4 ms·

>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 ano

>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
>I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. Yet you can't point out the difference. >HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect? >This has nothing to do with religion. This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence"). >Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Yet you can't point out the difference. The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. The purpose of your regular organs is to support your body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the fetus. If a woman didn't bear children she wouldn't have a uterus. >And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect? I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect. >This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence"). You are the one repeating. Nobody is talking about religion except for you. So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing. >Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case. A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s. Fetuses have brain waves. Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. That is not to say the fetus is in fact dreaming, but it _could_ be.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. Again, why? You've repeating it as it was some kind of fact, yet you're unable to show criteria that led you to this conclusion. >I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect Oh, I am showing you respect. I'm only talking about your fringe beliefs, not you as a person. >Nobody is talking about religion except for you. Perhaps because it's immediately obvious that the "life from conception" aberration is purely religious? >So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing. You still failed to show a single argument that would be both logically sound and secular. >A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s. Sure, but in theory we could be wrong about this. Whereas with brain waves we can be pretty sure. >Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. Of course they could look similar - to a high-schooler who knows nothing about the subject.

trasz 4y ago

>I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. Yet you can't point out the difference. >HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect? >This has nothing to do with religion. This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence"). >Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>Yet you can't point out the difference. The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. The purpose of your regular organs is to support your body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the fetus. If a woman didn't bear children she wouldn't have a uterus. >And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect? I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect. >This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence"). You are the one repeating. Nobody is talking about religion except for you. So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing. >Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case. A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s. Fetuses have brain waves. Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. That is not to say the fetus is in fact dreaming, but it _could_ be.
- trasz 4y ago
  >The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. Again, why? You've repeating it as it was some kind of fact, yet you're unable to show criteria that led you to this conclusion. >I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect Oh, I am showing you respect. I'm only talking about your fringe beliefs, not you as a person. >Nobody is talking about religion except for you. Perhaps because it's immediately obvious that the "life from conception" aberration is purely religious? >So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing. You still failed to show a single argument that would be both logically sound and secular. >A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s. Sure, but in theory we could be wrong about this. Whereas with brain waves we can be pretty sure. >Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. Of course they could look similar - to a high-schooler who knows nothing about the subject.