yes i can read, i wanted to retouch on those points and expand on them. specifically on geographical and world view perspective given Duffs background.

but it seems in that post u accept a person like duff can exist, so i suppose there's not much more to be talked about.

not that it's even relevant, but neither of us knows what duff's religious background / upbringing are. just speculating based on him being canadian, which seems to be the "gotcha" you had obviously planned for a while now, doesn't change that.

meaning it still COULD come from a religious angle, even though that's neither a prerequisite nor a 100% causal relation.

ive known duff for well over 10 years sir. its the main reason i jumped in. but im going to disengage because im not going to discuss information about him without his consent. in any case his canadian nature isnt what i was leaning on, just to clear that up.

well that's a perfectly valid and respectable stance - especially since we already agree on the fact that it's technically irrelevant if he happens to be that unicorn.

irrelevant generally indeed, not irrelevant to his stance nor your response which i felt implied he was religious or tainted by religion, which was my entire point to join into the conversation. really it was a long winded way of my saying "you're off here".

again, he is "tainted" by his position, which i very early in this thread explained (to him directly btw, iirc) does not necessarily have to be derived from religion.

that said, i'm sure an olive branch wielding, good faith participant would certainly be able to find a way to express that someone might be off about a very uncommon scenario, without suggesting that they unreasonably jumped to outrageous assumptions... especially if it already was acknowledged earlier in the discussion without ever being fully clarified by the other party.

this post specifically (the one i first replied to) was uncouth. duffman spends a few pages talking about zygotes and the early stages of human life, after saying he's not religious, and your reply is that he is confusing biology for religion? that was just odd. zygotes are biology, the early stages of human life post contraception are biology. at no point does he mention a soul, or any other religious context of any sort. it stands out as a left turn to me in the conversation that otherwise tracked fairly well logically, and yes i did read it all.

it read like you two took a bit to get to a certain understanding of perspectives which u then just set aside. i dont think zygotes have the right universally to be born, but that doesnt change the biological perspective bereft of religion here. i think personally that arguing a non religious pro life person is incredibly difficult, they cant be shamed effectively with morals, biology even without a soul puts that stage as the start of a human making the killing murder be definition even if not legally, etc. hunting unicorns or white whales doesnt often yield meat.

This is him talking about babies before birth.



This is him talking about them after.

That was me quoting you.
So technically you said it first.

But feel free to use your quote as mine.
Enjoy you're gotcha chief.

Merry Christmas.

edit: I see you had to go through multi threads to do that.

Love my rent free condo with ocean view baby, woot.

This post was edited by sirthom on Dec 7 2021 02:25pm

Busy with a sev 1 at work so couldnt respond earlier

Abortion is the horrible act of intentionally ending human life. Anyone that believes human life is inherently valuable should have the same view. The circumstances under which abortions are accomodated should be rare and abortion as a whole should always be discouraged.

Ironically the same crowd that yells "black lives matter" is cheering on the ease which which society enables the termination of black lives in large numbers.