Abortion

[AProudLefty]

Ahhhhh, so you're actually jealous? Got it.

Nope.

Yes you are. You constantly talk to each other.

@gfm7175 @IBDaMann @Into the Night

 

[IBDaMann]

Could be. You'll need evidence. All you have is heartbeat and brain activity.

All I need is a heartbeat and human DNA.

 

[IBDaMann]

I did. I think it's truly horrendous that many tens of millions of living humans EACH YEAR are having hit jobs placed on them before they're even born.

How are contract killings legal when they are illegal?

I also suspect that "further suffering down the road" is part of what life is.

Correct. One cannot suffer when one is dead. This must be the DNC's plan to end world suffering.

Suffering is a part of life for everyone; it's unavoidable.

Hence, the Party of Death, the party of "No More Suffering."

Yes, it's sad that roughly 5 million children between newborn and five die in a year (idk offhand if 2023 is a good representation of a "typical year" or not, but let's say that it is). It's also sad that almost 100 million children die each year between conception and birth (a much shorter timeframe), with 75%+ of those deaths occurring via contracted killings.

It's no surprise to ANYONE who has been paying attention. Convenience has been on the rise like a hot air balloon.

- Foodservice Expansion: 85% of U.S. shoppers have tried made-to-order meals at convenience stores, with hot meal purchases rising from 29% in 2024 to 35% in 2025.
- QSR Parity: 72% of consumers now view convenience stores as viable alternatives to quick-service restaurants, up from 56% last year.
- Loyalty Programs: 72% of shoppers are enrolled in convenience store loyalty programs, and 85% would join if rewards were personalized.
- Retail Media: Digital screens in stores are converting attention into sales — 47% of shoppers noticed them, and over a third made purchases because of them.
- EV Charging: 20% of consumers choose stores specifically for their EV chargers, with Millennials over-indexing at 45%.
- Abortions: 2023 saw 1,030,000 convenience killings, an increase of 10.8% over 2022
- Cleanliness and Trust: 70% of shoppers say store cleanliness directly affects their trust in food quality.

Convenience stores are now seen as proximity retailers — embedded in daily routines, offering fresh meals, wellness products, and even social spaces. With 96% of U.S. shoppers visiting convenience stores at least twice in 2024, they’ve become high-velocity retail hubs.
- Convenience stores account for 35% of all brick-and-mortar retail sales in the U.S.
- They were the fastest-growing retail channel from 2023 to 2024, with 1.5% year-over-year growth.

GOAL: End most/all "abortions" (hitjobs targeting unborn living humans)
ACTION: Try saving the lives of already born living humans.

@IBDaMann Is this a particular ACTION that you, as a rational adult, would take (given the GOAL)?

My action is to make a law similar to "You break it, you buy it", e.g. "No killing your own children" or "If you actively get yourself inseminated, you nurture the living human you create." A woman can have all the unwanted pregnancies she wishes, but she is just not allowed to kill any living humans.

We the People declared in the forming of the country that one of the truths that We hold to be self-evident is that LIFE is one of the inalienable rights with which We are endowed by our Creator. Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are two others.

 

[Into the Night]

This is a stupid request. You are well aware that I have defined "living human" here on JPP dozens of times across dozens of threads.

A being with a heartbeat and human DNA.

No heartbeat required. A human fetus will always produce a human baby. It will never be any other species.

 

[Into the Night]

There is NOTHING vague about that term. It's been VERY clearly and unambiguously defined.

Living --- has a heartbeat (as an undeniably clear indicator of life... no fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered "dead")
Human --- homo sapien species

^^^ continued usage of dehumanizing language to obfuscate the fact that living humans who have not committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die are being CONTRACT KILLED by hired hitmen (to the tune of many tens of millions each and every year).

Ergo, the species IS human. We agree on this.

Right. A living human IS a living human, no matter which stage of growth/development a living human happens to be in, whether fetus or elder. Age is irrelevant. A contract killing is a contract killing, no matter if the human being contract killed is 7 years old or 77 years old.

Nope. Both words are CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined. It is YOU who wishes to muddy the waters (and dehumanize the human being contract killed) by using words such as 'fetus', 'unplanned pregnancy', 'terminate a pregnancy', et al.

Yes, I damn well DO want to curtail contract killings. Not you, though...

I don't give a rat's ass what precise stage of development humans are being contract killed via hired hitmen (but a lot of them ARE happening during the fetal stage of human life). I just want the contracted killings of living humans to STOP.

Simpler than that. No heartbeat required.

Even before a full circulatory system is developed, it is still human. it will never be anything else.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes you are. You constantly talk to each other.

@gfm7175 @IBDaMann @Into the Night

Not really. We just happen to have similar views in politics.

 

[IBDaMann]

No heartbeat required. A human fetus will always produce a human baby. It will never be any other species.

At issue is when is it alive. You are a Christian and you believe that life begins at "conception." I don't deal in the realm of beliefs as much as I deal in knowledge. I readily admit that prior to having a heartbeat, the fetus might very well be alive; however, I know that once there is a heartbeat, there is life. Ergo, when it comes to making my definitions, I define "living human" as "a being with human DNA and a heartbeat" ... and I can get everyone, including you, to agree that anything meeting that definition is indeed a living human.

My definition does not preclude your beliefs from being correct.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

The actual name of this fallacy is an association fallacy. It attempts to associate random stuff like meteors, etc. with a controllable event, namely the so-called 'unplanned pregnancy'.


Another example describing the association fallacy.

Good question. Since he considers human life so valueless, that includes his own.

I call it bad metaphor fallacy.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

all this shit was solved in the 80's.

first trimester was established.

liberals extending the period to 5 years old is what caused reasonable pro-choicers to join fundies.


why did they do this?

hegelian dialectical divide and conquer horseshit?

i think so.

we choose fundies in that case.

