Abortion

[Scott]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct as to when the word first appeared and its original definition. The thing about words is that their definition can change over time and they can also acquire more than one.

 

[Scott]

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???

The answer is in the last sentence- I'm using the word as a metaphor to represent the world in which we make choices that frequently have both risks and rewards.

 

[Scott]

Different stages of human development is still human beings. That never changes because of a stage of development.

Well, human sperm is the first stage of development, along with eggs. If one follows the logic that it "doesn't matter" what stage of development a human being is in, this would mean that any fertile male who masturbates would be engaging in mass murder. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't agree with that assessment.

 

[Scott]

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.

If I'd disagreed with Yakuda's point, I would have said so.

 

[Scott]

The fetus is housed within her body. 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.

Whether a pregnant female is legally permitted to remove her embryo or fetus depends on which jurisdiction said female is in. We disagree on what the female's legal rights -should- be.

 

[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.

Question: Does this fact change the living human into anything other than a living human? If not, then why is this fact relevant [snip]

It's relevant because those on the pro choice side of this debate believe that not all "living humans" are equal in value. We tend to believe that humans should be allowed to remove these "living human" stages prior to birth, whether that be from a fertile male's release of his sperm into a kleenex, where said sperm will inevitably die, or if a sperm impregnates a female, the ability for said female to remove her fertilized egg from her body, at least if it's still a few months away from being born.

 

[Scott]

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.

I'll just mention that I also technically take issue with the usage of the words "the woman". This isn't just any ordinary woman; this is a MOTHER.

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**

• noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
• noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.

**

Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.

In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.

Btw, the father is DEFINITELY "getting the shaft" here, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.

 

[Into the Night]

True, but irrelevant. There would be no human children without human sperm. They are an absolutely integral part of making children.

They are, but they are not human beings in themselves. You are trying to justify murder (abortion) by pivoting to this. It's just word games.

Abortion is murder. Your word games won't help you.

 

[Into the Night]

It's relevant because those on the pro choice side of this debate believe that not all "living humans" are equal in value. We tend to believe that humans should be allowed to remove these "living human" stages prior to birth, whether that be from a fertile male's release of his sperm into a kleenex, where said sperm will inevitably die, or if a sperm impregnates a female, the ability for said female to remove her fertilized egg from her body, at least if it's still a few months away from being born.

Who are YOU to decide arbitrarily on who dies because of their living conditions????

 

[Into the Night]

That all depends on how one is defining mother.

I guess mommy never told you.

There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:

No dictionary defines any word. False authority fallacy.

Your word games won't work. Abortion is murder.

 

[Into the Night]

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct as to when the word first appeared and its original definition. The thing about words is that their definition can change over time and they can also acquire more than one.

No, you DON'T get to redefine words, Scotch.

 

[Scott]

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.

It sounds like you wish to justify the contracted killing of living humans so long as those living humans are within a particular developmental stage or stages (e.g. fetal, elder, etc)

I'm trying to explain why many people believe that females should be allowed to have induced abortions.

 

[Scott]

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.

It doesn't matter.

It does to most if not all of the people on the pro choice side of the debate. There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being. Some believe it should only be at birth, others such as yourself believe it happens at some point time after a female has become pregnant. As you know, I have posited that human sperm and eggs could be called "living humans", though it seems that there you -do- object. Apparently, it's because they don't yet have a heart beat, but many animals have heart beats and yet unless you're a vegetarian, that doesn't stop them from being on the menu.

 

[Scott]

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.

DEHUMANIZING LANGUAGE.

I respectfully disagree.

You cannot reduce a living human down to being nothing more than "various groups of cell" [snip]

Any organism, human or otherwise, can be referred to as composed of either a single cell or a group of cells. To be fair, the better word for a group of cells is a complex of cells. This is the very first definition of organism from wordnik.com:
**

• • noun An individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.

**

Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

 

[Scott]

In the most extreme cases, abortions may be performed to ensure the life of the mother,

Such 'fraction of a percent' cases have already been set aside.

I think it's good to remind the audience of these cases as a segue to other cases that, while not quite as extreme, are still worthy of attention. Continuing...

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,[snip]

There is one VERY common reason (over 99% of all cases)

You can, ofcourse, make up any statistic you like. If you're ever interested in seeing statistics as to what females who have actually had abortions have to say on the matter, I strongly recommend taking a look at the opening post of the following thread:

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]

Agreed. Similarly, I think it should be ok for fertile males to ejaculate.

Sperm ≠ living human.

According to who? You seem, the problem with using a word that has few if any dictionary entries is that anyone can make up whatever definition they like for it. Now while the compound word 'natural person', shares quite a few characteristics with the term 'living human' as we have been defining it here, unlike 'living human', 'natural person' is actually recognized by U.S. law and I've even found an article on a law site that gets whether fetuses qualify. Unsurprisingly, the verdict is "it's still being contested":
**

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

 

[Scott]

Living things die all the time.

Contracted killing ≠ "natural causes".

2 points:
1- I don't agree with you and IBDaMann that abortions are a subset of contract killing.
2- I made no mention of natural causes. Living things die for all sorts of reasons- natural causes is just one of the reasons.

We can't even survive if we don't consume things that were living on a regular basis.

Right, but those things that are being consumed aren't living humans.

That depends on whether one's definition of 'living humans' include sperm.

The important thing is to be aware that not all lives should be valued equally.

What about all living human lives?

