Zone1 Abortion and Transgender is Demonic

[Trickster]

This isn't a religious discussion, dummy. The sanctity of life has no place in this discussion. Neither do souls. Just hard scientific empirical evidence such as a new genetically distinct human being is created at fertilization.

All life?

 

[Trickster]

I give Donald H 's trolling capabilities a "D" at best but I give you an "F" for science and integrity.

I thought it was funny.

But on a serious note, wasn't abortion still "misdemeanor" before we knew wtf DNA even was?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Why would I be? I'm not a zealot like you

Saint Ding wants to arrest and shame a woman who has an abortion but is fine with business people making a human being in a petrie dish and freezing him or her for a while. But, if the human being is not fit for implantation to make money off of they will kill it or keep it frozen until Jesus comes back and the soul of that frozen embryo floats up in the sky to meet with Jesus for the rest of eternity.

 

[Trickster]

Why would I be? I'm not a zealot like you.

I mean, embryos are discarded all the time, so....

 

[Trickster]

Ooh, and STEM cells!

 

[Meriweather]

Meriweather is probably a nice person, but they will not change their mind on this. I think the best thing to hope for is that the anti-abortion lurkers might read a post that has them question their position.

The position is life is our greatest gift. When does life begin: Conception. These are unquestionable facts/truths.

Unfortunately, your position is to launch personal attacks on anyone standing by these concepts. I have no need and therefore no wish to defend any post that lashes out at me personally rather than discussing the topic.

What I have gathered from you: A position is that when life begins its just a clump of cells not a human being. Even if it is, the mother should have the right to discard that new life in its beginnings. We never discussed whether the father should have that same right. Nor will we until and unless the topic can be discussed without changing it into insults about the other poster.

 

[Trickster]

The position is life is our greatest gift. When does life begin: Conception. These are unquestionable facts/truths.

Unfortunately, your position is to launch personal attacks on anyone standing by these concepts. I have no need and therefore no wish to defend any post that lashes out at me personally rather than discussing the topic.

What I have gathered from you: A position is that when life begins its just a clump of cells not a human being. Even if it is, the mother should have the right to discard that new life in its beginnings. We never discussed whether the father should have that same right. Nor will we until and unless the topic can be discussed without changing it into insults about the other poster.

I do not know how many times I need to clarify for you that:
a.) Life does not equal rights.
b.) Life does not begin at conception.

There are many lifeforms that we do not grant the right to life. The requirement for that is that you are an individual with volitional consciousness. It is exactly the latter that sets man apart from animals and a ZEF does not have that. Therefore life and rights begin at birth.

There is life before conception as sperm and ovum are alive. Furthermore, every conception does not even result in pregnancy. In fact, not even every implantation in the uterus does. Are you saying a fertilized egg that does not implant successfully is death?

Your argument is both anti-indvidual rights and non-scientific. You are also unable to tell the potential from the actual.

I have briefly discussed the man's rights in this thread a few pages back, but that is a separate issue since only women get pregnant. Unless you somehow are super Woke and are making a trans argument (lol).

 

[HeyNorm]

Awwww, "the innocent".

Y'all really love your emotional arguments.

My argument is logical. If the woman controls all aspects of whether a child is born or not, then she is responsible for that decision.

Yours is the emotional based argument.

Got it kid?

 

[Trickster]

My argument is logical. If the woman controls all aspects of whether a child is born or not, then she is responsible for that decision.

Yours is the emotional based argument.

Got it kid?

Yes, I agree. The descion is hers and only hers.

Thank you, gracias, grazie, merci, danke.

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes, I agree. The descion is hers and only hers.

Thank you, gracias, grazie, merci, danke.

Then court ordered child support should be abolished.

That’s logical

Thank you, gracias, grazer, mercie, danke, burrito, Kawasaki

 

[Trickster]

Then court ordered child support should be abolished.

That’s logical

Thank you, gracias, grazer, mercie, danke, burrito, Kawasaki

Well, it is a discussion up to philosophers of law to figure out.

