Dr_Toad said:
Disingenuous bullshit. I'm sure you're a God-troll now, so you just go on and have your fun. And piss off.
I'll vouch for him; I might not like his politics, but he is to the one thoughtful insofar as he puts genuine effort into ... well, see, that's the thing, is I'm sure his arguments make sense to him, even if they don't play in my outlook. Still, though, you're not dealing with one of the thoughtless herd on this one; he's a good bellwether―even if you don't like what he has to say, he strikes close to the heart of the functional reality behind whatever he's pushing.
To wit, I haven't had much to say on this particular thread because I'm watching his framework. There may be a requisite presupposition in play that undermines not only the inquiry itself, but also its general pretense of trying to figure it all out.
Note the
overlap in #10↱. There's an issue afoot these days called "personhood", in which anti-abortion advocates declare zygotes to have the full complement of human rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of Amendments XIV and V; they are "people" under law. This ontological hanky-panky will create all manner of constitutional problems; those rights evaporate at the dryfoot line―once the baby is born and severed, that Equal Protection
disappears; the very proposition squares off in contention two assertions of equal protection taking place inside one of the bodies of one of those people. These questions remain unanswered, and advocates generally don't want to answer them because they're hard questions to answer and nobody on that side of the argument has been able to figure out a functional answer that doesn't make the point that "equal protection" is bullshit considering a woman's human value in that consideration is zero.
Personhood is the political fulfillment of what the anti-abortion argument has always meant by "life at conception". Life exists, not all of it constitutes personhood. Personhood legislation would write ontology as a matter of statute, instead of deriving statute from ontology. The whole point of the argument is to erase a woman's human rights.
So part of what this proposition does is presuppose the desired outcome true. All else follows from there.
And while this in and of itself might seem nothing new, watch the way he does it. You'll learn more about what's actually going on, what the freakish voices out in the larger discourse actually mean when they entirely cease making sense. We might not like what he's saying, but at the very least he's putting some thought into trying to con us; it's worth remembering that difference compared to the general moral-fanatic marketplace.
