Abortion

[Scott]

A human being is not a cow. It is not a chicken. It is not livestock.

Agreed. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of caring so much about a human fetus simply because it's human and so little about the welfare of other species.

A human being is not a cow or a chicken.

We'd already agreed on that point.

Then why do you keep bringing it up???

Why do I keep bringing -what- up? I don't know what you think I'm bringing up, but as can be seen in the nested quotes above, I already agreed with you that humans beings aren't cows, chickens or livestock back in post #166. The point you keep on ignoring is that I'm making a -comparison- between the intelligence of human fetuses and livestock animals like cows and chickens. Put simply, there is strong evidence that these animals, once past the fetal stage, are highly intelligent and yet most people are not vegetarians. I think it's people generally consider that life below a certain level of intelligence is simply worth less than life with more intelligence. Now, I also think there is too much speciesm, which is this notion that just because it's a -human- fetus, it must be accorded special status, but even there, the trump card is that compared to the pregnant female whose body a fetus is house, the level of intelligence of the pregnant female is probably an order of magnitute or more compared to her fetus. It's all about priorities.

 

[Yakuda]

Why do I keep bringing -what- up? I don't know what you think I'm bringing up, but as can be seen in the nested quotes above, I already agreed with you that humans beings aren't cows, chickens or livestock back in post #166. The point you keep on ignoring is that I'm making a -comparison- between the intelligence of human fetuses and livestock animals like cows and chickens. Put simply, there is strong evidence that these animals, once past the fetal stage, are highly intelligent and yet most people are not vegetarians. I think it's people generally consider that life below a certain level of intelligence is simply worth less than life with more intelligence. Now, I also think there is too much speciesm, which is this notion that just because it's a -human- fetus, it must be accorded special status, but even there, the trump card is that compared to the pregnant female whose body a fetus is house, the level of intelligence of the pregnant female is probably an order of magnitute or more compared to her fetus. It's all about priorities.

What do you mean "highly" intelligent? Is your doctor a dolphin? I hear they're REALLY intelligent.

 

[Scott]

False authority fallacy. No dictionary defines any word.

Word games won't work. You cannot justify murder.

You get to define murder and killing?

A very good question. The answer is complicated. In a sense, we can all define words any way we like. The problem is when people don't agree on a given definition for a word that they're using in conversations- the word can be abortion, killing, murder or even a compound word such as contract killing. When this happens, the discussion risks complete collapse. I've certainly had this happen. This is why I have consistently tried to get people to agree to dictionary definitions of words. Unlike ordinary people, who generally just pick definitions of words that they like, regardless of how popular they are, good dictionaries have some pretty solid protocols when it comes to what definitions they use and even what order they present them in. I brought this up in a previous post to someone in one of these threads about abortion, but I can't remember where I did so, so once more. The answer is from ChatGPT:
**
When a word has multiple meanings, dictionaries need a system for deciding the order of definitions. The approach varies by dictionary, but here are the main methods:

1. Historical order (etymological ordering)
   • Some dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), list senses in the order they first appeared in the language.
   • This shows the “history” of the word: earliest meaning → later developments → modern uses.
2. Frequency/importance order
   • Many learner’s dictionaries (Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary, Cambridge, Longman) put the most common and widely used meaning first.
   • This helps learners see the sense they are most likely to encounter.
3. Logical or semantic grouping
   • Some dictionaries cluster related senses together so readers can see how meanings connect.
   • For example, “head” (body part) might come before “head” (leader) because the second is metaphorically derived from the first.
4. Hybrid approaches
   • Some modern dictionaries mix methods: they may start with the most common sense, then order the rest historically or semantically.

So, the order of definitions isn’t random — it’s guided either by the word’s history or by how people use it most today, depending on the dictionary’s purpose.
**

 

[Scott]

Does it really matter what particular stage of life a living human is in?

Indeed. I think that even you tacitly agree with this,

Nope. If one legitimizes the idea that killing a living human is OK

There you go again, putting in the word killing. I think you know full well at this point that I don't believe that any form of the word kill is appropriate when talking about the removal of a fetus from a female's body, so long as it was the female's wish to have it removed. Had you used a term like "ending the life of a living human", we could have continued your line of conversation easier. The bottom line, as far as I and others are concerned, is that the question of whether it's ok to end a human life depends in great part on both the stage of development of said human life as well as who's making the decision.

 

[Scott]

Indeed. I think that even you tacitly agree with this, which is why you seem to have no qualms about the millions of sperm that are "killed" every time a fertile male ejaculates,

That has already been answered. No sperm has a heartbeat, which is a condition for being a living human.

