Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Fallen Prophet]

Irony overload...

Explain exactly how I engaged in ad hominem.

 

[Sheldon]

Why not present your case - explain why my claims are "unsound" and not "well considered"?

You equate abortion with murder, even when it is demonstrably not, and it has been explained that murder is defined as unlawful. So poor argument / reasoning, based on errant and emotive claims - 1

You keep describing a balstocyst, zygote or foetus as a child, based on errant emotive petulance, rather than on any biological facts, so again poor reasoning - 2

You insist an insentient blastocyst should have rights that would effectively enslave women, by taking away their bodily autonomy, you say you don't care, as if what you care about is a more sound rationale that what others care about - 3

You have refused to properly address scientific evidence that demonstrate a foetus remains insentient in the womb, and lacks the neural connections even in late development to feel pain - 4

You have failed to explain with anything beyond bare assertion and emotive sophistry why an insentient clump of cells should have rights that would effectively enslave a woman - 5

You have refused to address the evidence that a blastocyst, zygote and foetus remain part of a woman's body, topologically connected, using the woman's immune system, metabolism and her blood to get nutrients and oxygen - 6

You use facile claims like an insentient blastocyst or foetus is innocent, which given it is insentient is pretty meaningless, and again a flawed emotive argument - 7

In countries where abortions are illegal, the rate of abortions is often higher, and though there are undoubtedly other variables to consider, it's still an important fact you simply refuse to properly address - 8

It has been explained that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce abortions, is proper and timely sex education, and free access to contraception, but you refuse to acknowledge this fact because your arguments are based on religious dogma, not pragmatic or moral considerations for the wellbeing of women - 9

Whilst others are happy for any who doesn't like abortions to never have one, you refuse to reciprocate and allow others the same choice - 10

You keep implying a foetus blastocyst or zygote can suffer its own termination in any meaningful way, but offer nothing but inaccurate appeals to emotion to support this flawed rationale - 11

You claim to care about an insentient clump of cells, but this evaporates when they become a fully sentient human being, who can suffer physical and emotional pain and trauma, and who has formed emotional attachments to others, and is a unique individual and not an insentient part of the body of another - 12

That's 12 flaws in your rationale that leap out.

The bottom line is you want to choose how others use their bodies, when you would never allow this if it was you who was being dictated to in such a way. You're allowed an opinion, and beliefs, but there is no moral or legal justification for forcing those onto others.

 

[Sheldon]

Irony overload...

Explain exactly how I engaged in ad hominem.

I never mentioned ad hominem.

 

[Darkstorn]

Obviously and it's not surprising.

Those who engage in reprehensible behavior tend not to describe their behavior as such.

You could and many people have.

Correct - which is proof that you engaged in ad hominem.

More ad hominem.

You are trying to use the claim that I am angry to undermine my position.

Well this post is proof you don't know what an ad hominem is.

And also that you're upset for some reason.

Those who engage in reprehensible behavior tend not to describe their behavior as such.

Wait a minute, are you describing my behavior as reprehensible? In response to me saying I disagree with you definition?

That's kinda funny.

 

[74x12]

If we're allowed to strip away rights from religions we think are sick now, then I have some other ideas about how to use this newfound power.

Take a moment to reflect on any beams in the eye of your own church and then ask yourself if this a road you want to go down.

I didn't say anything about stripping rights. I just pointed out that it's a sick religion that supports sacrificing your kids.

But there is no right to harm others even now for religions. You may have a problem with what you think I believe; but I don't believe in hurting people.

 

[ppp]

Than you agree that @Darkstorn engaged in abusive ad hominem attacks - because the sources I quoted from would support that statement.

Only if you ignore some of the words.

Considering that I am seemingly unaware of your position - this shouldn't be a surprise.

I have talked about "bodily autonomy" on this thread already.

You seem to be confused about what you claim to know. In one breath you claim that you do know my position well enough to have "talked about [it] on this thread already" and in another, you are "seemingly unaware".

Which is it?

No. I believe what I have shared is sufficient and you are unwilling - or unable - to challenge them.

