Abortion

[gfm7175]

Cute. @AProudLefty and @Dutch Uncle talking to each other.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Consumated temptations can turn into good memories. I'm now 49 years old and I've considered the possibility that I won't have any more girlfriends from here on out. Which means that those consumated temptations may well be my only memories of sexual intercourse for the rest of my life.

You do know that if you can make it past 70 and are not a dick you can have all the sex you want right, because of men dying off?

Also a lot of the old men cant be bothered with women......they have had their fill.

 

[Scott]

Refusal to heed this advice is precisely what leads to the destruction that is known as the subset of 'contract killings'

Here's where we disagree, as I don't believe that abortion is a subset of contract killings.

I understand that you don't believe it, but you've yet to explain your reasoning for how abortion is somehow NOT a subset of contract killings.

Actually I have, though perhaps not to you. It all has to do with how I and many others define abortion. I've listed some examples in the past of how abortion is defined in some dictionaries. I'll quote some again here:
**
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

• noun Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
• noun Any of various procedures that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.:

• noun the removal of a fetus from the womb prior to normal delivery in a manner such as to cause the death of the fetus; also called voluntary abortion, or when performed by a physician, therapeutic abortion.

**

Source:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Note that the word killing is never used. Instead, words such as "termination of a pregnancy..." and "removal of a fetus" are used instead.

I think a lot of people don't really understand the power of words to shape our perceptions. I have a deep respect for them and so I make sure people understand how I am defining words. I generally try to conform to the ways in which certain dictionaries define them in an effort to try to reach an agreement on how to define some words. I know from personal experience, however, that when it comes to the subject of abortion, some people will refuse to use dictionary definitions and discussions on the subject tend to come to an end.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. Some women decide that it would be best to terminate their pregnancies at this point. I think that should be their choice to make.

Wouldn't it be better off to not engage in behavior that can initiate a pregnancy [snip]

...instead of risking pregnancy and if actually -getting- pregnant, perhaps deciding to have an abortion? I think we can agree that hindsight is 20/20. As I've mentioned before, I think of life as something like a casino, where we make gambles. Sometimes the gambles pay off, sometimes they don't. I think it's safe to say that when we're making the gambles, we think they're the best options. Later on, we may have second thoughts. That's life.

 

[Scott]

So what remains to be determined is what to do when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy.

Here, I want to be very clear that when you use the words "what to do when a woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy", you aren't implying that pregnancy is something that "just unexpectedly happens" but rather is something that can very well result from the choice to engage in heterosexual intercourse (even when those people are actively trying to prevent pregnancy via usage of condoms, pills, etc).

Sure. Goes back to what I've said about gambles in life.

The U.S. has now decided that individual states are to make the laws on this and they have.

Right. More technically, the current U.S. Supreme Court has overturned an unconstitutional ruling by a prior U.S. Supreme Court.

I suspect some people might not agree that the former U.S. Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional, but I'm not that interested in the subject myself. I believe that woman should have the right to have abortions regardless of what lawmakers think.

 

[Scott]

If only that were true.

It IS true. Now, obviously I made up the 0.000001% figure (or however many zeros I used in that comment of mine), but my point is that such instances are EXTREMELY low and that the VAAAAAST majority of abortions are done for convenience purposes, NOT "the common exceptions" purposes.

Up until now, we're just voicing our beliefs. Below, we get into studies, which I think we might agree is a better way of handling things such as statistics.

Brace yourself for the harsh reality:
**
Reports of forced intercourse remained high during the pandemic, with more than 25% of U.S. females over 40 reporting lifetime forced intercourse in the AFHS (number of females in AFHS: 1,042). There was a significant increase among females aged 24–28 (p<.05) and rates are highest for those who did not complete college. Among females 24–28, 32.5% (S.E. = 5.7%) with less than 4 years of college reported forced intercourse, a significantly (p<.05) higher rate than among those with higher education.

Conclusions:​

Rates of forced intercourse among U.S. women remained high during the pandemic, increasing significantly in early adulthood. This exposure to forced intercourse is likely to produce an increase in unintended pregnancies and other sexual, reproductive, and mental health problems.
**

Source:

Forced Intercourse in America: A Pandemic Update - PMC

Measures of forced intercourse from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) indicate this a high prevalence among U.S. women that is likely to produce unintended pregnancies. However, NCHS did not measure forced intercourse during the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That's a survey of some people who claim that they've been raped, not a survey of some people who have had a rape result in a pregnancy and then decided to abort the child because of it.

