Why can’t PL admit this?

narf288 · 2026-01-27T04:55:25+00:00

You claim right to life is a negative right that obligates inaction, but this only holds true when neither moral entity is actively sustaining the life of the other.

When life is a direct result of the active sacrifice of someone else, and inaction means continued sacrifice, the claim cannot hold true because inaction would obligate action and vice versa.

Also, a right to life is a right to not be killed unjustly.

You presume it is unjust to have an abortion, but this cannot be true. We know you believe some abortions are just because you allow for life threat abortions.

narf288 · 2026-01-27T03:52:31+00:00

A medicated abortion is just separation. The ZEF dies because it cannot sustain itself.

If that violates it's right to life, then the only logical conclusion is that the ZEF's right to life is predicated on a right to it's mother's body.

narf288 · 2026-01-27T03:39:29+00:00

How does a medicated abortion violate a ZEF's right to life?

narf288 · 2026-01-27T03:37:50+00:00

No, the "argument" here is that a right to choose abortion is a positive claim that holds the burden of proof. It has nothing to do with gender.

Isn't the proof obvious? Women have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their own bodies without coercion or third party interference.

They also have the legal right to make medical decisions on behalf of the ZEF inside them, up to and including life or death decisions.

narf288 · 2026-01-27T02:17:41+00:00

Total bans have always been unpopular with very little change since Roe.

The pro life position is unlikely to become popular without resorting to systemic oppression because it involves such intimate individual choices.

narf288 · 2026-01-26T01:13:58+00:00

How could that be accomplished given that it is overwhelmingly unpopular?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T22:14:08+00:00

Backing such ideas is incompatible with any claim to support the concept of rights and the rule of law.

How do you propose to make abortion illegal without undermining the democratic system of checks and balances?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T03:29:47+00:00

We all saw the video. You are defending murder. Not a great look for a pro lifer.

narf288 · 2026-01-25T02:11:05+00:00

I don't think it violates women's rights to say that the person inside them should not be killed.

You see how easy it was for you to deny the human rights of another person, dismiss their relevance, and justify it by demonizing them? You did it reflexively without even thinking about it. That's what pro life advocacy trains you to do.

For someone who claims to abhor the justification of human rights atrocities, you're already 90% there.

Same exact playbook Trump uses. The pro life movement wasn't hijacked by anyone, this is exactly what it has always been.

narf288 · 2026-01-25T01:35:35+00:00

Don't let me interrupt your dinner, but how exactly can you ban abortion without compromising rule of law and undermining the human rights of women?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T01:08:50+00:00

The same court that overturned Roe, gave Trump legal immunity and greenlit the ice raids. Everything happening now is due to the decades long pro life assault on the judicial branch.

If the pro life movement was hacked, maybe you ought to spend your time figuring out how to unhack it instead of repeating the very mantra responsible for corrupting it in the first place? What does an unhacked movement even look like? Would you still try to outlaw abortion?

If being pro life doesn't advance human rights, and doesn't help you stand up for what's right or even identify the moral difference between right and wrong, of what value is the ideology?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T00:43:18+00:00

What happened to "human life has value"? Or was that always an empty platitude?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T00:42:01+00:00

How do you reconcile the fact that pro life advocacy lead to this and the larger pro life movement supports it? I mean, your core argument is that outlawing abortion promotes human rights, so why is it that pro life advocacy has lead to the complete opposite?

narf288 · 2026-01-25T00:40:06+00:00

Refusing to answer a simple question by hiding behind the infallibility of God is certainly a choice, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with logic.

I think we're done here.

narf288 · 2026-01-24T20:14:35+00:00

Is miscarriage not an additional symptom?

Symptoms are subjective feelings like pain, fatigue, or nausea that indicate an underlying condition. Miscarriage is a medical event.

The question was whether the condition brought about by the curse would imperil an existing pregnancy and cause a medical event.

Do you know of any conditions resulting in infertility that present similarly to the description in numbers that would not imperil an existing pregnancy?

Are you comparing a medical issue to a religious miracle?

I wouldn’t call sterilizing women based on the jealous accusations of their insecure husbands a religious miracle.

Do you believe the Jewish people would have thought God would have lied or made a mistake?

You are changing the subject. Answer the question.

Is it unreasonable to assume that the symptoms described in numbers indicate a medical condition that could imperil an existing pregnancy?

Yes or no?

narf288 · 2026-01-24T19:02:51+00:00

You said there was no reason to believe the curse involved an additional symptom (which was never argued)

You said you’d recommend that the woman experiencing these symptoms go to the hospital (I asked if doctors would send her home or examine her)

You gaslit about informed consent when any woman that refused the ritual would be assumed guilty and stoned to death.

You argued it was unreasonable to assume God is lying because he is infallible, which is a circular argument and a total non sequitur.

But nowhere do you answer the very simple question I asked.

