The Best Caliph

@Cosmic_v3 @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec Correct. Full term =/= viability. The amount of viable babies being killed is shocking. You're okay with that?

@TheBestCaliph @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec It says full term abortions are only performer if medically necessary. You posted a video of someone who tried to get an abortion at 7 months, which doesn’t qualify as a full term pregnancy. You fucking retard.

There are abortion videos of babies screaming in pain and pulling away from the forceps as their skull is crushed

@Cosmic_v3 @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec What's the last sentence say?

@TheBestCaliph @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec Nobody asked, stay on track. Smooth brain.

@Cosmic_v3 @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec Fully viable babies are being aborted all the time. It should be shocking to you. That's my point. I never claimed anything else.

@TheBestCaliph @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec Go ahead and read the tweet you originally replied to again, you fucking retard

@Cosmic_v3 @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec The video is the testimony of a late term abortion survivor. She was viable at birth (attempted killing). I claimed it to be nothing else than what it actually is. Do you have the reading comprehension of a dog?

@TheBestCaliph @Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec “The proof in question is this video not proving the claim at all”

@Chingooonaa @JackPosobiec People be aborting fully viable babies all the time. Just take it from a survivor: youtu.be/hOWMmx6eBjU?si…

@JackPosobiec Prove it. Where are the videos? Men, specifically maga white men, have to be the absolute most brain dead people to exist. A full term baby would never be aborted unless it’s absolutely and medically NECESSARY.

@Studzienkov @notmicid The skirts were a goated decision and you just have 0 taste

@notmicid the skirts were a shit decision women wear pants as well, you know?

laboratory waifus

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt You're genuinely making up these arguments now. Pure semantic vibe. "Fuck it I don't actually have anything to back up my claim whatever" your arguments don't even have logical cohesion anymore

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt We're not definining "human development", we're defining "human". Paleontologists aren't concerned with development, their definition concerns what a human is not how it develops. We don't define many things by referencing what they were before functioning as the thing they are.

Hot fucking take: Forcing birth just to dump a baby into adoption is way more unethical than having an abortion.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Please find me some peer reviewed anthropological, biological, or paleontological article that defines the beginning of human development at anything other than the zygote stage and we can go from there

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Obviously I'm probing your definition here, because I think if you define things as identical with their development that should apply to everything. But after that it still needs to be shown why humanhood is morally relevant without intuition pumping the word 'human'.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt yes but only one of those things is the scientific beginning of human development

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt What's your point? Plenty things need to happen for a zygote to develop into a human. Neither is independent and both require a whole host of things to go right for them to result in a human. It's not an analogy, that's an actual definition like yours, it just loses moral weight

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt but those criteria are arbitrary. There are lots of living adult humans who do not have one, or all of those criteria. You're suggesting that it's okay to murder them.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt The criteria I give are directly related to the ethics we're discussing. If all humans were nonconcious single cells resembling zygotes, there would be 0 ethical justification for them to have moral rights. We only developed moral rights because of the criteria I listed.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Terrible analogy. An egg and a sperm alone will not make a human. They need to combine to begin development. You know that though.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Yeah I'm now just asking why you don't apply the same definitional standards to any other definition. But I can also join you by making a similar ad hoc definition. To me humans begin in two parts, a sperm and an egg, that's the first stage. Without that stage there's no zygote

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt "Would you define a moth as a caterpillar?" Would you define a baby as an adult? Is a baby a different species than an adult? Are you retarded?

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt I gave you my definition, based on the biological categorization of human development. Or we could go with your rigorous scientific qualification of a "human": -has perception -has consciousness -has Self awareness -has Goals -has Aspirations -has Hopes -has desires

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Yes, specifically the zygote stage, after the combination of two gametes. That is the beginning of human development. That is the first stage. This the human in his/her first stage of development.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt That's not the first stage of development, nor is it actually a definition, in the same way that a pile of wood is not a definition of a table.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt No I'm talking about humans, who begin in the embryonic stage at the fertilization of an egg. Biology 101.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt That's.. not a definition of human. That's like you asking me to define 'table' and me saying "well obviously a table begins in the woodworking phase when you craft logs into various shapes".

@ChrisChris61528 @historigins Can't even answer basic questions and conflates two theories together. Come on bro why can I see the moon in that video but not the ship?

@TheBestCaliph @historigins Hey tard, I told you I was done playing with you. You're just a troll. No need to go further.

To prove that the Earth is round, not flat, a man filmed a cruise ship until it disappeared from sight

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Human. Which begins in the human embryonic stage of development. This is biology 101. Anything else is deciding arbitrarily when to murder someone. Consult the following for any confusion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developme…

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Recall what I said about circularity. You need a definition for 'human', otherwise you're just begging the question. The capacity for consciousness is the ability to maintain a state of wakeful arousal and respond to stimuli. An unconscious person has that, a dead one doesn't.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt What does "capacity for consciousness" mean if not being conscious? Your criteria for illegal to murder: -has perception -has consciousness -has Self awareness -has Goals -has Aspirations -has Hopes -has desires My criteria for illegal to murder: -Human

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt I didn't say 'are conscious' I said 'have the capacity for consciousness'. And how would you determine they have no aspirations? What are your criteria? Because to some extent this type of criticism falls short if you can't subject your own to similar criticism.

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt I've met people who are unconscious or don't have hopes/aspirations. It doesn't mean I should be able to murder them legally.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt What's arbitrary about them? They're present in everyone I've ever met. Without relying on meaningless circular definitions, what are your much less arbitrary criteria?

@thegreencandle_ @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt Yes but we're just establishing here that you believe that people should be able to legally murder another human being who doesn't possess your long list of arbitrary values.

@TheBestCaliph @Rennsaii @ABmrJutt I've responded to the topic several times in this thread, those aren't new criteria I've brought them up elsewhere. I'm just not gonna make an exhaustive list for every response. It's only because you've shifted the topic here to human rights that they're worth expanding on.