4 ms·

>A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy It is

>A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy It is not. Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment. >you're arguing that someone's personal freedom should be violated because of somebody else's religious superstition. It is amazing how the first people to bring up religion are always the prochociers. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers, but you just attempt to smear them with accusations. Please don't assume the reasons people support or don't support various issues. It is arguing in bad faith and makes you look bad. >And a good resource to learn about vaccines is Breitbart Have I posted anything about vaccines from Brietbart before? I think you may be confusing me with somebody else? If you are trying to say Secular Prolife is equivalent to Brietbart than you haven't read them both. >There are millions of anti-vaxers. Just because many people believe in silly things doesn't mean they are correct What do you mean by correct? Are you suggesting that every nonreligious person must believe the same thing? >Also, this issue isn't "supported by religions". Sure it is. >This issue is pretty much specific to one particular branch of Christianity, Just factually untrue. 1. Catholic 2. Eastern Orthodox 3. Oriental Orthodox 4. Assyrian Church of the East 5. Ancient Church of the East 6. Some Protestant denominations 7. Mennonites And huge amount more than that. Even some groups that may or may not be Christians 1. Mormons 2. Jehovah's Witnesses Now in terms of other religions there is some debate in them, but many of the followers in these think it is opposed to their religion: 1. Sikhism 2. Islam 3. Judaism And more. >the one most famous for raping children and for being so wrong they had to make own infallibility an official dogma. But again, I'm not going to teach you history to explain why Roman Catholic Church is a parody of Christianity Please do not derail the conversation. There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry. >same reason the question of why life begins doesn't matter to this discussion. I agree why life begins is irrelevant to this conversation. When it begins is the only thing that matters. >What does matter is you're condoning stripping people of their fundamental human rights. That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right to not be killed.

trasz 4y ago
>Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment. Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts. >1. Catholic 2. Eastern Orthodox 3. Oriental Orthodox 4. Assyrian Church of the East 5. Ancient Church of the East 6. Some Protestant denominations 7. Mennonites All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above. >There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry. What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies. >When it begins is the only thing that matters. You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights. >That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts. I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. I do think you are required to provide the basic necessities, but are not obligated to go beyond. Due to our limitations with artificial wombs and fetus transplants it is not possible to provide the basics without carrying the pregnancy. >All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above. Those are not the same branch of the same religion. It is mighty convenient that you left off all the other branches along with different religions I mentioned. >What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies. I don't really care if you are PC in general. HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. Bigotry like what you spewed isn't in keeping with the guidelines. >You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights. If you can't stop bringing up religion there is no point in continuing. This has nothing to do with religion. There is good biological evidence life starts at conception. Here are some resources which contain biologists and biology text books. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht... >Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. They only have a minimal level of sentience and consciousness. I am concluding that toddlers are not humans. Great reasoning there.

trasz 4y ago

>Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment. Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts. >1. Catholic 2. Eastern Orthodox 3. Oriental Orthodox 4. Assyrian Church of the East 5. Ancient Church of the East 6. Some Protestant denominations 7. Mennonites All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above. >There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry. What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies. >When it begins is the only thing that matters. You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights. >That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts. I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. I do think you are required to provide the basic necessities, but are not obligated to go beyond. Due to our limitations with artificial wombs and fetus transplants it is not possible to provide the basics without carrying the pregnancy. >All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above. Those are not the same branch of the same religion. It is mighty convenient that you left off all the other branches along with different religions I mentioned. >What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies. I don't really care if you are PC in general. HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. Bigotry like what you spewed isn't in keeping with the guidelines. >You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights. If you can't stop bringing up religion there is no point in continuing. This has nothing to do with religion. There is good biological evidence life starts at conception. Here are some resources which contain biologists and biology text books. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht... >Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. They only have a minimal level of sentience and consciousness. I am concluding that toddlers are not humans. Great reasoning there.