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, this fact sheet was updated on January 14, 2023, and again on May 24, 2024. After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country have enacted laws that limit abortion. Frequently, these state laws make...

lozierinstitute.org

You're right, the percentage of woman who are raped is definitely not the same thing as the percentage of women who get abortions due to the result of that rape being a pregnancy. Thanks for your survey that gets into how many abortions are due to pregnancy due to rape.

In this particular survey (I'm only mentioning it because you've already set the standard for throwing around random surveys and treating them as "holy")

No, not holy, but I think we might agree that it's a hell of a lot better than just making statistics up on the fly .

In this particular survey..., it lists reasons for abortion. It says that 99.3% of abortions are performed for convenience purposes

Not true. Here's what the survey you linked to actually says in terms of percentages for abortions:
**

• Rape and incest: 0.4%[5]
• Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.3%[6]
• Other physical health concerns: 2.2%[7]
• Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.2%[8]
• Elective and unspecified reasons: 95.9%[9]

**

Source:

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, this fact sheet was updated on January 14, 2023, and again on May 24, 2024. After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country have enacted laws that limit abortion. Frequently, these state laws make...

lozierinstitute.org

No, I don't agree with that link's claim that "abnormalities" and "physical health concerns" fall under "common exceptions" for abortion. They are, rather, a part of the "convenience purposes" category because those are cases of people not wanting to be inconvenienced by their child being born with an abnormality or a health issue. Those cases are NOT rape, incest, or life of the mother.

In other words, you are defining as "convenience" any cases where rape, insist or life of the mother is not the reason given. Keep on mind that in many cases, there is no reason given, meaning that it could actually be one of those reasons and we just don't know it. I think it's clear that we don't agree on the definition of convenience when it comes to abortions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[gfm7175]

A living human -fetus-.

I really don't see why the word 'fetus' needs to keep being inserted into the discussion. Does it really matter what particular stage of life a living human is in? It doesn't change the fact that a living human is a living human. I'd suggest sticking to discussing living humans and not concerning oneself with numerous irrelevancies.

For me, and, I imagine, most if not all people on the pro choice side of things, it's crucially important to distinguish between a human fetus and a human who's life is not sustained by a woman's body.

Why is such a distinguishment important (or even relevant in any way)? Regardless, a living human is still a living human. Nothing changes on that front.

And here is where disagree- it all comes down to how we define abortion. I define it as the termination of a pregnancy, or the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry said fetus to term.

Nah. In actuality, it is a random dictionary that you treat as 'holy' that defines 'abortion' as "the termination of a pregnancy" or "the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry said fetus to term", and those particular definitions stroke your confirmation bias, making you feel all fuzzy inside.

I don't accept either of those definitions for 'abortion' because they purposely use dehumanizing verbiage in order to mask the horror of what is truly happening. The first definition completely removes the existence of a living human by solely referring to pregnancy rather than referring to the living human that is created and is growing/developing inside of the mother's womb during the pregnancy process.

The second definition dehumanizes by using the term 'fetus' (as if the "thing" inside the mother's womb were some other "invasive" species) instead of the term 'living human' or 'child' or 'offspring'.

As I said, it is DEHUMANIZING verbiage meant to "soften the blow" of hiring a hitman (a doctor) to kill a living human (to administer "healthcare" via "terminating a pregnancy") for a customer (that living human's mother).

Why do so many women loudly and proudly fight for the ability to legally hire a hitman to kill off their own offspring?

You define it as killing a living human.

Abortion is a subset of killing a living human.
More specifically, abortion is a subset of contract killing.
Even MORE specifically, abortion is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.

That's IBD's definition of abortion within his 'contract killing' thread, and I wholly agree with that definition so I am willing to adopt it for discussion purposes.


I'm curious where exactly the train goes "off the rails". Do you agree that abortion is a subset of "killing a living human"?

1. You've already agreed that "the fetus" (as you like to dehumanizingly call it) is in fact a living human.
2. You've already agreed that "terminating a pregnancy" (as you like to dehumanizingly call it) is in fact a process that causes "the fetus" (a living human) to cease living.
3. I assume that you agree that when Living Human [A] (the hitman, the "doctor") causes Living Human (the new/separate set of DNA, the offspring, the living human, the "fetus") to cease living, a killing of a living human has occurred. Correct?
   

 

[gfm7175]

A living human -fetus-.

I really don't see why the word 'fetus' needs to keep being inserted into the discussion. Does it really matter what particular stage of life a living human is in? It doesn't change the fact that a living human is a living human. I'd suggest sticking to discussing living humans and not concerning oneself with numerous irrelevancies.

For me, and, I imagine, most if not all people on the pro choice side of things, it's crucially important to distinguish between a human fetus and a human who's life is not sustained by a woman's body.

