothered to read my posts, you would know that this is quite the opposite of my position regarding rights which have already vested.

quote:

---

In about what percentage of the time does the use of, or attempt to use, a condom fail to prevent a pregnancy?

quote:

---

Deflection noted.

---

---

Where do you see a deflection?

You said that abortion is a result of people “ not taking responsibility for their own actions.“

Ridder referenced the situation in which the actor was behaving entirely in a responsible manner by wearing a condom, but the reasonable protection failed.

How in the world do you see it as a “deflection“ to assert that in such instances a second “line of defense“ should be available? Or even a third?

I design an airplane, and I incorporate every mechanical safety feature known to the human mind to prevent it from falling out of the sky. Is it your position that I should be prohibited from including a parachute as well, in case the mechanical features fail? I mean, I decided to fly. If the plane falls out of the air, I should just live with the consequences, right?

quote:

---

I cannot speak for DB, but I see the philosophical concept of “personhood” as being closely tied to the legal concept of vesting of rights. And I see both arising from a combination of sapience and self-awareness.

Philosophically, it just makes no sense whatsoever to me to vest legal rights in an organism which is not even aware of its own existence. (The constitution addresses the question of LOSING “personhood,” an issue which always arises. To summarize, personhood/rights cannot be removed without due process of law.)

This time, I really am going to bed. My eyelids are drooping. Everyone have a nice night.

---

This is all simply bullshite. The fact that you have to play linguistic gymnastics to dehumanize the unborn just illustrates the depravity of the position you support.

Abortion kills little babies. Just simply admit that, and that you don't care. Try to be intellectually honest for once.

quote:

---

I design an airplane, and I incorporate every mechanical safety feature known to the human mind to prevent it from falling out of the sky. Is it your position that I should be prohibited from including a parachute as well, in case the mechanical features fail? I mean, I decided to fly. If the plane falls out of the air, I should just live with the consequences, right?

---

If the failure rate of the plane you design equals the failure rate of condoms, I’d suggest parachutes would be in order.

quote:

---

Indeed

---

I get that personal responsibility us hard. Self-control is really difficult when you’re bombarded daily growing up that it’s no fun, so why bother.

It was extremely difficult for me, but I did. Raised two girls who didn’t start having kids before getting married. Want to talk about difficult that is today?

quote:

---

Early term abortion kills a pre-sapient fetus that does not yet even have the physical capacity for higher brain function, in order to respect the rights of a sapient and self-aware pregnant woman who does not wish to endure the burden of pregnancy and perhaps motherhood. I can live with that, every damned time, without losing one millisecond of sleep over it.

Satisfied?

---

Again, a chicken shite answer. A bunch of subjective verbose shite because you know what you support is so evil you won't even say it.

Every single abortion kills a person. You might think it makes you an intellectual to invent criteria which decides who is a person and who isn't. My point is every true villain in history did the same thing.

My position is so simple that even Dr. Seuss understood it. A person is a person, no matter how small. You can write all you want about how shallow my objective science based view is, but I can say exactly what I support without veiling it behind a massive word curtain.

quote:

---

My analysis of a complex, multi-faceted issue will seldom fit on a bumper sticker, and I am unlikely to base my personal philosophies upon the rhymings of an author of books written for pre-schooler children.

---

That is all hubris. Your analytical conclusion can be simply stated as 'killing babies is ok'. You know how evil that is, so you nuance it into something you find palatable. That doesn't make you intellectually superior. It makes you full of shite.

quote:

---

Why would I need access to a dictionary when you insisted that you had answered my question about how you define a person?

---

Because you seem to be focused solely on the definition, rather than what it actually means to the discussion.

quote:

---

I think it's telling you've done your best to avoid giving a definition thus far.

We could have avoided all this pointless back and forth had you only given your definition when I asked for it.

---

The only thing it's indicative of is your inability and/or unwillingness to have a good faith discussion.

quote:

---

I'm trying, but you won't even answer a simple question on a word's definition.

---

I did answer it.

I'm sure the abortion fence-sitters in fly over country read that exactly the same way you do.

quote:

---

That isn't something that I control.

---

So again, and unforced error by the women's march. The right will make hay with it and some will be swayed. They should stfu and stick with the "safe and rare" argument that actually works.