That depends on how we're defining "living human lives". Before our conversations here, I would have thought that only people who are born would qualify, but since our talks, I think that perhaps you're not thinking broadly -enough-, and that sperms and eggs should also be included. In which case, I think that just about -everyone- would agree that not all "living human lives" should be valued equally.

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.

IOW, you oppose a republican form of government..

No, the focus here is on abortions specifically, not on all right/left issues. As I've said elsewhere, I'm something of a political hybrid. I supported the right's criticism of covid vaccine mandates, lockdowns and masks. I support the right's wish to be able to bear arms, within reason. I think comedian Dave Chappelle had a really good 1-2 punch regarding the first and second amendments. It's all of 36 seconds, time well spent in my view -.-...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YuUBI1XwG0

 

[Scott]

Sure, but then I don't see why human sperm and eggs can't be thought of as "living humans" as well.

Because sperm and eggs (in and of themselves) lack a complete set of DNA (from both parents).

The parents also don't have a "complete set of DNA (from both parents)", but no one is saying that they don't qualify as "living humans" or any other word for human.

Growth/development of a new human cannot occur unless fertilization first occurs.

True, but that's not the end of it either. A fertilized egg by itself will go nowhere. In order to complete the process, it must be in a female capable of getting pregnant. In looking into all of this, I found that while an egg may be fertilized, a female isn't considered to be pregnant until implantation occurs:
**
Implantation, also known as nidation, is the stage in the mammalian embryonic development in which the blastocyst hatches, attaches, adheres, and invades into the endometrium of the female's uterus. Implantation is the first stage of gestation, and, when successful, the female is considered to be pregnant. An implanted embryo is detected by the presence of increased levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in a pregnancy test.
**

Source:

Implantation (embryology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

Abortion is the voluntary termination of a Human life.

That depends on whether you believe that an embryo or a fetus is a human life, or perhaps a term that is more well known, a "natural person". The question of whether sperms and eggs are human lives is also something that needs to be addressed.

 

[Scott]

Teachable moment: In the English language, when the gender is not known for a singular individual, "he" is to be used.

You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:
**
In modern times, generic he has come under a lot of scrutiny, leading to discussions about inclusivity and a shift away from unnecessarily gendered pronouns (like generic he). With the intention of making writing more inclusive and accessible in such cases, prominent style guides began making a range of suggestions such as including both singular pronouns (e.g. he/she), using parentheses to combine pronouns (e.g. (s)he), or for the especially progressive at the time, leading the pair with the female pronoun (e.g. she or he):

• If someone needs to go to the hospital, he/she should probably take his/her insurance card.
• If someone needs to go to the hospital, (s)he should probably take his/her insurance card.
• If someone needs to go to the hospital, she or he should probably take her or his insurance card.

But some argued that is a lot of extra key-strokes and can become as much of a distraction to a reader as not having their (see what we did there?) pronouns acknowledged in a document.

Speakers have always had a simple, efficient solution all along (remember the note about the 14th century above?): they works just fine to describe an unknown (or even known, if you do not want to give away their identity) individual. At the English Language Institute, we maintain that the below sentences are natural, comprehensible, acceptable, inclusive, and dare we say, ‘correct’:

• The fridge at work stinks because someone left their lunch leftovers in it all weekend.
• At the beginning of the quarter a teacher should let a student know exactly how much work they will be required to do to pass the course.

Style guides have taken note of this movement towards using they/them/their as pronouns to describe individuals when the gender is unknown or irrelevant. As of 2019, the American Psychological Association (APA) included in their style guide, “The singular ‘they’ is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular ‘they’ is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.” The Modern Language Association (MLA) and Chicago Manual of Style have not been as enthusiastic in advocating for the use of they/them/their as singular, gender-neutral pronouns, but have both included the usage as an option for writers in their latest updates. At this point, a writer should feel confident that they have the support of most major style guides if they chose to use they/them/their as a singular pronoun in their writing.

Another consideration to make when using they/them/their as a singular pronoun is that not only can these pronouns be used to be gender-neutral, but also to reflect a particular person’s gender identity. There are people, for example some members of the trans[gender] community, who prefer to be referred to using they/them/their pronouns not because these pronouns indicate that their gender is unknown or irrelevant, but for exactly the opposite reason. For these individuals, they/them/their is a way of having their gender identity seen and acknowledged. All of the style guides agree that knowing and respecting an individual’s pronouns when a writer is describing them is a best practice.
**

Source:

Singular ‘they’: A user’s guide | English Language Institute

esl.uchicago.edu

You apparently never heard that "new trends" aren't necessarily good or acceptable.

I have. That being said, I believe that in this particular case, the trend is quite good. For anyone in the audience who'd like to see what trend I'm referring to, please see the following post:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Sep 29, 2025

Teachable moment: In the English language, when the gender is not known for a singular individual, "he" is to be used.

You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:
**
In modern times, generic he has come under a lot of scrutiny, leading to discussions about inclusivity and a shift away from unnecessarily gendered pronouns (like generic he). With the intention of making writing more inclusive and accessible in such cases, prominent style guides began making a range of suggestions such as including both singular pronouns (e.g. he/she)...

• Scott

You and your special pleading fallacies probably won't be ending anytime soon.

You haven't shown any evidence that I'm engaging in special pleading. If you believe that words like they shouldn't be used to refer to someone whose gender isn't known, by all means, present your evidence.