Then why did he switch
Presumably because you were continuing to pretend to not understand the complaint.
If you’ve been to Delhi, you might have a different opinion on bodily autonomy.
Seriously – if you want this to have been a remotely useful statement, you’ll need to clarify what you mean.
I suspect you have some non-standard definition of what “bodily autonomy” entails, and I would be interested to understand what the heck you are driving at.
Yes. There is no language in any proposed legislation anywhere that bans birth control so you had to find something from 1991 that has been thoroughly debunked.
1 Like
Sorry, but I was editing my response while your fast fingers had already responded.
Asking someone to explain their answer is pretending not to understand? He said the week killer was destroying his non-existent garden/dirt. I asked how. He could not seem to answer.
Now you are getting into the question of sentience. Since I don’t think human children or adults in which their sentience is questionable lose the right to life, I don’t see it as a useful distinction for humans in-utero either.
1 Like
Now you are getting into the question of sentience. Since I don’t think human children or adults in which their sentience is questionable lose the right to life, I don’t see it as a useful distinction for humans in-utero either.
If you don’t see the existence of a brain and nervous system as a useful developmental milestone to start distinguishing what “is not yet a human being” – there is simply no discussion to have with you on this subject, at all, because that has got to be the absolute bare minimum practical point where any distinction can be made, in a medical or scientific sense.
You’re right. I did not realize that it was a sex/death/identity thing. It may be more than that, but I looked at the summaries of the first few DDG hits without clicking through. I also looked in Webster’s.
Asking someone to explain their answer is pretending not to understand? He said the week killer was destroying his non-existent garden/dirt. I asked how. He could not seem to answer.
From my reading of it, it seemed like you were being intentionally obtuse to annoy him.
There is no justifiable argument for why some neighbor should ever be allowed to potentially ruin your property by dumping weed killer on it. (and your questioning of whether weed killer is “poison” is a total joke – you’re from a generation that should know better, I thought, since there are plenty of people with inheritable chromosomal damage from some classes of “weed killer”)
The entire line of argument (property destruction of someone else’s garden) is patently absurd in the first place.
Nobody was ever suggesting that a 3rd party would or should be enacting unwanted abortions (tearing up gardens) on unwilling pregnant women (the garden owner).
1 Like
You’re right. I did not realize that it was a sex/death/identity thing. It may be more than that, but I looked at the summaries of the first few DDG hits without clicking through. I also looked in Webster’s.
You are continuing to pique my curiosity of whatever the heck you meant with your original post.
Just say it plainly.
Again, how is it destroying the garden? That’s been my question from the first time he used it as his argument? Since you seem to agree with him, maybe you can answer it.
I’m not being obtuse, well I don’t think so. I am trying to make a point, which I suspect you know. I really want to know how a plot of dirt with just “seeds” (not germinated, no organs, no brain) can be destroyed by weed killer.
If we’re talking about what “has got to be the absolute bare minimum,” I still contend that the point of fertilization makes the most sense for that point. The existence of a brain is indeed a developmental milestone, but not at distinguishing the being as a human. Brain development doesn’t determine someone’s humanity.
1 Like
I really want to know how a plot of dirt with just “seeds” (not germinated, no organs, no brain) can be destroyed by weed killer.
It’s going to depend on what class of weed killer you use, in what quantity, and a host of other environmental conditions.
But you could definitely create the situation where they need to dig up and replace the first few inches of soil because it is effectively ruined.
Thank you. So, it has nothing to do with the seed, but the media it’s in.
1 Like
Brain development doesn’t determine someone’s humanity.
I’m curious, what do define “humanity” as for a body that has just enough brain stem material to run their automatic bodily functions that will keep the body itself operating?
1 Like
So, it has nothing to do with the seed, but the media it’s in.
I think the original comment had to do with wrecking a garden that already had stuff growing in it, and somewhere along the line it went to un-germinated seeds.
But I think it was a terrible line of argument in the first place, because nobody is advocating that a 3rd party should be performing abortions on people without their explicit request.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it?
I can’t lean on my memory for anything, but only remember the dirt with seeds part.
That’s a game changer. I thought was almost sure that you were pro-abortion. 
I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it?
How are you defining “humanity”, if it seems like you might apply the term to what is effectively a living organ-container waiting for a donation list to show up.
1 Like
A new, separate, and distinct human life is created when a sperm of a human and an egg of a human meet and fertilization takes place. As it grows (in-utero and out), that human life develops, but it never becomes “more” human. It has its full humanity from the beginning.
1 Like
It has its full humanity from the beginning.
Agree to disagree, then 
There is some threshold where the switch flips and humanity is attained – but I don’t think there is any reasonable argument for that being the point of fertilization.
1 Like