Abortion

[IBDaMann]

Still forgetting your own questions?

Are you still being a troll because you know no other way?

 

[Scott]

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary [snip]

Yet you know that Century Dictionary doesn't own the English language and thus doesn't define any words

You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words. I've never said that. Dictionaries have -definitions- for words. You like calling it "usages", I've said I don't see the difference between these words in this context.

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.

So you reject this [snip]

What is it you believe I reject?

 

[Scott]

As I've said many times, I and many dictionaries use terms like ending the life of an embryo or fetus, not killing, just as people say that they slaughter animals, rather than kill them.

but it's not usage, it's the definition, right?

If you want to try to make a case that how a word is used and how a word is defined are different concepts, by all means, be my guest.

 

[IBDaMann]

First of all, don't you ever think about the fact that the words people who are against abortions choose tend to reflect their beliefs?

{abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}. which is the requisitioned (contracted) killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.

 

[domer76]

You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words. I've never said that. Dictionaries have -definitions- for words. You like calling it "usages", I've said I don't see the difference between these words in this context.



What is it you believe I reject?

IBDaMann and Into the Night are the same person.

 

[Scott]

Obviously not -that- broke, or, like many millions of young children, your parents would not have survived: [snip]

Subjunctive fallacy.

No subjunctive fallacy here. For the audience, duckduckgo's search assist defines the subjunctive fallacy as follows:
**
The subjunctive fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes that what is true in a hypothetical situation (a subjunctive condition) must also be true in reality.
**

I suspect IBDaMann never read past what he quoted from my post #387. What I said -after- the colon makes it clear that I'm talking about the millions of kids who don't make it to their 15th birthday each year, not his parents, who clearly did. Quoting what I said past the colon to make this clear:
**
Child mortality is one of the world’s largest problems. Around 6 million children under 15 die per year. That’s around 16,000 deaths every day, or 11 every minute.

This devastating statistic reveals the vast number of children whose lives end before they can discover their talents, passions, and dreams as they grow older – and represents the impact of child mortality on so many people’s lives: parents, siblings, families, and communities.

Source:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

**

 

[IBDaMann]

You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words.

I keep pointing out that you refuse to engage in the discussion. You won't answer any of my questions. You are totally dishonest. You are a supremacist who holds indefensible positions, and you go down rabbit holes just to buy time. Forgive me if I don't follow you down this particular rabbit hole.

Would you please answer the questions that I listed for you?

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?

 

[IBDaMann]

IBDaMann and Into the Night are the same person.

Domer is bitter because he is a total nobody, and nobody listens to him, and he doesn't know anything, and he needs to be told what to think.

 

[IBDaMann]

No subjunctive fallacy here.

Yes, it's a subjunctive fallacy. You just don't understand what a subjunctive fallacy is.

 

[Scott]

Certainly rough times, but [snip]

There is no "but".

Ah, but there is. Continuing with the sentence...

Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive [snip]

... as does everyone who survives.

Ofcourse. I was referring to those who don't.

My grandfather, having zero money, dragged my grandmother from town to town, looking for work. Wherever they went, my grandmother took on two part-time jobs to make some money. My grandmother did all of her own sewing, because they could not get any new clothes.

They nonetheless had two children who they quickly taught to help around the house and to find ways to do odd jobs for cash. My father never played any sports or participated in any activities. It was school and odd jobs.

My grandparents didn't kill their kids, and their poverty and adversity made their kids stronger.

Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did.

How many of those children whom you suspect of having better opportunities were killed in the womb?

None- I'm talking about the birthed children who never made it to their 15th birthday. In case you missed the article I've been referring to for some time on the subject, it's here:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did. The same can't be said for the millions of born young children that die each year. For the audience, statistics on this:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

Yes, the same can be said.

No, it can't. I think it's safe to say that your parents survived to reach their 15th birthday and, I suspect, made it a lot further than that as well. The children I've been referring to never made it to their 15th birthday.

 

[Scott]

Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience"

Nope. They are the definition of "inconvenience."

Tell that to the millions of parents whose young children die each year. For the audience, the statistics on this are quite clear, as I mentioned in my previous post:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

Sure. Bring me the millions of parents.

I can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:
**
Child mortality is one of the world’s largest problems. Around 6 million children under 15 die per year. That’s around 16,000 deaths every day, or 11 every minute.

