The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Personally Speaking

April 12, 2006 | 24 Comments

“When does being a person begin?” Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Planned Parenthood website

Comments

24 Responses to “Personally Speaking”

  1. Chris Treborn
    April 12th, 2006 @ 1:21 pm

    Truly, being a person begins when you accept the loveof Jesus Christ into your heart. It is wrong to kill children before they are able to appreciate this amazing gift.

  2. jahrta
    April 12th, 2006 @ 3:49 pm

    moveable type is shit

  3. jahrta
    April 12th, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

    Personhood begins during a process known as the quickening (insert Highlander reference here), during which activity in the brain reaches levels which developmental biologists believe suggest that the organism has attained self-awareness, and the basics for cognitive reasoning. It is during this stage that the fetus begins to form an understanding of itself as well as its surrounding, and how it interacts with those surroundings.

    Chris Treborn does not appear to have ever undergone the quickening, as evinced through comments such as the one listed above, and thusly he is still elligible for an abortion, even at this late stage in the game. Any takers?

  4. Chris Treborn
    April 12th, 2006 @ 4:05 pm

    Jahrta, why not begin the debate with uncalled for attacks? That way you can help prove that atheists in general are rude a@@holes.

  5. PinkFlamingo
    April 12th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

    I must say, I agree with jahrta. Of course, poor little Chris is obviously delusional, so we should give him the chance to be cured of his illogical thought patterns before we decide what should be done with him.

  6. Tom
    April 12th, 2006 @ 8:44 pm

    As the old adage goes, if something seems too good be be true, it probably is. Chris Treborn is too perfect an example of a clueless Christian to be one. But I don’t believe he’s an atheist, either. He’s, maybe, a Wiccan with a grudge against both groups who is getting his kicks by coming here to ruffle feathers.

  7. AJ
    April 13th, 2006 @ 12:15 am

    that’s pretty much what tamudic law regarding childbirth and personhood is as well; only after the soon-to-be person exits the birth canal completely do they become infants. That’s probably in case complications during birth force the attending midwife/doctor to use lethal mesures to ensure the survival of the mother without infanticide. I think the definition is valid; one could argue that fetuses are biologicly human from conception, but a human must be outside the womb and in the world in order to become a person.

  8. Simon
    April 13th, 2006 @ 3:47 am

    I’m atheist, but I have to admit when we had the scan of my unborn (at the time) son, even though this was done at only 4 months or so, seeing our child had a big impact on us. We decided not to have the regulation tests because we knew even if there was a chance of the child having something wrong, we couldn’t kill it.

    But this was our personal choice. I wouldn’t inflict it on anyone else.

  9. Facehammer
    April 13th, 2006 @ 6:21 am

    ahrta, why not begin the debate with uncalled for attacks? That way you can help prove that atheists in general are rude a@@holes.

    And you would know all about completely unprovoked attacks that ignore your opponent’s argument, wouldn’t you? Your recent and incredibly rubbish attack on Mister Swill comes immediately to mind.

    Why do you deserve to be heard when you conduct yourself in such a manner?

    If you are a troll, you’ve done an excellent job. *nods sagely*

  10. Chris Treborn
    April 13th, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

    My Lord! Why is it that when somebody shows you atheists for the immoral hypocrits you are, you immediately label them “trolls” or “retards”? This level of insecurity is extremely revealing, and pathetic. And for the record, facehammer, mr swill attacked me first, as you well know. I realize that truth is not all that important to you and your kind, but you could at least try not to lie about easily checked facts.

  11. Mookie
    April 13th, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

    Chris,

    A troll is a blog term for a poster who shows up, annoys everyone, adds NOTHING to the discussion, insults or otherwise goads people, and is generally not welcome. You fit that description very well. Grow a brain and approach the topic(s) on this site using logic and reasoning skills, and you may yet win our hearts.

    As to the quote, I can agree to that assessment, but again, there is the idea that the person is a blank slate, and must be indoctrinated with memes to be a viable member of society.

  12. Chris Treborn
    April 13th, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

    Mookie, I was unaware of the usage of troll in this context, thank you for the heads up. It does seem to me, however, that this term basically covers anyone you don’t like. I don’t expect to be greeted with friendship. here since this is, after all, an atheist site, but it would be nice to be able to have a conversation without being attacked for no reason, or being offended by some of the more disgusting types here (I’m think Choobus, a vile character who also fits the troll definition IMO since all he does is make disgusting comments). Does “retard” also have a different meaning, because that word is thrown around a lot as well.

  13. Jahrta
    April 13th, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

    “My Lord! Why is it that when somebody shows you atheists for the immoral hypocrits you are, you immediately label them “trolls” or “retards”? This level of insecurity is extremely revealing, and pathetic. And for the record, facehammer, mr swill attacked me first, as you well know. I realize that truth is not all that important to you and your kind, but you could at least try not to lie about easily checked facts.”