Why is such a distinguishment important (or even relevant in any way)? Regardless, a living human is still a living human. Nothing changes on that front.

And here is where disagree- it all comes down to how we define abortion. I define it as the termination of a pregnancy, or the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry said fetus to term.

Nah. In actuality, it is a random dictionary that you treat as 'holy' that defines 'abortion' as "the termination of a pregnancy" or "the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman who doesn't want to carry said fetus to term", and those particular definitions stroke your confirmation bias, making you feel all fuzzy inside.

I don't accept either of those definitions for 'abortion' because they purposely use dehumanizing verbiage in order to mask the horror of what is truly happening. The first definition completely removes the existence of a living human by solely referring to pregnancy rather than referring to the living human that is created and is growing/developing inside of the mother's womb during the pregnancy process.

The second definition dehumanizes by using the term 'fetus' (as if the "thing" inside the mother's womb were some other "invasive" species) instead of the term 'living human' or 'child' or 'offspring'.

As I said, it is DEHUMANIZING verbiage meant to "soften the blow" of hiring a hitman (a doctor) to kill a living human (to administer "healthcare" via "terminating a pregnancy") for a customer (that living human's mother).

Why do so many women loudly and proudly fight for the ability to legally hire a hitman to kill off their own offspring?

You define it as killing a living human.

Abortion is a subset of killing a living human.
More specifically, abortion is a subset of contract killing.
Even MORE specifically, abortion is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.

That's IBD's definition of abortion within his 'contract killing' thread, and I wholly agree with that definition so I am willing to adopt it for discussion purposes.


I'm curious where exactly the train goes "off the rails". Do you agree that abortion is a subset of "killing a living human"?

1. You've already agreed that "the fetus" (as you like to dehumanizingly call it) is in fact a living human.
2. You've already agreed that "terminating a pregnancy" (as you like to dehumanizingly call it) is in fact a process that causes "the fetus" (a living human) to cease living.
3. I assume that you agree that when Living Human A (the hitman, the "doctor") causes Living Human B (the new/separate set of DNA, the offspring, the child, the living human, the "fetus") to cease living, a killing of a living human has occurred. Correct?

 

[gfm7175]

Actually I have, though perhaps not to you. It all has to do with how I and many others define abortion. I've listed some examples in the past of how abortion is defined in some dictionaries. I'll quote some again here:

Okay. I'm happy to specifically go through each of these definitions and explain to you how they are using dehumanizing language in order to mask the horror of what is truly happening.

Remember, you've already agreed with me that "the fetus" is a living human.

**
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

• noun Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
• noun Any of various procedures that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

When Living Human A (the hitman, the "doctor") causes Living Human B (the new/separate set of DNA, the offspring, the child, the living human, the "fetus") to cease living, a killing of a living human has occurred. Correct?

This "dictionary definition" is using the words "terminating a pregnancy" to mask the horror of what is truly happening, namely the killing of a living human.

As I just stated above, if Living Human A causes Living Human B to cease living, then Living Human A has killed Living Human B. The process of "terminating a pregnancy" likewise causes a living human to cease living. Therefore, "terminating a pregnancy" IS killing a living human.

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.:

• noun the removal of a fetus from the womb prior to normal delivery in a manner such as to cause the death of the fetus; also called voluntary abortion, or when performed by a physician, therapeutic abortion.

Oh wow. This definition comes right out and admits that death is being caused by this process (which inherently implies that life existed beforehand). It, however, still refuses to use the words 'living human', instead opting for the dehumanizing word 'fetus'.

BTW, a physician/therapeutic is supposed to be a HEALER, not a killer.

Note that the word killing is never used.
Instead, words such as "termination of a pregnancy..." and "removal of a fetus" are used instead.

I noticed that. That's part of the whole "dehumanizing verbiage" thing that I keep explaining to you.

I think a lot of people don't really understand the power of words to shape our perceptions.

Oh I understand it VERY clearly. That's why I keep explaining to you that the "dictionary definitions" that you are treating as 'holy' are intentionally making use of dehumanizing verbiage in order to manipulate you into believing that "abortion is healthcare" instead of the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.

"Abortion is healthcare" sounds warm/fuzzy. "Abortion is contract killing" is a bit too honest for the women who only care about their own convenience instead of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of "hitjobs" that they have hired on their own unborn offspring, the most vulnerable of humans, over just the last few years alone, let alone all throughout human history.

