It's time for another Ask Asher thread

[giblets]

How exactly does an infant, "make decisions'?

Do you have nothing to say about the other ones? I think infants are completely different from early pregnancy fetuses.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have lots of other questions. I want to know how infants can make decisions.

You said personhood is binary, and then you rattle of a list of qualities, so you've contradicted yourself. My position is binary. Once conception has occurred, you have a person. That's it.

When do all these things occur in pregnancy?

How do you define them in such a way that they can be observed?

What about children that have some of these qualities but not others?

[giblets]

I listed some properties people generally have. I can't tell you precisely when personhood begins but I'm not going to accept Loki's Wager as a rebuttal.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't tell you precisely when personhood begins

I can. You see, this is why I feel my position is superior. It's open and shut. Why would I trade something that is an empirical observation, has been proven in a lab, makes scientific sense, and offers a clear determinant, for a laundry list of cobbled psychological artifacts?

[giblets]

I can. You see, this is why I feel my position is superior. It's open and shut. Why would I trade something that is an empirical observation, has been proven in a lab, makes scientific sense, and offers a clear determinant, for a laundry list of cobbled psychological artifacts?

Because zygotes behave like bacteria. Your opinion leads to an absurd conclusion. Because precision doesn't make an opinion accurate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because zygotes behave like bacteria. Your opinion leads to an absurd conclusion. Because precision doesn't make an opinion accurate.

There's no dividing line. Development is a continuum from conception onwards. Yes, it's a radical position, but it makes sense. If I were to take a snapshot of the whole process of growth from one cell onwards, this becomes readily apparent.

First off, behaviour is not intrinsic. A zygote will grow and develop in ways that a bacteria will not. This based on the intrinsic characteristics of the zygote imprinted at conception. We can easily distinguish between the two in a lab.

We have to start somewhere. Wouldn't it make sense that we would start as a single cell?

[giblets]

There's no dividing line. Development is a continuum from conception onwards. Yes, it's a radical position, but it makes sense. If I were to take a snapshot of the whole process of growth from one cell onwards, this becomes readily apparent.

First off, behaviour is not intrinsic. A zygote will grow and develop in ways that a bacteria will not. This based on the intrinsic characteristics of the zygote imprinted at conception. We can easily distinguish between the two in a lab.

We have to start somewhere. Wouldn't it make sense that we would start as a single cell?

Why would it make sense? All a single cell does is grow and divide. And I'm tired of hijacking this thread.

And if you want a definite, precise point, birth is a pretty unambiguous starting point.

[N35t0r]

edit: Xpost

BK:
No

[Ming]

As a proportion of the population, those with no faith at all are more likely to kill their children. So prolifers would be more effective going out into public than they would be staying with the Church.

But those with no faith kill the least number of babies. It's the damn Christians that kill most of the babies in the US. Targeting the Catholics alone would save over 400,000 babies a year. Catholics are simply a bunch of murders, even though they "claim" it's against their religion.

[giblets]

At least the nonreligious people aren't being total hypocrites when they have abortions.

[rah]

So picketing abortion clinics harasses women?

How about killing their babies?

If they're screaming and trying to stop woman that have already made up their mind, yes they are. What, you think a woman isn't going to be hurt by being called a murderer. It's classless, but what we expect from psychos of the faith. You're worse than muslims when you claim the rights you do.

Killing their baby has nothing to do with it. The woman has the legal right to do it. You may not agree but that's the law of the land. Put the effort into changing the law instead of harrassing some woman that is already in a bad spot mentally. But NO, everyone must agree with you or the law isn't right. You don't get to choose which laws to follow and which ones you don't. You get to legally protest but you have to keep your distance. I can't think of anything fairer but since you don't agree you think it's ok to break the law. No wonder you defend church punishment when priests break the law and molest children. It's not that big a deal for you.

Worse than the muslims. I love it when you heap abuse on them when you're just as bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

But those with no faith kill the least number of babies.

Not as a proportion.

Targeting the Catholics alone would save over 400,000 babies a year.

It's an argument, but I personally think it's more effective to go after the folks most likely to abort.

Catholics are simply a bunch of murders, even though they "claim" it's against their religion.

It is against our religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least the nonreligious people aren't being total hypocrites when they have abortions

Personally, I doubt most know they have a child in the womb.

[giblets]

Personally, I doubt most know they have a child in the womb.

Women get abortions without knowing there's a fetus inside them?

[rah]

His logic always surprises me