Well, you are wrong. All you have presented are bald assertions. Not the reasoning behind them. Moreover, the statements that you asserted in your previous posts literally have no logical connection. Even if the two premises were absolutely true, and the conclusion were absolutely true, there is no logical connection between the them. And by no logical connection, I mean that:

• Your have no identifiable major and minor premise.
• You equivocate on the use of the word created. For the mother and the father you mean are endowed with the role of. For the child you mean manifests as an extant being. Equivocation is just punning, and while I like a good pun, puns are lies, and so cannot be used to support an assertion or position that you claim to be true.
• Your conclusion contains terms that are not in any premise, and there for CANNOT logically follow. This is not a matter of whether or not the conclusion is true. It is that the premises cannot be used to support a conclusion that contains terms not in the premises..
• You run afoul of Hume's guillotine when you try to derive an ought from an is. Can't be done.
• You equivocate (again) with the word murder. You attempt to conflate an immoral killing with an illegal killing.

Also, you do not start with premises on which we both agree. If I do not accept your foundation, then you will get no where.

Human life begins at conception.

A mother, father and child are created at conception.

Killing not-yet-born children is murder and should be avoided.

Killing not-yet-born children is murder and should be avoided.

The only conclusion that follows from your "argument" is:

1. A person's life begins at the moment of conception.
2. At least two people become parents at the moment of conception.
3. Therefore at least two people become parents to a person's life at the moment of conception

 

[ppp]

you cannot assign it rights that take away a woman's bodily autonomy

But they want to try really bad.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes - many people.

Nineteen States do not require doctors to provide care to children that survive "abortions".

If a child survives - they just leave him/her alone until he/she "expires".

Are you suggesting that in these rare cases, nurses and doctors are just abandoning these babies, like how? Just chucking them in the corner until they die or something? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Notice how even in your misquote that you provided, the guy said " The infant would be kept comfortable ... "the infant would be resuscitated" ... or did you miss that? That's not the same thing as leaving "him/her until he/she expires."

No - it is exactly the same.

No, it isn't. See above.

I was fully aware of what he was talking about when I quoted him.

If a child is born - no matter how deformed or supposedly "non-viable" - every effort should be made to keep the child alive.

I don't think you realize what we're actually talking about here.

“Abortions that occur at this stage in pregnancy are often the result of tragic diagnoses and are exactly the scenarios wherein patients need their doctors, and not obstructive politicians,” says Dr Jennifer Conti, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University. “Asking a woman to carry a fatally flawed pregnancy to term is, at the very least, heartbreaking. I’ve often heard women say that they chose to end such pregnancies because of unselfish reasons: they couldn’t bear the thought of putting their fetus through even more pain or suffering.”

The agony of ending a wanted late-term pregnancy: three women speak out

"To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance," she said. "I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible."

What It’s Like To Get An Abortion At 32 Weeks

The "desire" of the mother does not matter - the child has been born - he/she checks off all the arbitrary items on the "pro-choice" activist "checklist" of what constitutes a person in need of medical care.

Which the infant would receive and be kept comfortable for as long as it lived.

You cannot justify murdering him/her anymore.

Who's saying it should be murdered? The quote is talking about keeping him/her as comfortable as possible, given the horrific situation and pain the infant would be experiencing. And the discussion with the parents has to do with how they'd like to proceed after the child has perished, because that's what often happens to severely deformed infants, who are already suffering greatly.

What if a mother brought in her eight-year-old child - do doctors need to find out her "desire" in order to treat that child?
What if she doesn't want the eight-year-old resuscitated?

Refusing to try to save the child is infanticide.

How is that even remotely the same thing???

Nothing has changed.

You're trying to say that these infants are "murdered" with a misquote you provided, when in actuality, the full quote talks about resuscitating (if necessary) and keeping him/her comfortable until he/she perishes.

I misinterpreted nothing - I'm just not looking for reasons to murder children - unlike you and other "pro-choice" activists.

I'm not looking for any reason to murder anyone.

What I'm looking for his PEOPLE TO HAVE RIGHTS OVER THEIR OWN BODIES WITHOUT OTHER NOSY BUSYBODIES GETTING ANY SAY IN IT. It's not your business what someone else does with their body. Go take care of your own body.
You want to afford special rights to blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses that we don't even afford to fully developed, living, breathing sentient human beings that have already been born. The rights of the woman don't seem to have any bearing at all to you.

A child being deformed is no reason to refuse him/her proper medical care.

Who said proper care shouldn't be given?

A child being considered "non-viable" is no reason to not make the attempt to resuscitate him/her.

Who said it was?

Yes - they do - which is why it happens all over the country.