This devastating statistic reveals the vast number of children whose lives end before they can discover their talents, passions, and dreams as they grow older – and represents the impact of child mortality on so many people’s lives: parents, siblings, families, and communities.

What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma [snip]
**
Source:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

There have been very good articles about the hypocrisy of pro lifers, who tend to focus their attention only on 'human lives' before they are born. Afterwards, not so much, as is clear by the millions of children dying each year -after- they are born. A good article on the subject from an American perspective written a little over a week ago:

Do pro-lifers care about the welfare of children?

Pro-lifers' commitment to life questioned: Do they care about children beyond birth? A look at policies that uplift struggling families.

defendernetwork.com

It's clear Trump isn't particularly concerned about children after birth either:
Letters to the Editor: Pro-Life means supporting kids after born; Trump decisions hurt all | Newark Advocate

 

[Scott]

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.

I point it out every time and quote you.

Making unsubstantiated assertions is easy. Providing evidence for them is generally the hard part.

 

[Scott]

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.

If there is a heartbeat and human DNA, you don't get to deny the human life.

As I've stated previously, I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia. It can be a useful term because of its ambiguity- it can refer to everything from sperms and eggs all the way to an elderly citizen, but if we're looking for words that specify stages of human development, it's useless. The term natural person is better because it -is- defined both in dictionaries and perhaps more importantly, in U.S. law. It looks like if a state includes human fetuses as natural persons, then they can and have made abortion illegal. If a state doesn't, they don't. The ultimate battle ground here is the legal one. I believe that a natural person should only be defined as either someone who has been born or perhaps someone who is pretty close to being born. You apparently want to define it as when a human fetus gets a heartbeat. It looks like it's up to individual U.S. states as to how that will go in the U.S.

 

[Scott]

The parents also don't have a "complete set of DNA (from both parents)"

FTFY. Sure they do.

No, they have DNA from both of -their- parents, which is different. I'll give you an example:
Both Harold's regular cells as well as his sperm have DNA from both of his parents. Neither his regular cells or his sperm have DNA from his wife, Sarah. Likewise, Sarah's regular cells and her unfertilized eggs have DNA from both of her parents. Neither her regular cells or her unfertilized eggs have DNA from Harold.

 

[AProudLefty]

Are you still being a troll because you know no other way?

You do understand the irony?

 

[IBDaMann]

I can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:

Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics, especially ones that are fabricated.

There have been very good articles about the hypocrisy of pro lifers,

You should remain focused on yourself and on your blatant dishonesty.

who tend to focus their attention only on 'human lives' before they are born

Not I. My position is, and always has been, to stand against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

That is my unequivocal position. Now let's get down to a long-overdue deep dive into your position, which you have EVADED thus far.

1. What abortions are performed by the killer-doctor without the customer signing 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?

 

[IBDaMann]

Making unsubstantiated assertions is easy

Refuting a concrete example should be easy if you are correct. Your inability to refute a concrete example shows that you are in error.

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics, especially ones that are fabricated.


You should remain focused on yourself and on your blatant dishonesty.


Not I. My position is, and always has been, to stand against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

That is my unequivocal position. Now let's get down to a long-overdue deep dive into your position, which you have EVADED thus far.

1. What abortions are performed by the killer-doctor without the customer signing 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?

RQAA.

 

[Scott]

RQAA.

What does RQAA stand for?

 

[Scott]

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.

Living beings don't need heartbeats to be living. Which is why human sperm and eggs should qualify as "living humans" under your definition.

There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being. Some believe it should only be at birth,

Some people deny biology and genealogy.

I think it can be argued that you qualify there too, seeing as living things don't require heartbeats to be considered living.

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.

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).

A few points here:
1- Do you believe that women who freeze their embryos and then decide to discard them are "murdering" their children?

2- All human cells, including sperm and egg cells, have at least one complete set of DNA from both of their parents. The only difference between regular cells and sperm and egg cells is that regular cells have -2- sets of DNA from their parents, whereas sperm and egg cells only have 1. I'm pretty sure the reason they only have one is so that they can pair up with their counterpart (if sperm, that'd be egg, if egg, that'd be sperm) to again form 2 sets of DNA- at that point, the fertilized egg also has 2 sets of parents, it's just that those parents are different parents then the parents of the sperm and egg cells before joining.

3- There is no growth if the fertilized eggs if they don't remain in a fertile female's body.