Brace Potthoff

Kids are nature's punishment for having one night of fun with the wife...

I enjoy the onion's content, but trying to make light of suicide ideation is just one of those things that's hard to justify...

"Efficiency"

And pre-ordered from Audible! Looking forward to listening to what you have to say. :)

Robert, you are one of my favorite Star Trek characters of all time and the fact that you have good sense, wit, and a moral compass off screen thrills me all the more.

I had always hoped for a future like Star Trek. Unfortunately, our future looks more like Dune...

I find no inherent value in decoding graphemes on a page; the only reason I do so is to get the information the author wished to convey. If I can get that information by other means, I reach that goal all the same. If I listen to a book, I can honestly say I read it. I obtained the information.

That MAGA isn't extreme enough for you is a red flag that you are prime real estate for cult recruitment...

Irrelevant; a woman's decision to share her body with a lover is a separate decision from sharing her body with a fetus. These decisions can and often are made independent of one another, falsifying the attempted equivalence.

We must define things as they are, not for what they may or may not become. You wouldn't allow a college freshman to operate on you simply because he's an "ungraduated doctor." Neither is premarital sex moral simply because the couple has the "potential" to get married. So it is with an embryo.

Considering your affiliation with MAGA, you'll understand when there's considerable doubt about your interest in taking the high road. Regardless, the truth is simple: you cannot wrong a subject that cannot suffer and no one has a right to use your body without your explicit & ongoing consent.

And an embryo is likewise not a "being." Both are composed of biologically living issue and human DNA, yet don't qualify as a "being." Why? Each lacks a mind. Sentience alone defines humanity and it is this thing the embryo does not and has never possessed.

Well, when you so loosely use the term "baby," you can apply it to anything you wish, especially images without context. Calling it a "baby" doesn't substantiate any claims of wrongdoing in abortion.

My point is two-fold: (A) the subject being aborted is not a person in any moral sense of the term and (B) no one has a right to use someone else's body without their explicit and ongoing consent. The "Pro-Life" demographic fails on both fronts.

Except having a full set of chromosomes still does not make it a "human being" in any morally meaningful sense. A corpse has a full set of chromosomes, so... human being? Your challenge is you're using the term "human being" too broadly, applying it to subjects it doesn't apply to.

You're right, it is sad, but it's precisely this sort of image touted by the "Pro-Life" demographic aimed to misrepresent abortion as it commonly occurs.

Cell alignment is irrelevant; you've given no reason why such a thing endows the subject with moral patiency. You cannot wrong a subject that cannot suffer and prior to at least 20 weeks gestation, an embryo lacks the capacity.

But this is not what gets aborted; by posting shock images like these, you're misrepresenting abortion as it commonly occurs. Even in the cases of abortion later in the pregnancy, these pregnancies are very much wanted, but an emergency abortion had to take place due to the woman's health.

Your eagerness to avoid what is said and simply make things up about the person saying it is sadly the modus operandi of the "Pro-Life" demographic. Feel free to face facts rather than distract the issue.

Pointing out that sperm are missing vital parts is irrelevant, as you've already demonstrated that missing defining features is not an obstacle for you in slapping the term "human" or "person" onto it. Embryos are likewise missing essential features. You can't have it both ways.

Being distinct is irrelevant. Are twins less valuable because their DNA is less distinct? Are sperm now "people" worth of moral concern because they are both biologically alive and genetically human? "Pro-Life" advocates are so wildly inconsistent...

Divided? Hardly. You keep making claims that are demonstrably untrue while I've been consistent in my debunking of your false claims. DNA does not grant personhood. If it did, sperm would be people, but you don't seem to care very much for them, so...

Again, the vast majority of abortions take place prior to this point. In fact, 95% of all abortions take place before 15 weeks gestation - long before the subject looks anything like the images touted by "Pro-Life" advocates. A more typical image is this: something that looks more like a shrimp.

Fetal Pain Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Here are the scientific facts concerning gestational development and capacity for pain.

This is untrue. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has definitively stated, “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks" (ref: www.acog.org/advocacy/fac...).

Again, being genetically human is irrelevant. If this were enough to define "life," then you should condemn men as mass murderers for destroying sperm for no other reason than their good pleasure, as they are undeniably genetically human and biologically alive. You can't have it both ways.

This is demonstrably false. Infants can suffer. Those in comas have a clear history of possessing personhood and the hope is that they still do, even if dormant; the neurons are still there. An embryo does not and has never had this, breaking down the attempted parallel immediately.

In nearly every case of abortion, no one is being killed. Prior to 20 weeks gestation (before which 99% of abortions take place), the neurons in the human brain have not developed to enable consciousness, a will, or the capacity to experience pain or pleasure. No suffering, no condemnation.

I never suggested otherwise. That the subject is genetically human is as true as it is irrelevant. DNA does not a person make. A corpse is a genetically distinct homosapien, yet we dispose of them with impunity. It is precisely sentience that defines personhood; not DNA.

What a tired old question. The zygote is "human" (adjective), but is not "a human" (noun). No different than sperm, eggs, your liver, or countless other biologically human cells that are "human" but possess no moral relevance.

False equivalency. A zygote is not a child. It possesses no mind to lay claim to a body or experience suffering at its destruction. In 99% of all abortions, the subject being destroyed is not a person in any meaningful sense of the term. Stop forcing yourself on women.