When you pose a different question, like ask "do you to criminalize a miscarriage or you think a woman's life is the same as a fertilized egg" I'm sure you weed out most of the retards and the sensible opinion comes out. It's really about how you phrase it. But, you're probably right that 30-35% or maybe even more people in the US believe in life is conception, but that's not all that surprising since a large majority also believe in silly things like 2000 years ago a guy died for their sins after walking on water and turning water into wine.

Ok, zyx.

After so many years, I guess he's rubbing off on me a bit.

Allons-y!

I'm sure he enjoys rubbing off on people.

It's neither extreme nor stupid; it's merely a difference of opinion.

Why are you people so intolerant?

You misspelled indulgent.

Buffalo Pete: Raving batshit loony? Or HOPE FOR MAN???
(I may be that guy.)

If there were only, say, 10,000 humans on Earth, personhood would probably be deemed to begin with semen and eggs, not fertilised eggs. I seem to remember Jehovah killing someone for spilling his seed. But no reason to stop even there, as some ultra-Christians might argue that their personhood began before they were conceived. (For example, I have this client who often tells me that God knew him before he was conceived.) If there were only 10,000 people, every woman's primary duty would be to bear more children, every man's primary duty would be to ensure the survival of those children, and birth control would be as unthinkable, even tragic, as abortion. But with 7 billion humans on Earth, heading for 9.5 billion by mid-century, humanity would be much better off if lots of females stopped having kids altogether and lots of others stuck with one or two.

Unless "personhood" means something entirely different to you than to me, cells don't have "personhood" and condors don't have personhood either. You might as well talk about personhood of ants as personhood of fertilised human eggs. Fertilised condor eggs represent potential condor life, just as fertilised human eggs represent potential human life. If you fear that condors will go extinct, you will want to protect condor eggs because they represent your best chance to avoid condor extinction, not because you respect condorhood, whatever that means, but for practical survival reasons. Humans don't face survival issues these days, except in context of nuking ourselves into oblivion or overpopulating this planet. Claiming some moral imperative to get to 15 billion people so that we can begin to slaughter one another over resources leaves me pretty cold.

You're evading the crux of the matter.

Which, for you, involves giving legal rights to collections of cells rather than to human beings, even (especially?) if it means women have less rights than those cells growing in their bodies?

I want recognition of my right to smash condor eggs.

False equivalence.  Do you also wish to have the right to smash another persons fertilized ovum?  Alternatively, do you wish to prosecute a condor that smashes its own eggs?  

Assume the female Condor has abandoned her nest, signalling she does not wish to hatch and raise the eggs.

No difference.  I see it as a property law question.  Likely the US Gov asserts property rights to such endangered bird eggs and thus their destruction would be a crime against US government property (probably through the relevant endangered species legislation).  If not the government then the owner of the land.  If there is no owner who asserts rights to them then I say go crazy... but keep an eye on the sky just in case.

I think your question would be more applicable in regards to embryos left over from IVF or other procedures where the parents cannot be contacted and/or have given no indication as to how they want the embryos to be treated.  Is there an ethical obligation to preserve them?

The position you seem to be staking out, where the protections afforded to persons or potential persons are dependent solely on utilitarian criteria are repugnant to me.  And likely to you, too, I am guessing, if you would take some time to consider the likely consequences of pursuing such an approach.

The position you seem to be staking out, where "sexual morality" means producing as many babies as possible even if that means forcing women to have them (and even when that means human overpopulation will get addressed by war, famine, and destruction rather than by family planning) seems repugnant to me. I guess you've thought through why having more World Wars to keep population down seems morally superior to having fewer children to begin with, and so unborn fertilised eggs with no self-awareness and not yet attached to anyone's uterine lining seem to you to have more rights than actual sentient women.

What do you want really? Will 9 billion be enough? Should humanity shoot for 15 billion or 20 billion? No resource issues in your world? Have you really taken time to consider the likely consequences of pursuing such an approach?

"unborn fertilised eggs with no self-awareness and not yet attached to anyone's uterine lining"

Like a condor egg.

I would let you eat that egg abandoned by its mum, you know.

I get it though. Why should (fertilised) condor eggs be protected by law but fertilised human eggs not be protected? My response (Earth has way too many humans already) apparently horrified MC, which I understood, but you too? And you always deny being Catholic. Like all those "secular Jews" who tell you they don't believe in God but who never really stop being Jewish.

As I've told you before, I have no religious beliefs, and I've been in Catholic church once my entire life, for a wedding. Your repeated insistence otherwise leads me to believe you have mental problems.

Speaking of horrifying people, when I suggest implementing something like William Shockley's Voluntary Sterilization Bonus Plan, pro-abortion liberals get upset. Does that make any sense? Since you bring it up, what types of humans does the Earth have too many of?

"Like all those "secular Jews" who tell you they don't believe in God but who never really stop being Jewish."

Jews are tribal? Who knew! Besides you, I mean.

I definitely have mental problems. At least I own and understand my problems.

Funny how you want to sterilise "Obama supporters" but don't want them to have abortions, and liberals want them to have abortions but don't want people like you to advocate sterilisation. I figure black folks would have trouble figuring which of you to have greater contempt for.

Earth's human population has gone from less than 1 billion to more than 7 billion in something like 200 years. Everyone figures there will be 9.5 billion people in 2050. I think that many people burden Earth's resource base, and make devastating wars inevitable.

But then Republican sympathisers don't seem to do that well with reality lately. Say global warming and they hear totalitarian conspiracy, say evolution and they hear Christian-bashing, say overpopulation and they hear genocide. Asking anyone to control himself for humanity's good screams of Communism.

Yeah, Jews are tribal. Not at all like you.  

"I definitely have mental problems"

We finally agree on something.

"Funny how you want to sterilise "Obama supporters""

It is funny. Hey, that's two things we agree on!

Everyone I have ever met has mental problems. Presuming you don't have any would qualify you in my book as having mental problems.

While you imagine that Earth needs more white nationalists like yourself, people like you never seem to have children. That doesn't surprise me either. Your ideology has no future, so why invest in children who will grow up thinking of you as some pre-Industrial relic?

Everyone I have ever met has mental problems.

I mean really, there's mental problems and then there's mental problems. You having a stressful workweek that leads to you shouting at another driver in a fit of road rage isn't the same as having voices in your head or thinking that colors make sounds or believing in imaginary friends like god. Those are serious mental problems.

Well, see, there you have it. Since at least 92% of Americans believe in imaginary friends like God, you start by admitting that most Americans have mental problems, and you haven't even begun to scratch around yet. I wish I could hear colours though.

The position you seem to be staking out, where "sexual morality" means producing as many babies as possible even if that means forcing women to have them (and even when that means human overpopulation will get addressed by war, famine, and destruction rather than by family planning) seems repugnant to me.

Good. I prefer to be off-target in this case. But most people who argue for "personhood at conception" seem primarily motivated not merely to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, but to outlaw as many types of birth control as possible.

Let's get down to it though. Your daughter (or wife, or mother) gets raped by some crazed monster lurking in bushes (who later gets caught and turns out to be psycho killer). If you would force her to carry that baby to term, and invite that man's blood into your family, then you really embrace "personhood at conception". I don't.

Your argument is tautological.