 

[Scott]

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)?

Because after a living human is born, they no longer require a woman's body to sustain it. Especially in first world countries, this tends to mean that if the woman so chooses, she can give up the baby for adoption. This is clearly impossible before the living human is born. What's at stake here is the woman's autonomy.

 

[AProudLefty]

All I need is a heartbeat and human DNA.

So it is not a murder below that?

 

[Scott]

A doctor (in this case, a professional killer)

And here is where [we] 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.

First of all, I actually used -2- dictionaries that had 2 different definitions for abortion. Secondly, the dictionaries were not random. Thirdly, I never said or implied that the dictionaries I used were 'holy'. The dictionary definitions that I used in this case were both included in wordnik.com. I chose wordnik.com because it's the first link that comes up on duckduckgo.com when I search for word definitions and I have found their definitions to be good in the past. If you think we should look at another dictionary or encyclopedia entry, I'm certainly amenable to taking a look at one you prefer.

Also, if anyone would like to peruse the wordnik.com page on abortions for themselves, it can be seen here:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

 

[Scott]

And here is where [we] 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.

[snip]
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.

I strongly disagree.

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.

Not true. The complete first definition I was using, which is from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, is as follows:
**
noun Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

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'.

I strongly disagree with your notion that using the word fetus dehumanizes. I also strongly disagree that words/terms such as 'living human', 'child' or 'offspring' should be used instead, because all of those words are vague terms that don't specify the stage of development these living humans are in. I will get into how I am defining fetus in a second, but first, for the audience, the complete second definition I've used, from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English, is as follows:
**
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

Here are the first 2 definitions that can be found on fetus on wordnik.com, courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**

• noun The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
• noun In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Can we agree that, for the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about the second definition above?

I also decided to type abortion by itself on duckduckgo.com and the first useful link that came up with Wikipedia's. I found that its introduction to the word was also quite good:
**
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. [nb 1][2] The unmodified word abortion generally refers to induced abortion,[3][4] or deliberate actions to end a pregnancy.[nb 2] Abortion occurring without intervention is known as spontaneous abortion or "miscarriage", and occurs in roughly 30–40% of all pregnancies.[5][6]
**
Source:

Abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suspect you won't like Wikipedia's definition either, because it uses the terms embryo and fetus instead of your preferred vague words, but I think it just goes to show you that defintions of abortions tend to prefer using words such as embryo and fetus precisely because of their precision, rather than vague words like the ones you prefer.

 

[Scott]

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.

I have, yes, though I think it's much better to call a fetus by that name rather than 'living human', because it makes it clear what stage of development this living human is in. I also believe that if a pregnant woman wants to remove an embryo or fetus from her body, she should be allowed to do so.

When Living Human A (the hitman, the "doctor")

Here we have to stop, because I don't believe that a doctor who induces an abortion upon the request of a pregnant woman can in any way be considered to be a "hitman".

 

[Scott]

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

Oh wow. This definition comes right out and admits that death is being caused by this process (which inherently implies that life existed beforehand).

Agreed.

It, however, still refuses to use the words 'living human', instead opting for the dehumanizing word 'fetus'.

As I've said before, I believe it uses the word fetus, because fetus is much more precise than the term "living human".

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

Ofcourse. But let's not forget that the dictionary didn't use the word "killer"- that was your own addition. The definition certainly made it clear that removal of the fetus would cause its death, but physicians frequently cause the deaths of various groups of cell in order to preserve what is more important. In the most extreme cases, abortions may be performed to ensure the life of the mother, but even when the case is not so extreme, there are many reasons that physicians decide to perform abortions, primarily to do with the welfare of the mother and the future prospects of the living human were the pregnant female bring her pregnancy to term. I've made a separate thread on the reasons why women have abortions, which can be seen here:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

 

[Scott]

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 see nothing dehumanizing in using words that accurately describe what an abortion is.

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

Oh I understand it VERY clearly.

Yes, I believe you do. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't be spending so much time arguing over how to define words such as abortion.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

Agreed. Similarly, I think it should be ok for fertile males to ejaculate. I know, I know, millions of "human lives" may die each time some intrepid male does the deed, but I think some lives are more important than others.

 

[Scott]

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.

... 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".

Living things die all the time. We can't even survive if we don't consume things that were living on a regular basis. The important thing is to be aware that not all lives should be valued equally.

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 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.

The fact that I don't currently live in the U.S. is not the reason I'm not that interested in the subject. The reason I'm not that interested in the subject is because I care less about what the framers of the constitution thought would be best here and more what would -actually- be best. In other words, I think the U.S. should have stuck with the Roe vs. Wade decision.

 

[Scott]

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]

This post is all about why women have abortions and I made a new thread for that subject, so I've responded to your points there. For the audience, my response can be seen here:

Post in thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 28, 2025

In other words, you are defining as "convenience" any cases where rape, [incest] 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]

Some points:
1- Being concerned for one's physical health should never be considered a "convenience"
2- Abnormality in an unborn baby can have severe repercussions for both parents and the fetus...

• Scott

 

[Scott]

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

To be clear, I do not dislike any vaccines.

Hm, looks like I must have misunderstood you then.

I staunchly oppose anyone being forced or otherwise coerced into receiving any vaccine.

Alright, well we can agree on that at any rate.

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.

I decided it would be best to respond to this part of your post in a thread I set up to talk about biological viruses. For the audience, my response to this point of IBDaMann's can be found here:

Post in thread 'Settling the Biological Virus Debate'

Sep 28, 2025

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 notion that biological viruses aren't causing the deaths attributed to them certainly isn't mine. It looks like there has been controversy about whether biological viruses actually exist since the concept of biological viruses were introduced. Mike Stone...

• Scott