My only points on the matter are the same; once born it is a human with certain needs and expenses. Perhaps an argument could be made for the right to opt out of fatherhood within the same window a woman has to abort. Although I am not too sure about this.

Unlike abortion this is actually complicated. And we are not even done guaranteeing a woman's most basic of rights to move on to that convo.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Bums Blubbering About Not Being Accountable For Their Own Negligence "

* Private Property Transfer *

Well, it is a discussion up to philosophers of law to figure out.
My only points on the matter are the same; once born it is a human with certain needs and expenses. Perhaps an argument could be made for the right to opt out of fatherhood within the same window a woman has to abort. Although I am not too sure about this.
Unlike abortion this is actually complicated. And we are not even done guaranteeing a woman's most basic of rights to move on to that convo.

If the male is too much of a pussy to hold on to his jiz , then unless the clown files charges that the woman literally raped him , then he transferred his private property semen to the woman , whom can do whatever she wants with it , and a state does not give a crap about his dead beat dad pleadings .

 

[Meriweather]

There are many lifeforms

The topic is human life, not "many lifeforms". Sperm and egg are living cells, but on their own cannot develop into fully formed organism. Conception, the uniting of sperm and egg can develop into a fully formed human. This can occur when a male and female have sex. Are both prepared to care for this new life should conception take place.

Is sex with no responsibility a feasible position both the man, the woman, and society as a whole?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

700 54 aatidxyz …~…According to a Catholic priest cited below the “Roman Catholic Church nor any Christian denomination or Faith offers as an Institutional Body, any pronouncement, dogmatic or otherwise, as to exactly when God infuses the immortal soul in the human person in the womb.”

whut I say aatidxyz00754 …~…Admitting they do not know when the sanctity of life begins, the Catholic Church spent a million dollars in Ohio to try to defeat the reproductive freedom amendment to the Ohio Constitution. They failed in a Republican run state. It’s a shame that all God’s money is being spent on a cause to save unborn souls when they don’t know when the soul and body are merged by God into one person.

We know there is material life before conception which means there is material life during and after conception when the live sperm and the live egg unite to become one live cell splitting and cell creating organism. But what about the spiritual body of the unborn? There is consensus among civilized people that protected life begins when separated at birth

The soul need not be present for the material fetal body to be alive. Mammals live without being made in the image of God.

Rev. James M. DiLuzio says “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body. “Of course, the moment of ensoulment is unverifiable.”​

whut I say aatidxyz00754 …~…About half of those living organisms never see the light of day as a breathing organism until moments after exiting the birth canal normally recording human history as the date of birth. Post Apr 14, 2025

The sanctity of life has no place in this discussion.

whut I say aatidxyz00754 …~… if sanctity of life and ensoulment have no place in this discussion then it’s definite that you are a cruel human being when you want to arrest women in order to shame them if they have an abortion. Where do you think human beings get a right to life? The Man on the moon? Post Apr 14, 2025


whut I said rftmaraw01193 …~… I believe Nature’s God breathes spiritual life / soul into the body of a fetus and as the first breaths of air cause the lungs to start to expand and the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale both close. The fetus experiences ensoulment and then the baby's circulation and blood flow through the heart now function like an adult's.“ …~… Post Oct 17, 2024

whut I say aatidxyz00754 …~… This Catholic Priest says religious anti-abortion fanatics want government to force full term gestation on all woman just in case God maybe creates persons prior to birth. Post Apr 14, 2025

Rev. James M. DiLuzio, CSP (A Catholic priest––not a formal Catholic Theologian, Ethicist, or Official Spokesman July 17, 2022 wrote …~…My first source Fetal development: Month-By–Month Stages of Pregnancy (clevelandclinic.org): “(An) Ova / female gamete is fertilized by male sperm in the fallopian tube of a woman’s ovaries. At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. A fertilized ova is classified as a zygote.”​

# 364: “The human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God’: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the. Spirit. [5] GS 14 s 1 See : Gaudium et spes (vatican.va)​

​

# 365: “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body: [6] i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body, spirit, and matter, in man (sic), are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”​