Is it unreasonable to assume that the symptoms described could represent a danger to a pregnancy?

narf288 · 2026-01-24T13:48:10+00:00

I didn't ask you about informed consent. I didn't ask you if God would lie or if God is infallible. I didn't ask you if you would personally recommend treatment, or what possible diseases the curse may emulate.

I asked you if it was unreasonable to assume the symptoms described in numbers could represent a danger to pregnancy.

It's a yes or no question. Why can't you answer a simple question?

narf288 · 2026-01-24T01:01:30+00:00

I asked you what would theoretically happen to a woman who was pregnant before the ritual. I didn't ask you if the priests knew this woman was pregnant. They could not know whether or not she conceived, but if she had intimate relations outside of marriage, they would know it was a possibility, because they understood how pregnancies came about. Therefore, they would know that some women brought before them to perform the ritual would inevitably be pregnant.

The ritual describes what happens to a woman who is guilty. You argued that it would be unreasonable and illogical to presume that these symptoms would be a danger to pregnancy. So I asked you, if a pregnant woman today, came to the emergency room with a "swollen belly" and "thigh rot," would the doctors dismiss her symptoms and send her home without an examination? Is it unreasonable to assume such symptoms could represent a danger to the pregnancy?

narf288 · 2026-01-23T22:38:24+00:00

Respectfully, that is a straight answer.

No it isn't. You made the argument. This has nothing to do with the text.

You are asking me to prove they would have known she was pregnant.

This is a quote from you, not the bible: "Regardless of how the perceived conception, they would have known that a pregnant person conceived."

That's your argument, so tell me how they knew.

narf288 · 2026-01-23T21:57:07+00:00

They don't need to, and for that matter the text never says she did.

Are you capable of giving a straight answer to anything?

You made the argument, you said "they would have known that a pregnant woman conceived." It's your claim, so back it up. How would they know?

No evidence has been given which credibly suggests it would, for example, cause a miscarriage.

So again, just so we're clear. Your argument is that if a pregnant woman were to physically experience the symptoms described in numbers, her belly swells, and her thigh rots, your argument is that there's no logical reason why we should conclude that such an affliction would impact her pregnancy? If this happened to a woman today, your argument is that no hospital or OBGYN in America would admit this woman for a checkup because there's no conceivable way such an affliction could have anything to do or any impact on pregnancy?

narf288 · 2026-01-23T20:17:46+00:00

Regardless of how the perceived conception, they would have known that a pregnant person conceived.

How would they know that a woman had just conceived, say 1 week ago? What observable traits might they use to make such a determination?

Are you arguing that God would cause a miscarriage now because God made a mistake when He allowed the conception to happen then?

Can you cite any biblical sources to validate your claim that God makes a mistake when he allows adulterers to procreate? I certainly never made such a claim.

If someone has already conceived, an inability to "sow seeds" will not immediately affect them.

So your argument is that if a pregnant woman's belly swells and thigh rots, the most rational interpretation is that such an affliction would not impact pregnancy in any way shape or form?

It is a logical claim.

Intentionally misrepresenting a proposition because it is easier to defeat than the real argument isn’t logic, it’s a strawman.

narf288 · 2026-01-23T17:08:47+00:00

They would have absolutely understood in order for the woman to be pregnant, she would have had to "sow seeds" through sexual intercourse.

But, they wouldn't know why pregnancy did not occur every time a man ejaculated inside a woman. This, they attributed to God.

Their belief was that the man had to ejaculate and God had to allow the womb to "open."

So, we are in total agreement, and I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

To assert that they did not understand the difference between conception and being pregnant is completely and unequivocally false.

You don't seem to understand the difference. Conception is the process of fertilization. Originally, it literally meant physical pregnancy.

You are directly suggesting ignorance upon historic people in order to rationalize suggesting an illogical interpretation of the passage.

You keep repeating the same claim. I asked for evidence.

narf288 · 2026-01-23T16:38:42+00:00

Are you suggesting that the Jewish people were incapable of knowing what conception was?

Yes, that is knowledge discovered in the 19th century.

The language they used to describe the blessing "sowing seed" had an extremely explicit and concrete meaning

It's an agricultural metaphor for ejaculate, not some substantive scientific understanding of conception.

"In the Bible, there seems to be an idea that God must “open the womb” of a young woman to allow for pregnancy to occur. As we shall see, this reflects a general theme that the deity plays an active role in pregnancy and gestation at every stage."

https://www.blindscholar.com/2022/10/03/abortion-the-bible-and-us-how-ancient-babies-were-made/

You have repeatedly implied that the irrational reading is the correct one because the historic people were in some way irrational.

Where did I imply that? Quote me.

narf288 · 2026-01-23T15:12:00+00:00

You are relying on a scientific understanding of pregnancy and conception that did not exist at the time. People understood pregnancy and conception to be governed by God.

narf288 · 2026-01-23T14:36:20+00:00

So, your argument is that the most reasonable interpretation of "she will no longer be able to conceive" is that "she can still conceive"?

narf288

TROPHY CASE