Northam believes that a child is only worth saving if his/her mother wants him/her.

That's your interpretation from your misquote.

No - you clicked "Reply" - and then completely ignored the fact that I put "after birth abortion" in quotes and immediately labelled it (infanticide)
You left out my calling it infanticide in your response.
.

I didn't ignore it at all. I addressed it directly. Hence this conversation we're having right now.

There was need to make it clear since you ignored it and made it seem like I believed "abortion" could occur after birth.
You failed to mention that I called it infanticide.

That's exactly what you're implying. And you've said as much here. You think people are murdering infants that survived abortions.

Your entire comment was about you not understanding my comment.

This entire conversation is about you misquoting someone, thus misinterpreting what they meant and then implying that doctors are murdering infants who survived abortion.

You intentionally mischaracterized what I said.

I quoted both you and Northam accurately.

Nope, and nope.

You're just going to ignore the fact that Heyo was the one who started the whole "capitalist" approach?
Did you also admonish him?

It's irrelevant who brought it up. Your comments speak for themselves.

And what do you believe this "elucidates" about me in general?

That women are baby machines. That we shouldn't be in control of our own bodies, and we need people like you to involve yourself with that because we're just too gosh darn selfish and stupid to decide what we do with our own bodies. That you have any say whatsoever in what I do with MY body.

Man - you used "elucidate" twice - one of those "Word a Day" Post-It notes?

Do you want a cookie for knowing what it means?

No - you don't - because you just disparaged me for referring to women as "suppliers" and the babies they create as a "product".

Huh? So that means I don't think women should control their own bodies ... how?

That is disrespectful to all the women out there who decide to supply the demand for babies with their bodies.

LOL

Why do you hate women?

And - do you even know what a woman is?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Well this post is proof you don't know what an ad hominem is.

So - you are saying that - despite your personal attacks against me - that you agree with my views on "abortion"?

And also that you're upset for some reason.

Even if I were - that has no relevance to my claims.

I would argue that your name calling, refusal to directly challenge my claims and your attempts to assassinate my character in an attempt to discredit me showcases how upset you are - not to mention immature and unbalanced.

Wait a minute, are you describing my behavior as reprehensible?

Yes - making personal attacks against someone in lieu of an actual argument (ad hominem) is reprehensible.

In response to me saying I disagree with you definition?

No - that is delusional behavior.

That's kinda funny.

It's been a barrel of monkeys.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Only if you ignore some of the words.

Not ignored - interpreted correctly based on the totality of the evidence.

You are ignoring all the sources I have provided and focus on only a couple words.

You seem to be confused about what you claim to know. In one breath you claim that you do know my position well enough to have "talked about [it] on this thread already" and in another, you are "seemingly unaware".

Which is it?

The "thread" is everything spoken in the OP - not any single discussion.

I do not believe that I have discussed "bodily autonomy" with you - but I have discussed it on this thread.

I don't know your position and I keep asking you to share it, but you keep...not sharing it.

Well, you are wrong. All you have presented are bald assertions. Not the reasoning behind them. Moreover, the statements that you asserted in your previous posts literally have no logical connection. Even if the two premises were absolutely true, and the conclusion were absolutely true, there is no logical connection between the them. And by no logical connection, I mean that:

• Your have no identifiable major and minor premise.
• You equivocate on the use of the word created. For the mother and the father you mean are endowed with the role of. For the child you mean manifests as an extant being. Equivocation is just punning, and while I like a good pun, puns are lies, and so cannot be used to support an assertion or position that you claim to be true.
• Your conclusion contains terms that are not in any premise, and there for CANNOT logically follow. This is not a matter of whether or not the conclusion is true. It is that the premises cannot be used to support a conclusion that contains terms not in the premises..
• You run afoul of Hume's guillotine when you try to derive an ought from an is. Can't be done.
• You equivocate (again) with the word murder. You attempt to conflate an immoral killing with an illegal killing.

Also, you do not start with premises on which we both agree. If I do not accept your foundation, then you will get no where.

The only conclusion that follows from your "argument" is:

1. A person's life begins at the moment of conception.
2. At least two people become parents at the moment of conception.
3. Therefore at least two people become parents to a person's life at the moment of conception

As I claimed earlier - I did not present one or three "arguments" - I never claimed that they were "connected" or that one "followed" the other.

I stated my positions and my reasons for sharing them.

