If you don't want to have a conversation, then don't have one. Why come into a thread and tell me to shove it with my nuanced arguments? What is the point? Just don't read the thread or block me. A fetus isn't capable of full cognition, and isn't conscious. Those are actually facts. They are quite central to my opinion and not nuance. The issue is really that you disagree with my opinion. The opinion itself is no dogmatic and certainly not devoid of thought.
You might have sleep apnea. Which means there's a chance you might someday require a machine to assist your breathing or you could die in your sleep. I no longer consider you viable.
I find it interesting that he dismisses science as being able to make a true delineation, but then uses one of the more prevalent scientific delineations (the one I have used here independently many times) when describing what he thinks. Not necessarily contradictory, I suppose.
I gathered that the point was that the beginning of human life is a somewhat squishy concept without a good scientific definition but with numerous scientifically relevant points all competing for primacy. It makes more sense to pick one of those than it does to pick something that isn't an important threshold, but science isn't holding your hand and telling you which one to pick.
As I watch my wife going through her first pregnancy, it is harder and harder for me to understand people drawing the line anywhere after #12 or #13. It's even harder for her to understand it, as she feels what's going on inside it. Personally, I'm not confident in my judgment as to which one is really the beginning of the human life, but I'm waffling between #3 and #7. Although I definitely take a "if you're unsure whether it's life or not, don't take actions that will kill it if it is" stance.
I don't care if you have a conversation. I said your typical dogmatic leftist approach to issues as you make fun of people here for their lack of nuance is pathetic. Full cognition is another fabrication for your argument. You sound like the idiotic lefty sites out there. Consciousness as a valid factor in the debate is crap too. The baby is at some point conscious in the womb or it isn't at birth either. If breathing makes the baby conscious, you might have an argument, but you don't. You're either willing to sacrifice babies to satisfy your crusade or your arbitrarily changing your mind on worthiness to live. Neither is good for you. There is no debate that your nuance garbage you toss out to pretend you're somehow more educated or more intelligent than the rest of us here is washed up. You're full of crap.
I feel like you and I are discussing two different things, then. I'm talking about personhood. Is it a person?
but this is 180 out from the dogmatic political silliness about women and their "rights" I don't even give a crap about the issue, but it pisses me off to no end with either side of it pretends it is the only side educated about the issue.
That's pretty much where I am. If it will eventually emerge as a child if left alone to do so, then let it, I say.
**** "nuance".... Some issues really are simply black or white, right or wrong, on or off. There are absolute truths out there but nowadays declaring such is frowned upon by many...
I like how on this forum I'm accused of making everything black and white, AND always making nuanced arguments. I must be doing something right.
I can relate to that... When both sides accuse you of being a part of the "other side" you know you're on to something...
IMO, many do. Bible says that you shall be subservient to me; what about that do you not understand Woman.