​

This last statement that the soul and material body are inseparable, makes the Catholic sensibility that God, The Creator, infuses the immortal soul as sperm and ovum together create a zygote more tenable.​

​

Of course, the moment of ensoulment is unverifiable.​

​

As far as I know, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor any Christian denomination or Faith offers as an Institutional Body, any pronouncement, dogmatic or otherwise, as to exactly when God infuses the immortal soul in the human person in the womb.​

​

Truly there is mystery here.​

​

But, again, this fact does not mitigate the Catholic position that life begins at conception, and that humanity must respect every child’s right to develop and prosper​

​

dccxlvi Post Apr 14, 2025​

 

[HeyNorm]

Well, it is a discussion up to philosophers of law to figure out.

My only points on the matter are the same; once born it is a human with certain needs and expenses. Perhaps an argument could be made for the right to opt out of fatherhood within the same window a woman has to abort. Although I am not too sure about this.

Unlike abortion this is actually complicated. And we are not even done guaranteeing a woman's most basic of rights to move on to that convo.

Oh, so we went from logic to………

What exactly?

The woman wants 100% control of the process. My proposal does just that.

Sometimes, I guess, having that unlimited control means you have to take all responsibility for taking total control. This is not unique, it’s actually how the world actually works.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

700 56 aatidxyz…~… Does anyone remember your first breath when your soul was breathed into your mortal body? But you know it’s a fact that you had a first breath. You know as a fact that you had a conception. Why would nature’s god create an immortal soul at conception when a conceived body for thousands of recorded history in human years had about a fifty fifty chance of taking a first breath? As a rational theist I got my soul when I took my first breath. I got my DNA when I was conceived.

A little science …~… Several factors stimulate newborns to take their first breath at birth. First, labor contractions temporarily constrict umbilical blood vessels, reducing oxygenated blood flow to the fetus and elevating carbon dioxide levels in the blood. High carbon dioxide levels cause acidosis and stimulate the respiratory center in the brain, triggering the newborn to take a breath.

The first breath typically is taken within 10 seconds of birth, after mucus is aspirated from the infant’s mouth and nose.

The position is life is our greatest gift. When does life begin: Conception. These are unquestionable facts/truths.

The glossary at the back of the U.S. version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “soul” as follows: …~… “The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature.”

whut I say aatidxyz00756 …~… I believe that complete human beings come into existence up to nine months following conception during which time the new body is being formed until a significant moment in time when nature’s god breathes a soul into the body when that material body takes a first breath when a human being.

dlvi April 15, 2025

 

[Trickster]

The topic is human life, not "many lifeforms".

Bravo! This was my point exactly.

Sperm and egg are living cells, but on their own cannot develop into fully formed organism.

Mhm. I think you are starting to get it.

Conception, the uniting of sperm and egg can develop into a fully formed human.

Almost there now. Come on.

This can occur when a male and female have sex. Are both prepared to care for this new life should conception take place.

Is sex with no responsibility a feasible position both the man, the woman, and society as a whole?

Sex is good.

 

[Meriweather]

Bravo! This was my point exactly.

No, it's not. Either that, or my point hasn't been understood. Human life--at every point--is to be respected and cared for--and not to be destroyed by fellow human beings. It is why abortion should never be thought of--let alone considered an option. By definition, the purpose of abortion is to end a human life. Are you almost there yet?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Human life--at every point--is to be respected and cared for--and not to be destroyed by fellow human beings.

On who’s authority does the woman carrying inside her body a human living body that does not have a god given soul have to respect that life as if she were a Catholic?

 

[Trickster]

No, it's not. Either that, or my point hasn't been understood. Human life--at every point--is to be respected and cared for--and not to be destroyed by fellow human beings.

Well, you think protoplasm is "human life", so your view of both man and life is pretty terrible.

It is why abortion should never be thought of--let alone considered an option. By definition, the purpose of abortion is to end a human life. Are you almost there yet?

Brilliant. So, are you finally, after 666 posts, fiiiinnaaaally, confessing you view abortion as murder or will you just dodge and obduscate again?