All this above is more of the BS I was referring to earlier.

Human life begins at conception. A child is created at the moment of conception. A mother and father are created at the moment of conception.

Any and all excuses you would use to justify murdering the not-yet-born child can and has been used to murder already-born people.

If you think about all the criteria that is considered when judging if a killing is a murder - you realize that "abortion" is the only exception to that criteria.

 

[Darkstorn]

So - you are saying that - despite your personal attacks against me - that you agree with my views on "abortion"?

Nope.

Even if I were - that has no relevance to my claims.

I'm not trying to be "relevant to your claims." I'm specifically avoiding engaging with your so-called claims. I think they're a joke.

I would argue that your name calling, refusal to directly challenge my claims and your attempts to assassinate my character in an attempt to discredit me showcases how upset you are - not to mention immature and unbalanced.

Yet, here you are doing the exact thing you're claiming me to do.

I called you "child-like" and "angry." If you think that's "name calling"(we're improving, you're no longer claiming it's an ad hominem!) then so is calling me immature and unbalanced...

Yes - making personal attacks against someone in lieu of an actual argument (ad hominem) is reprehensible.

Which one is worse:

Calling someone's behavior childish, or calling someone's behavior reprehensible?

Who gets to decide this?

No - that is delusional behavior.

You did say it as a response to me disagreeing with your definition so i'm not sure this claim works.

Also, i think you're doing what you're accusing me of doing.

It's been a barrel of monkeys.

You know what: Next time i'll just post a bunch of quotes from you where you call people names. I have one saved here where you call someone a nazi in this very thread. Good luck!

 

[SkepticThinker]

So - you are saying that - despite your personal attacks against me - that you agree with my views on "abortion"?

Even if I were - that has no relevance to my claims.

I would argue that your name calling, refusal to directly challenge my claims and your attempts to assassinate my character in an attempt to discredit me showcases how upset you are - not to mention immature and unbalanced.

Yes - making personal attacks against someone in lieu of an actual argument (ad hominem) is reprehensible.

No - that is delusional behavior.

It's been a barrel of monkeys.

Again, people who live in glass insult houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not ignored - interpreted correctly based on the totality of the evidence.

You are ignoring all the sources I have provided and focus on only a couple words.

The "thread" is everything spoken in the OP - not any single discussion.

I do not believe that I have discussed "bodily autonomy" with you - but I have discussed it on this thread.

I don't know your position and I keep asking you to share it, but you keep...not sharing it.

As I claimed earlier - I did not present one or three "arguments" - I never claimed that they were "connected" or that one "followed" the other.

I stated my positions and my reasons for sharing them.

All this above is more of the BS I was referring to earlier.

Human life begins at conception. A child is created at the moment of conception. A mother and father are created at the moment of conception.

Any and all excuses you would use to justify murdering the not-yet-born child can and has been used to murder already-born people.

If you think about all the criteria that is considered when judging if a killing is a murder - you realize that "abortion" is the only exception to that criteria.

Only if you completely ignore bodily autonomy. Which you just did. Again.

You want fetuses to have special rights that we don't actually grant to "already-born people." And that's while completely denying the woman her rights to her own body on top of it.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't say anything about stripping rights. I just pointed out that it's a sick religion that supports sacrificing your kids.

What kids? The majority of abortions involve a balstocyst or zygote, it's just a clump of insentient cells like this:

But there is no right to harm others even now for religions.

Good, so you have no right to harm any woman, by enslaving her which is the result of taking away anyone's bodily autonomy.

You may have a problem with what you think I believe; but I don't believe in hurting people.

Great, so you don't want to hurt women, or enslave them then? An insentient balstocyst cannot be hurt, even a developing foetus remains insentient, and the neural connections required to experience pain do not begin to form until 24 weeks anyway.

 

[Heyo]

Instead - they want these women to focus only on themselves - their fears, desires and “rights” (even though they don’t have the right to murder their children).

Remember what I said about nomenclature?
You insist on using pathetic and wrong nomenclature in the biological and legal sense. A tactic used mainly by radical anti abortionists. (I won't call you one as you are more focusing on the current tactics from the book of YEC: attacking the pro choice position without defending your own position - or even giving an own position).
That makes good fodder for a shouting match but not for a reasonable debate. I'm not interested in shouting matches.