I decided to see what the law had to say about the definition of a living human, if anything. It looks like the law gives a pass to the term, instead focusing on the compound word "natural person". Here's what it has to say on this term in regards to human embryos and fetuses:
**

Natural Person and Fetal Rights​

The issue of whether an unborn fetus is considered a natural person, with all of the rights and protections associated with that status, has been a hot-button issue for a very long time. In the U.S., this issue is commonly referred to as “fetal rights,” and deals with not only issues of right to life (anti-abortion), but with protections related to the health and safety of the child from conception to birth. This is a complicated issue, with some people attempting to place a fetal age at which the baby can be considered “viable,” or alive; and others claiming that the baby has a right to life and protection from the moment of conception.
**

Source:

Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Natural Person defined and explained with examples. Natural Person is a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.

legaldictionary.net

So, there's the law for you. The other issue, which I think is far more important in the long run, is the moral one. On that front, I don't think that having a heartbeat should all of a sudden accord the status of natural person, for the simple reason that a -lot- of animals have fetuses with heart beats and yet they don't suddenly get "fetal rights"- this doesn't even change after they're born. For me, there must be something more than the fact that something that's alive has human DNA to give it special rights. I think this should always be level of intelligence, as well as bodily autonomy, in the sense that said living being no longer requires the body of a female in order to survive.

 

[Scott]

Indeed. I think that even you tacitly agree with this, which is why you seem to have no qualms about the millions of sperm that are "killed" every time a fertile male ejaculates, or every time a woman's eggs are flushed out due to not being fertilized.

Again, no heartbeat, and you know this.

Again, there are many animals who have fetal heartbeats, but no one's clamoring that they too get "fetal rights" as far as I know.

Also, in the cases of both sperm and eggs, neither has DNA that is distinct from the father/mother.

You know who else doesn't have DNA that is distinct from the father/mother? The father and mother. Does that suddenly mean that they're not living humans -.-?

 

[Phyllis Diller]

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.

wrong.

ladies often give up the baby for adoption prior to delivery.

it's called surrogacy.

you're still stuck on word games.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

I decided to see what the law had to say about the definition of a living human, if anything. It looks like the law gives a pass to the term, instead focusing on the compound word "natural person". Here's what it has to say on this term in regards to human embryos and fetuses:
**

Natural Person and Fetal Rights​

The issue of whether an unborn fetus is considered a natural person, with all of the rights and protections associated with that status, has been a hot-button issue for a very long time. In the U.S., this issue is commonly referred to as “fetal rights,” and deals with not only issues of right to life (anti-abortion), but with protections related to the health and safety of the child from conception to birth. This is a complicated issue, with some people attempting to place a fetal age at which the baby can be considered “viable,” or alive; and others claiming that the baby has a right to life and protection from the moment of conception.
**

Source:

Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Natural Person defined and explained with examples. Natural Person is a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.

legaldictionary.net

So, there's the law for you. The other issue, which I think is far more important in the long run, is the moral one. On that front, I don't think that having a heartbeat should all of a sudden accord the status of natural person, for the simple reason that a -lot- of animals have fetuses with heart beats and yet they don't suddenly get "fetal rights"- this doesn't even change after they're born. For me, there must be something more than the fact that something that's alive has human DNA to give it special rights. I think this should always be level of intelligence, as well as bodily autonomy, in the sense that said living being no longer requires the body of a female in order to survive.

are corporations people?

 

[Into the Night]

They most definitely do,

Not possible.

though they ofcourse have to first join with a female egg and at least get to the stage of a human fetus to do so.

A sperm cell is not an egg cell nor a fertilized egg cell.

Obviously, mommy never told you how this works.

 

[Into the Night]

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of your assertions here. The words you prefer are frequently synonyms for the words I'm using. Taking a gamble is synonymous with taking a risk. From The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
Gamble:
-To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
-An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk.
**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Not the meaning of 'gamble'.

This word first appeared in the English lexicon around 1726 (a rather modern word!). It refers to a betting value on game of chance. Nothing else.
The word originates from 'gammlen', an older English term meaning to play games.

Now, you could argue that while risk and gamble -can- mean the same thing, gamble generally has more negative connotations. Fair enough, but for me, it also seems funner than just taking risks all the time. And I say that not as someone who actually -likes- going to a casino, just someone that finds the metaphor of a casino representing life's choices to be appealing.

Why are you talking about casinos in a thread about abortion???

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not 'avoiding' saying that, I and many other people simply don't believe that abortions qualify as contracted killings, full stop.

Irrelevance fallacy. Populist fallacy. You cannot redefine a word that way.

One thing I will say, however, is that I sometimes -do- use the term 'living human' in abortion discussions- I think it is at times useful to have a word that groups together different stages of human development.

Irrelevance fallacy. Word games. Different stages of human development is still human beings. That never changes because of a stage of development.

As an aside,...

Removed extraneous irrelevant material.

 

[Into the Night]

Why do I keep bringing -what- up?

Denying your own post never works, Scotch.

 

[Into the Night]

A very good question. The answer is complicated. In a sense, we can all define words any way we like.

No, you don't! Your redefinitions and word games won't work!

 

[Into the Night]

There you go again, putting in the word killing.

