Abortion

[gfm7175]

There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being.

What is the species? Homo sapien?? GREAT! You definitely have a human present. It is biologically undeniable.

Does this human also have a heartbeat? Yes?? GREAT! This human is definitely living. It is medically undeniable.

Some believe it should only be at birth,

Some people deny biology and genealogy.

others such as yourself believe it happens at some point time after a female has become pregnant.

I believe that it happens at the moment of fertilization ("conception"). At that moment, there is a separate human that has been formed (having a complete set of DNA from both parents) that is actively growing and developing per the stages of human growth/development (from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn, etc etc).

As you know, I have posited that human sperm and eggs could be called "living humans", though it seems that there you -do- object.

Yes, I object to that claim because it makes no sense. Sperm, in and of itself, will always remain sperm and ONLY sperm. In and of itself, it will never go through any of the stages of human growth/development. Same goes for eggs.

Apparently, it's because they don't yet have a heart beat,

It's true that sperm/egg has no heartbeat.

but many animals have heart beats and yet unless you're a vegetarian, that doesn't stop them from being on the menu.

???? What does eating animals have to do with the subset of contract killing that is more commonly known as abortion?

 

[Scott]

Under U.S. law, they are now considered to be legal people. I suspect it's why the term "natural person" came about to begin with, to differentiate between what I consider to be -actual- people and corporate "people". From the article I referenced in the post you're responding to:
**
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law. By contrast, a “legal person,” or an “artificial person,” is a group of people that is considered by law to be acting as a single individual. Both natural and legal persons are entitled to sue other parties and sign contracts. They can also both be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
**

I suspect what you -really- want to know is whether I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FED. I don't. Like you, I think that decision should be overturned. For anyone who hasn't heard of this decision, here's Wikipedia's entry on it:

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote from the article that I think is pretty good:
**
The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood, and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power.
**

I agree on citizens united. totally fucked decision.

I was really getting at how "not actual people", like a corporation, is considered more of person than an in utero real individual actual human by many.

like a pro-abortion libertarian corporatist perhaps?

the worst.

Alright. Well, we agree that corporations aren't real people at any rate.

 

[Scott]

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

Not sure where you get this idea that I thought that "everything is random anyway".

I'm not sure why you are denying it

Anyone can make unsubstantiated assertions.

Anyone can be EVASIVE.

Agreed. For instance, someone can claim that I believe that "everything is random anyway" and, when I point out that I'm not sure where they got this idea, they can double down on their unsubstantiated claim by saying something like "I'm not sure why you're denying it".

 

[Phyllis Diller]

Alright. Well, we agree that corporations aren't real people at any rate.

good enough for me.

you;re one of the good guys.

 

[IBDaMann]

Fixed that for you.
@IBDaMann Yes, I accepted the open position at Grammarly.

Awesome.

[which includes the hiring of professional killers to place hit jobs on their own unborn children].

which includes the hiring of professional killers with whom to put hit jobs on their own unborn children.

I applied for the same open position. I bribed the hiring manager to cut your interview short.

 

[Scott]

Anyone can make unsubstantiated assertions. I asked you where you got your idea that "everything is random anyway".

I asked you MANY questions that you refuse to answer.

What questions?

 

[Scott]

For the audience, when gfm says "contracted killings", she means induced abortions.

I mean "contracted killings" (as 'induced abortions' are a subset of contracted killings).

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then. I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

Also, I realize that my moniker makes no indication to my gender, but I am actually a he.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life. I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread. I think this is interesting. I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions. There was a young one that was on tv a fair amount but I can't remember her name.

 

[gfm7175]

I applied for the same open position. I bribed the hiring manager to cut your interview short.

 

[IBDaMann]

An issue that makes this conversation complicated is the insistence of many, such as yourself, who want to stop women [from killing their own living children] , using the term "children" to refer to [all who have the "child" relation. Unbelievable!]

FTFY. You have yet to make any sort of coherent argument. I think we can all agree that you have been attempting to control what others are allowed to post as the offense part of your EVASION. I think we can all agree that it is stupid to pretend that one's child is somehow not one's child prior to birth, or that specific age somehow factors into whether a particular living human is another particular living human's child.

In any case, the bottom line that I was trying to convey in the post you were responding to is that I firmly believe that if a pregnant female believes that it would be best to [hire a professional killer to put a hit out on her own child] , she should be allowed to do so.

I disagree. I don't believe that women should have killing supremacy. If, for example, I am prohibited from hiring a contract killer to put a hit out on my children, then women should treated with equality, not supremacy, and be similarly prohibited from hiring a contract killer to do just that.

I am also asserting that neither I nor anyone should be so allowed to kill any living human who has not committed any crime.

Again,

Do you make love to the word "Again"?

the issue of whether an embryo or a fetus qualifies as a natural person is in contention.

... but there is no contention that both are living humans (especially if there is a heartbeat) , so stick with "living human" because that's what we are discussing. We are discussing how you want to convert living humans into dead humans, by killing them without using the verb "to kill" while I wish for living humans to remain alive, and for there to be no need to use the verb "to kill."

 

[IBDaMann]

 

[IBDaMann]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then.

Find me a dictionary that takes the reader step by step through the Pythagorean Theorem.

I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

Because it's not a definition; it's logic.

In every case of an abortion, a customer signs contractual papers. We have been over this. Contract paperwork is signed. Waivers are signed. You know this. Abortions are contracts. Abortions are killings. Once again, you are totally dishonest and deny the contractual nature of the abortion, which is a service provided by a professional killer that results in both the killing of a living human and the disposal of the body of the victim.

