The only argument I made about the soul is one that we can determine to exist. Beyond that it's pointless to expect consensus. I'll take note of your frustration.
It's just one of many inconsistencies and it's because their entire structure only seems to exist to be defined by what it's not. Modern Conservativism only defines itself as "against Liberalism" and "against The Left," so the entire position makes no sense as a result.
A fetus isn't a baby and searching up these pictures doesn't change that. The time when an abortion is typically performed is long before a fetus even resembles anything more than a clump of cells. Most abortions that happen later on are typically the result of medical emergencies and is often the last resort to treat the individual. No one gets far enough into a pregnancy where the fetus is literally a complete baby and decides to just have an abortion. Abortion doesn't kill a baby because a fetus isn't a baby.
I agree, but I'm not necessarily opposed to an "embryonic right to gestation" as long as a woman's bodily autonomy rights take precedence.
A "no you" isn't as clever as you think it is and I think the laundry list of inconsistencies in Consertivism proves my point. Claiming to be against "big government" while cheering on "state governments" as they enact big government laws is an inconstancy. Getting butthurt over body autonomy when asked to care about other people, while wanting to remove body autonomy from women, LGBT+ folks, and so on, is a contradiction. Claiming to care about freedom of speech, while attempting to silence minorities is a contradiction. Claiming to support freedom, while wanting to limit medical freedom doesn't make sense. These are just a handful of inconstancies in beliefs that Conservatives hold, many of which were on display in this thread.
It disqualifies you as an expert on literacy. Also, I stand by my points. If you have an actual argument, I would entertain them. Don't expect me to bow to your shitty, low-effort, insults.
But sperm is the harbor of life, the seed for what life comes from. At what point does it redefine the difference between when its stored in your testicles and when it ends up in an egg does it consider defending it as an unborn life? There is no weight in this, again the female produces an egg for the sperm to fertilize, its not like these eggs are a life upon themselves. Its simply a means to protect and help its development until it is born as a baby. Its a form of human nature but the responsibility of original life falls on us not them, especially if we ever cross the threshold of technology where we could create artificial eggs and wombs for development without the need of a female needing to bare any responsibility for carrying it. Something that is far more likely in the scope of the near future, would those that would be born of this method be considered protectable or would the be hated by the same pro-life groups because its considered "unnatural"?
It's historical record that you and anyone that defines a soul as something that is distinct from the brain, is wrong.
It's not an interesting belief, as you cannot prove it then it's faith.
Except you cannot determine that a soul exists as something separate from brain activity.
I don't think he cares about supporting freedom, he just wants to annoy you so he can feel good about himself.
lol
I guess you don't eat meat? not get me wrong i think killing lions is wrong but not sure how this compares to the current issues been discussed in this place.