Because it is.

I think you know full well at this point that I don't believe that any form of the word kill is appropriate when talking about the removal of a fetus from a female's body,

Irrelevant. This is killing the child.

so long as it was the female's wish to have it removed.

That's murder.

...removed word game shit...

Your word games and redefinitions won't work!

 

[Scott]

A human fetus is a very definite stage of human development- [snip]

A better way to phrase that is that there is definitely a LIVING HUMAN who is growing and developing (whether that human be in the fetus stage, the newborn stage, the adolescent stage, or the adult stage of human growth/development). You and I both agree on this.

Sure, but then I don't see why human sperm and eggs can't be thought of as "living humans" as well. If we are to consider all "living humans" equally, then every time a fertile man ejaculates, he would be "killing" millions of sperm each time. Just how many sperm are in an ejaculation? Glad you asked:
**
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and studies from 2022, a healthy ejaculate contains 15 million to 200 million sperm cells per milliliter (mL) of semen. Since the average ejaculation volume is 2 to 5 mL, that means a single ejaculate can hold 30 million to 1 billion sperm cells total. That’s a huge range, right? It varies from person to person and even day to day.
**
Source:

How Many Sperm Cells Are in an Ejaculate? - familybegin

Have you ever wondered how many sperm cells are in an ejaculate? It’s one of those questions that pops up in science class, late-night chats, or even when

familybegin.com

Now, before we go calling every man who jerks of a perpetrator of genocide, I suggest we consider that not all "living humans" should be considered equal.

 

[Scott]

A human fetus is a very definite stage of human development- right after the stage of a sperm.

There's some steps between sperm and fetus, but anyway...

You're right- at the very least, there's the embryonic or embryo stage. If I'm missing any other stages, by all means let me know. And while you're at it, please let me know at one point do you believe a "living human" magically appears on the scene and should have the right to block the prospective mother's wish to remove this "living human" from her body.

 

[Scott]

A child, while -frequently- considered to be older than a baby and younger than an adult, can... actually be any stage of development and thus an absolutely ideal term for muddying the waters. The first 6 definitions of child from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition, make this abundantly clear:
**

• noun A person between birth and puberty.
• noun A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
• noun An unborn infant; a fetus.
• noun An infant; a baby.
• noun One who is childish or immature.
• noun A son or daughter; an offspring.

**

Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Ergo, I've been very clear and unambiguous about what child means. I'm not referring to any particular stage of human growth/development. Rather, I'm referring to the completely brand new set of DNA that has been formed and has been growing/developing into a new and separate living human. I'm referring to genealogy. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

On this word, I suspect you may well agree with most if not all of the definitions that I provided from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition and I'm fine with that. My point is that it's an incredibly vague term that can go from "an unborn infant" to the oldest person to have ever lived, because, after all, everyone is someone's child. I think it's a great word for people who want to deny females the freedom to have abortions because most people tend to think of children as having already been born, and you can then put in words like "killing" and "murder", when few would use those words for other animals that have similar levels of intelligence- instead, we use words like "slaughter" or "put down" or if we really want to be honest, the ending of said creature's life.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fetus is housed within her body.

Before you EVASIVELY pivot, at least acknowledge Yakuda's point, i.e. that the living human is not the woman's body. That would be the HONEST thing to do, instead of being a craven coward who can only flee from a discussion.

If you want some measure of control over what happens to your seed after you give it to a fertile female via her vaginal cavity, you need to make a contract -before- doing so.

Incorrect. The living human is neither the father nor the mother, and has the inalienable right to life, irrespective of any contract, or lack thereof, existing between the father and the mother.

No mother should be putting out hits on her own children. Why you believe that mothers should turn to such to add convenience to their lives is an indefensible position.

 

[IBDaMann]

There are already laws against murder.

Pivot.

Address the content of the post.

 

[Scott]

That depends on which definition of father one is using. The first 2 definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition make that abundantly clear:
**

• noun A male whose sperm unites with an egg, producing an embryo.
• noun A male whose impregnation of a female results in the birth of a child.

**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

So, you would be right if we were using the first definition, but not right if were to to use the second. Personally, I think there's an easy way to differentiate- father of a fetus and father of a child who has been birthed. Interestingly, The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, does not directly call a female whose sperm has united with one of her eggs a mother, despite having a total of 10 definitions for the word. I find this interesting. I do acknowledge that one of those 10 definitions could be said to indirectly imply that a sperm that's united with a female's egg is a mother, through that super ambiguous term "child", ambiguous because a child can be in any stage of human development.

The first definition is correct. The second definition is grossly incorrect.

Seeing that you're on the anti abortion side of this debate, I think it stands to reason that you'd see it that way. I think that -both- definitions are correct, in the sense that they are both used. But I definitely believe that the second one is the one that humanity should eventually agree on, either that or agree to being more specific as to what type of father we're talking about (father of a fetus or father of a child that has been birthed).