 

[gfm7175]

...instead of risking pregnancy and if actually -getting- pregnant, perhaps deciding to have an abortion? I think we can agree that hindsight is 20/20. As I've mentioned before, I think of life as something like a casino, where we make gambles. Sometimes the gambles pay off, sometimes they don't. I think it's safe to say that when we're making the gambles, we think they're the best options. Later on, we may have second thoughts. That's life.

It's MUCH easier to gamble when it isn't YOUR life that's at risk.

 

[gfm7175]

Sure. Goes back to what I've said about gambles in life.

... and that goes back to what I just said about it being MUCH easier to gamble when it isn't YOUR life that ceases to exist when "the House wins".

I suspect some people might not agree that the former U.S. Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional,

Of course some people do, just like some people outright reject set theory in order to retain their erroneous viewpoint that abortion somehow isn't a subset of contract killing.

but I'm not that interested in the subject myself.

I suppose that you're not if you don't live in the USA, but I live in the USA, so I DO care about it.

I believe that wom[e]n should have the right to [hire professional killers to kill their unborn children] regardless of what lawmakers think.

Fixed that for you.

 

[gfm7175]

In other words, you are defining as "convenience" any cases where rape, insist or life of the mother is not the reason given.

I am considering these specific items as parts of the overarching category of "convenience":

• Other physical health concerns: 2.2%[7]
• Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.2%[8]
• Elective and unspecified reasons: 95.9%[9]

Keep on mind that in many cases, there is no reason given, meaning that it could actually be one of those reasons and we just don't know it. I think it's clear that we don't agree on the definition of convenience when it comes to abortions.

Convenience: the quality of desiring less effort/difficulty in order to do something.

For example, the necessity to take a detour when driving to a destination is inconvenient because it is harder and takes longer to arrive at the destination than if one could simply drive down the more direct road that has now been closed due to repair work. Using THAT road is convenient. Using the detour road is inconvenient.

For a woman who has no intention of birthing and rearing a child, becoming pregnant is an inconvenience for her. She wouldn't be able to "hang out with the girls whenever" like she used to do (because she now needs that time to rear a child). That's an inconvenience to her. If she hires a hitman to kill her unborn child for her, then she's having that child killed because he is an inconvenience to her.

Children born with abnormalities and health concerns require extra care during their lives. That's an inconvenience. Hiring a hitman to kill that unborn child is killing him because he is an inconvenience due to his abnormality/health concern.

That's why I consider those categories to all fall under the overarching "convenience purposes" umbrella.

 

[IBDaMann]

I actually agree with IBD on several issues, such as his dislike of Covid vaccines.

To be clear, I do not dislike any vaccines. I staunchly oppose anyone being forced or otherwise coerced into receiving any vaccine.

At one point, he even suggested that my belief that biological viruses might not be real might be correct.

Yes. When we speak about "viruses", we are assuming a particular model that might be discarded tomorrow for some new model, and there is nothing preventing you from being the person who develops that new model. The important aspect of your pursuit is that you continue investigating and researching, and not allowing others to bully you out of developing your model.

But if your model rejects math, the internal consistency check of the scientific method will fail it before it ever gets out of the starting gate.

On the issue of abortions, I suspect we won't find an agreement,

As long as you reject math, you will be relegated to denial. Obviously, killing supremacy is just too important to you.

but I think we're at least getting down to the reasons why we won't find that agreement.

You are a killing supremacist. You support contract killings while absurdly trying to deny that you do.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think of life as something like a casino

That's a mistake. A casino represents a limited set of options, all of which are stacked against you.

Life is more like a ship on voyage, with you as the Captain. You don't necessarily get to choose the ship or the weather, but you certainly get to choose the direction and how you handle every situation.

- we all make gambles in our choices.

Just as "definition" is the wrong word for discussing disctionaries, "gamble" is the wrong word for discussing life. Just as "usage" is the correct word for discussing words, "risk" and "uncertainty" are the correct words for describing what you are trying to express.

Sometimes our gambles pay off, sometimes they don't.

This skewed view is indicative of an "Unplanned Pregnancy" fallacy in which one is treating "arbitrary" as "random". Here, you are wrap all of one's deliberate choices and risk amelioration as "random occurrence." It gives the false impression that one has no control over anything, i.e. that everything is random anyway.

I don't regret having sex with the 3 women in question. Perhaps you could say I got lucky in how things turned out.

How did they turn out? Why would you have regrets?

Now that I think about it, there was no verbal agreement as to what would happen if any of them got pregnant.

Pure irresponsibility across the board, legitimized by the bogus idea that everything is random anyway.

I just know I would have respected any of their decisions on whether to [allow my child to live or to put out a hit on my child] (and even contributed monetarily to a [contract killing of my child] if I had the money).