I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread.

Not at the moment. The women who agree with you are total cowards who are as EVASIVE as you are. Send a PM to ThatOwlCoward and invite her to join in. Tell her that I'll light her up for free.

I think this is interesting. I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions.

"Even some"? What are you even trying to say? If I find "even some" leftists who are against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime, will that change your position?

 

[IBDaMann]

Agreed. For instance, someone can claim that I believe that "everything is random anyway" and, when I point out that I'm not sure where they got this idea, they can double down on their unsubstantiated claim by saying something like "I'm not sure why you're denying it".

Agreed. Someone can deny that signed contract papers for killing services from a professional killer to kill a living human and to dispose of the body is a contract killing, and when I point out that contract papers were signed specifically to kill a living human, he can just double down on his belief that none of that is true, and even that *I* am somehow the one causing the communication problem by clearly using the correct words.

 

[gfm7175]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then. I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

It's my understanding that the logic of this has already been explained to you in this thread. I remember awaiting your explanation as to how {customer who is a pregnant woman} isn't a subset of {customer}.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life.

Ahhhhh, gotcha. Then again, your moniker might not make your gender clear enough to people like @Walt who believe that horses have five genders.

I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread. I think this is interesting.

Come to think of it, I don't recall one either. Maybe I'll see if some of them wish to participate: @Phantasmal @Jade Dragon @ThatOwlWoman @PoliTalker

Politalker is such a "block list weenie" that I'm including him too.

I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions. There was a young one that was on tv a fair amount but I can't remember her name.

Yup. Doesn't change the truth that tens upon tens of millions of living humans each and every year are having hit jobs placed on them before they're even born.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then. I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.



Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life. I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread. I think this is interesting. I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions. There was a young one that was on tv a fair amount but I can't remember her name.

reason your way through it.

you're smarter than this.

 

[IBDaMann]

What questions?

OK, you want to play it that way, fine.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

There you go. Face your compulsion to EVADE by telling how you "disagree" and what you claim to "believe."

 

[gfm7175]

OK, you want to play it that way, fine.

OK, let's see if your questions are unreasonable or if Scott is just being a coward on this particular issue.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?

Here, Scott will likely appeal to the 0.000000000000001% of so-called fabled "back alley" "coat hanger" abortion cases. However, realistically speaking, any hit job that is performed by any professional killer at any Planned Killing center requires the customer to sign various paperwork and waivers before the killing of the living human (and the subsequent disposal of the now-dead human) commences.

2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?

None. ALL of them are living humans.

3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?

{Customer who is a pregnant woman} is indeed a proper subset of {customer}.

4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?

Because "muh dictionary" prefers the evasive words "terminate a pregnancy", thus making no reference to any killing.

However, realistically speaking, {killing of a living human} is a proper subset of {killing}.

5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?

Ummm, derrrr.... ummmm... "MY BODY MY CHOICE!!!!!!" But in all seriousness, apparently a positive pregnancy test is a holy symbol for a woman's killing supremacy? Idk.....

6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?

Apparently an MD doctorate degree is a holy symbol for a doctor's killing supremacy? Idk.....

7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

Obviously, since I don't advocate for this killing, only he can speak for himself as to why he advocates for such immoral shitty behavior.

8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?

Because he's already expressed his belief that the inherent 'right to life' of some living humans is "less equal" than it is for other living humans.

9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

Because he believes (but won't openly say it without EVASION tactics) that mothers and doctors have killing supremacy over fathers and unborn children.

 

[IBDaMann]

None. ALL of them are living humans.

You are good. You didn't fall for the trick question.

{Customer who is a pregnant woman} is indeed a proper subset of {customer}.

It's like to you totally accept math or something.

Obviously, since I don't advocate for this killing, only he can speak for himself as to why he advocates for such immoral shitty behavior.

My goal is to get you to up your game with forceful profanities, powerful expletives and moving obscenities. Sometimes your posts are anemic without them.

Because he's already expressed his belief that the inherent 'right to life' of some living humans is "less equal" than it is for other living humans.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” - George Orwell, Animal Farm

... that mothers and doctors have killing supremacy over fathers and unborn children.

Supremacists never want equality; they feel VICTIMIZED by it.

 

[AProudLefty]

OK, you want to play it that way, fine.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?

Self-induced abortions.

2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?

I still see you haven't answered my question.

I'll ask a new question: if the fetus has no heartbeat, is it murder?

3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?

Still treating abortion as if it's math.

4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?

Who is arguing that?

5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?

He did no such thing. It's your imagination.

6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?

You made a little English mistake there.

7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

Point out where he has done such a thing.

8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?

Again, point to his post where he advocated such thing.
I'll ask the question once again... is a fetus with no heartbeat a human being? Look up the definition of "human being" if you're confused again.

There you go. Face your compulsion to EVADE by telling how you "disagree" and what you claim to "believe."

The only evasion I've seen is by you.

 

[AProudLefty]

How adorable. The twins @gfm7175 and @IBDaMann both are high fiving each other. Cute.

 

[IBDaMann]

Self-induced abortions.

Unfortunately, you are a victim of @Scott's dishonest manipulation of the language. In this case we're talking about those abortions performed by the professional killer for the customer, not the DIY. @Scott runs everyting around in circles so as to EVADE the topic and to derail the conversation. Ergo, try again but this time understand the question as to what killer-doctor-performed abortions do not involve the signing of a contract/waivers.

I'll ask a new question: if the fetus has no heartbeat, is it murder?

I specifically omitted that scenario from the definition. Stay on topic and within the definition.

As always, you are welcome to answer those questions as well.