XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.abortion   
   From: Non@Jtheist.net   
      
   In article ,   
    MarkA  wrote:   
      
   > On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:07:59 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:   
   >   
   > > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:00:04 -0500, MarkA wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> I asked this of an anti-abortion/forced-birth/pro-life poster in another   
   > >> thread, and never got a reply.  I sincerely would like some input from   
   > >> someone who believes that life starts at conception   
   > >   
   > > PMFJI, but... if life *doesn't* start at conception, it must presumably   
   > > start earlier, before sperm and ovum ever meet.  In the sense of life   
   > > meaning "all living things", sure, but the specific life?  No, I think   
   > > that cannot be sensibly argued to come _before_ conception.   
   > >   
   > > Of course, the issue here isn't when life starts, but when _personhood_   
   > > starts, at what point a pair of cells go from unassociated spermatozoon   
   > > and ovum to a legally-recognized individual with the rights we grant   
   > > people in our societies.   
   > >   
   > >>, and first/second   
   > >> trimester fetuses have a "right to life".   
   > >   
   > > Here's a quaint little notion: there is no such thing as a right to life.   
   > > As a simple example, explain to the guy who just fell off a cliff how his   
   > > "right to life" means a damned thing to anyone, including him. It doesn't.   
   > >  "Right to life" is hogwash.   
   > >   
   > > What you have is the right to not have your life wilfully taken from you,   
   > > barring extraordinary circumstances.  Among those circumstances are that   
   > > you're a traitor or murderer (in places where the death penalty applies   
   > > for those), or you're brain-dead (in places where they take the sensible   
   > > path of pulling the plug in hopeless cases).   
   > >   
   > >> A fertility clinic fertilizes an egg, and allows it to divide once.  The   
   > >> two daughter cells are separated, and one is frozen.  The other is   
   > >> allowed to continue dividing, and is eventually implanted into a woman's   
   > >> uterus, where it grows to term, resulting in a healthy baby and happy   
   > >> parents.   
   > >>   
   > >> So, what *is* the other cell?  Is it a separate person, who has his/her   
   > >> own "right to life"?  Or, is it just a cell, discarded from the person   
   > >> who has already been born, as we shed cells all the time?   
   > >   
   > > Well, this is the issue, isn't it?  Here's another they dislike intensely,   
   > > since most of them derive their anti-choice stance from the Bible and   
   > > other god-addled nonsense: if abortion is immoral, how is it that so many   
   > > spontaneous abortions occur - which is to say, how come it's okay when   
   > > "God duzzit"?   
   > >   
   > > It's fun to watch them waffle on about nonsense such as "well, the potter   
   > > can do as he likes with his pot, no?" neglecting to note that this argues   
   > > in favour of the mother ("potter") doing as she likes with her "pot".   
   > >   
   > > It's all nonsense, of course.  If there were a sane and rational argument   
   > > in the lot of them, they'd have trotted it out ages ago, but like their   
   > > other god-addled kindred, the creationists, it's all just "God duzzit" and   
   > > "God wantsit" and "God saysit" and derivations of the like, with the very   
   > > occasional "no actual reason, just don't do it" tossed in here and there.   
   > >   
   > >> If it is its own person, why wasn't it its own person if it weren't   
   > >> separated?  Are we all actually 100,000,000,000,000 separate people,   
   > >> sharing the same body?   
   > >   
   > > The usual argument made is that no, doesn't count, because those "don't   
   > > have the potential to become a person".  One suspects they've never heard   
   > > of cloning.  Or DNA.   
   > >   
   > >> If it is not its own person, would it become a person if thawed, and   
   > >> allowed to develop into a new fetus?  That would imply that personhood   
   > >> is something that comes with a certain degree of development, which the   
   > >> pro-lifers deny.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > What "pro-lifers"?  Hell, I'm all for life, I think it's grand.  That   
   > > frothing pack of mouth-breathing loons aren't "pro-life", they're anti-   
   > > choice, as is readily demonstrated by examining what they do in terms of   
   > > support for the spawn *after* it's been whelped.  What's that?  Not a   
   > > damned thing, it can barking well die for all they care?  Yes, well, "pro-   
   > > life" my great-aunt's sainted arse.   
   > >   
   > > Don't expect a sane answer from them; there *is no* sane way to answer the   
   > > question you pose, without shooting one's own foot - and most of the leg -   
   > > off in the process.  You'll most likely get "it's a person at conception"   
   > > or equivalent... but then ask again about why it's okay for God to kill   
   > > 'em off by the millions at that stage, or why they haven't commenced   
   > > kidnapping or similar procedures against the cryo operators, and you'll   
   > > have enough comic relief to last you a decade.   
   >   
   > Thanks for your input.  As you noted, the silence from the pro-choicers is   
   > deafening.   
      
   You must mean the anti-choicers, since Kelsey's statement is clearly   
   pro-choice.   
      
   --   
   Science is based directly on objective physical evidence,   
   and nothing that is not based directly on objective physical evidence   
   can be science.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)