FTFY. Wow. I suppose that if you ever have children some day, you should make sure they are so very thankful that you allowed them to live.

I think you know at this point that I [reject math]

FTFY. Message received LIMA CHARLIE. You don't ever need to mention it again.

 

[Scott]

Contract killing (i.e. an order done on an adult human being) is murder.

Wikipedia makes it an either/or proposition:
**
Contract killing (also known as murder-for-hire) is a form of murder or assassination in which one party hires another party to kill a targeted person or people.
**
Source:

Contract killing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So it's either murder -or- assassination. The reason this is important has to do with the definition of murder itself:
**

• noun The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

**
Source:

murder — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Note the first part of that definition: "The killing of another person without justification". To me, this begs the question, are all contract killings without justification? I strongly doubt it. This is all a bit of a sidetrack though. I definitely don't see abortion as a subset of contract killings.

A fetus is not an adult human being.

Not only that, a human fetus can't even survive outside of the womb- even a baby born an hour ago can manage this. If a fetus -could- survive outside of the womb, there would be more choices as to what to do with unwanted pregnancies.

A fetus under 6 weeks is not adult or conscious.

Agreed on the adult bit- as to conscious, I don't know. The issue of how to define consciousness is a thorny one:

Consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I think is far more important, is how intelligent is a human fetus in comparison to both other stages of human life, as well as other animals. When considering the following article:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

As well as this one:

Are Chickens Smarter Than Toddlers? A View of Cross-Species Comparisons

Karen Davis weighs in on the popular issue of comparing animals such as chickens to human children and proposes an alternative perspective.

freefromharm.org

I think it's high time people realize that human fetuses are not exactly that high up in the intelligence totem pole. I think it'd make more sense to be concerned for the life of an adult chicken then that of a human fetus.

Nor are chickens the only livestock that is pretty intelligent:

Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals

Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

How Smart Are Pigs Really? 13 Things Science Just Confirmed - Exploring Animals

Pigs aren’t just smart—they’re mind-blowingly clever. They’ve been trained to play video games, recognize themselves in mirrors, and even outwit humans when it comes to food. Forget the mud—these animals are brainiacs with hooves, and science is finally catching up to what farmers and pig lovers...

exploringanimals.com

 

[Scott]

Anyone engaging in heterosexual intercourse is accepting the possibility of a resulting pregnancy. Such cannot be "unplanned". It is deliberately planned.

Surely you understand the difference between a possibility and a certainty?

Yes.

Good. This will help with the next part.

A person who drives a car without insurance doesn't "plan" to crash.

Correct. The person deliberately plans to drive the car, fully accepting the possibility of crashing.

Exactly. I want to make sure that you understand that just because there is a -possibility- that a sexual encounter might result in pregnancy doesn't mean that getting pregnant was "deliberately planned".

This is worth repeating: The person deliberately plans to drive the car, accepting the full range of possibilities.

Sure. Just keep in mind that they are not deliberately planning to crash the car.

 

[Scott]

Surely you understand the difference between a possibility and a certainty? A person who drives a car without insurance doesn't "plan" to crash. If anything, I imagine they'd be even more cautious on the road precisely because they don't have insurance.

Teachable moment. "A person" is singular. "They" is plural. This is very poor grammar. The pronoun "he" is required.

You seem certain that I was referring to a he. I was not.

 

[Scott]

A man can and does end the lives of millions of sperm every day:

How Long Does It Take for Sperm to Regenerate? Tips for Production

Your testicles make several million sperm a day. Here’s how long it takes for them to regenerate (or mature), how this affects your fertility, and more.

www.healthline.com

Does he "kill" them every time he ejaculates? Or is it fine since they'd die anyway?

How many of the sperm have beating hearts?

Why is having a beating heart so important to you? All sorts of animals have beating hearts, but that doesn't change the fact that many people kill those animals for food.

How many of the sperm have DNA that is distinct from the father?

Again, humans are hardly the only animals that have DNA that is distinct from the father- doesn't change the fact that many end up on the dinner table.

 

[Scott]

For the audience, IBDaMann changed the word "unplanned" to "unwanted" in the quote of mine above. The thing is, they're not the same thing. I even quoted an article from Wikipedia that explains that unplanned pregnancies fall into 2 separate categories, but it appears that IBDaMann never read it.

It would have been much easier, and much more honest, for you to have either quoted my explanation or simply linked to my explanation, rather than waste the bandwidth throwing up a smokescreen.

IBDaMann, it appears that you're not reading a lot of what I write. Surely you understand that 2 can play that game?