Even though the definition of the term “radical” is completely subjective - I believe this to be true - yet only one side of "radicals" has the Federal Government, Hollywood, mainstream media, social media, big tech and billions of dollars of taxpayer money supporting them.

And - despite having all these resources and support - that is the side that is calling for people to remain ignorant on the subject - because that is the only way they can hold sway over the hearts of vulnerable women.

Projection much?
Remember, you and your side use emotional language where I try to keep it factual.

And for the definition of "radical": When there is a spectrum of positions, not only a binary option, those on the ends of the spectrum are radicals. A moderate position on abortion is neither total acceptance nor total rejection.
You haven't given your position, yet. You have argued against any pro choice position, but what is yours?

 

[ppp]

Not ignored - interpreted correctly based on the totality of the evidence.

"In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by directing the focus on their supposed failings – that are unrelated to the issue at hand – such as their character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.
Person A makes argument X.
Person A is an idiot.
Therefore, argument X is false."

I don't know your position and I keep asking you to share it, but you keep...not sharing it.

That one is not obligated to use one's body to support or maintain the life of another.

As I claimed earlier - I did not present one or three "arguments" - I never claimed that they were "connected" or that one "followed" the other.

Oh. Then I don't care. The world is full of people like you; full of strong opinions and decided of rational support.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Remember what I said about nomenclature?

Yes.

You insist on using pathetic and wrong nomenclature in the biological and legal sense.

And you insist on being vague in your claims against what I have said.

Can you give specific examples and explain how what I said was "pathetic" or "wrong"?

A tactic used mainly by radical anti abortionists. (I won't call you one as you are more focusing on the current tactics from the book of YEC: attacking the pro choice position without defending your own position - or even giving an own position).

Again - the term "radical" is subjective.

That makes good fodder for a shouting match but not for a reasonable debate. I'm not interested in shouting matches.

I don't consider this to be much of a "debate" considering that you addressed only two things I have said with only vague and superficial responses.

Projection much?
Remember, you and your side use emotional language where I try to keep it factual.

If you wanted to "keep it factual" - you wouldn't ignore the facts.

"Abortion" is the killing of innocent human beings - there is no getting around that - but you can try to ignore it as long as you want.

Using "emotional language" to get people to consider the facts is a lot different than using "emotional language" to get people to ignore the facts.

And for the definition of "radical": When there is a spectrum of positions, not only a binary option, those on the ends of the spectrum are radicals. A moderate position on abortion is neither total acceptance nor total rejection.

Where did you get this definition?

A political or societal "radical" is a person who hold an extreme viewpoint - and the term "extreme" is completely subjective.

Your definition claims that in order for a person to be a "moderate" on "abortion" - they would need to be inconsistent.

"These not-yet-born child are okay to kill - but not these."

What is a "moderate position" on genocide? Is there such a thing?

You haven't given your position, yet. You have argued against any pro choice position, but what is yours?

Consistency.

The only time a person has the right to kill another human being is in self-defense or in the defense of another person.

There needs to be clear and present threat of death or severe bodily harm.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

"In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by directing the focus on their supposed failings – that are unrelated to the issue at hand – such as their character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.
Person A makes argument X.
Person A is an idiot.
Therefore, argument X is false."

No - more like when you ignored my earlier question -

"Do you believe @Darkstorn considers my views credible based on their personal attacks?

Yes or No?"

I made an argument - @Darkstorn ignored that argument and made a personal attack against me.

Based on their actions - do you believe @Darkstorn supports my views?

And why did you come to that conclusion?

That one is not obligated to use one's body to support or maintain the life of another.

So - you admit that "abortion" is the killing of an innocent human being?

Also - what is the function of a uterus?

Oh. Then I don't care. The world is full of people like you; full of strong opinions and decided of rational support.

There are more people like you in the world who demand that those who have the high ground give up their elevated positions and come wrestle in the mud.

Some people just like arguing and quibbling - while others would rather seek, find and proclaim truth.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Again, people who live in glass insult houses shouldn't throw stones.

You can insult people when debating them. That is not the same as an ad hominem.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Only if you completely ignore bodily autonomy. Which you just did. Again.

You want fetuses to have special rights that we don't actually grant to "already-born people." And that's while completely denying the woman her rights to her own body on top of it.

No - I am affording the not-yet-born the same rights as already-born people - nothing special.

You cannot kill already-born people simply because their existence is inconvenient to you.