    Are you kidding? Immoral hypocrites? Insecure? Are you quite sure you’re not talking about your own ilk?

    That last line about truth not being important and ignoring easily-verifiable facts seems to indicate that you are, indeed, a troll pretending to be a theist so that you can expose the inherently hypocritical nature of the typical theistic argument. Kudos to you.

  14. Facehammer
    April 13th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

    I’ll leave out the rest, as it’s your usual verbal diarrhoea, and just address this:

    And for the record, facehammer, mr swill attacked me first, as you well know.

    Because in the “magic” comments, it looked an awful lot like you launched an entirely unprovoked attack on him, going exclusively for some (lame) gag about his name rather than his argument. Way to show us Christian love, shithead.

    A troll can also be defined as one who goes to a forum or message board with the express purpose of baiting and annoying the regulars to the point of frothing at the mouth by any means necessary – a definition that seems to fit you like a glove.

  15. Chris Treborn
    April 13th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

    classic fachammer/atheist: you assume that my only interest is to annoy YOU! A little arrogant don’t you think? Your definition fit’s me “like a glove”, only I doon’t have any hands. You are delusional at best, and more likely dishonest. What next, are you going to ask me if I do a@al?

  16. Tom
    April 13th, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

    Your definition fit’s me “like a glove”, only I doon’t have any hands.

    : chortle : Okay, now I’m convinced you’re a faker. Take advantage of the situation. Give us some really good satire!

  17. Facehammer
    April 13th, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

    At what point did “the regulars of a forum” become “me”?

    As for the rest, that’s just too funny, man. Seriously, I’ve seen dozens of internet trolls in my time – some of whom were funnier than anyone had any right to be – and I have absolutely no idea whether you’re a brilliant troll or a dribbling mongol. Since such ambiguity is a mark of true trolling genius, I’d go with the former.

    Seriously:

    Your definition fit’s me “like a glove”, only I doon’t have any hands.

    Either way, you can’t possibly be serious. And whatever you are, keep it up – this is some seriously funny sh.it.

  18. choobus
    April 13th, 2006 @ 3:35 pm

    Chris, if you don’t have any hands, how do you manage to be such a jackoff?

  19. Yabba Doo
    April 13th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    If the state of being human begins when certain levels of cognitive function first develop, does that not then mean severely handicapped people are not human by definition? Does that mean that the anacephalic baby is never human and is not worthy of the dignity afforded all humans? What about those born with severe cognitive disabilities? What about people who are normal and then lose these abilities or has them greatly reduced? If a living, breathing no-quite-human is born or later created via accident or disease, do we simply kill these people then? I’m not talking about mercy-killings as such, but in general. Some parents are perfectly content caring for children with severe disabilities and likewise children with elderly parents.

  20. Chris Treborn
    April 13th, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

    I am seeing a pettern here. Someone shakes up your image of Christians being dumb fools with no clue, and you can’t accept it, so they must be a “troll”. Face it, a lot of Christians are just smarter than you. Get used to it. The policy of ridiculing anyone who doesn’t agree with you is worse than pathetic, and it doesn’t speak well of the Atheist way, whatever that is. Sure, some Christians are dumb, just like some Atheists are dumb, but trying to deny that there are many many very intelligent Christians is like trying to deny God: pointless and just wrong.

    Choobus, do not address me until you learn to behave in a manner befitting a normal human being.

    Call me troll all you like, I will turn the other cheek. Nothing you can say bothers me.

  21. Facehammer
    April 13th, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

    Oh yeah, you really shattered my illusion of christians being dopey crackpots with “Your definition fit’s me “like a glove”, only I doon’t have any hands.

  22. Rob
    April 13th, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

    Chris, I won’t deny that there are intelligent Christians that come here. Unfortunately, you seem closer to Carico and Salty than Steve G. and Thomas in intelligence. And so far, all you’re doing is being the pot calling the kettle black.

    When you are saying “being a person begins when you accept the love of Jesus Christ into your heart.” you realize that you are saying that all non-Christians are non-persons? Why should we offer a bigot like you the benefit of a reasoned debate?

  23. Tom
    April 13th, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

    I am seeing a pettern here. Someone shakes up your image of Christians being dumb fools with no clue, and you can’t accept it, so they must be a “troll”.

    Actually, it’s the other way around. The character of Chris Treborn is so single-minded and myopic that it’s difficult to take his posts seriously. In other words, we expect more from Christians than what we get from Chris.

  24. Los Pepes
    April 14th, 2006 @ 6:14 am

    Treborn –

    Why else would you come here if it weren’t to annoy people? Do you think somehow you’re going to convert someone to your cult? Of course not. You’re here because by jumping into a pit with a bunch of people that you know are going slam you, you can claim to be persecuted, and say you fought the good fight.

    I, for one, enjoy the hell out of your zany antics and goofy mental-illness. Rock on, playa…

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links