IBDaMann
Well-known member
I suspect that we already agree, despite your claims to the contrary.I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree here.
I suspect that we already agree, despite your claims to the contrary.I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree here.
Nice pivot. At issue is your control over your participation in a civil discussion, or your EVASION of same. You refuse to participate when you don't get to control the conversation and control what is said because your position is indefensible. If you are required to defend your indefensible position, i.e. to do the impossible, you EVADE.As to what can be said, I have no control over that.
... which amounts to EVASION. I bet you wouldn't engage in such EVASION if we were discussing your favorite foods (which *are* entirely subjective).What I -do- have control over is on how I define words.
And terminating a life, (abortion) is a very serious thing, so you better have a very compelling reason for allowing some people to do it and I don't think, because its inconvenient, isnt a very compelling reasonI've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
Chanting. Repetition Fallacy. I'm still waiting for your example of something with a heartbeat that isn't aliveThere is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats,
You haven't explained your omission of urine and feces, other excretions of the body.I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
So it's ok to terminate a life because you can't find a definition? See gfm7175 this is the type of silly nonsense this clown is playing with.Not, it wasn't. For the audience, my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."
Dictionaries are written by people, people who are NOT "neutral".True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words.
Well, "a fetus" is more specifically referring to an unborn child (a living human), "a pregnant woman" is more specifically referring to that child's mother, and "causing the death of the fetus" is more specifically referring to the mother contracting the killing of her child (and the disposal of the child's body) with a professional killer (a "doctor").An example would be a definition of an abortion that states that it is the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, causing the death of the fetus. No one would disagree with that definition as far as I know.
Well, sure, if those people choose to set aside all rationale by rejecting set theory.People -would- disagree with defining an abortion as a killing or a contract killing,
and I strongly suspect that they're purposely EVADING precise language, just like you are.and I strongly suspect that's why they don't use such a definition.
Terminating a life after certain timeframe is already illegal. Dr. Gosnell is in prison.And terminating a life, (abortion) is a very serious thing, so you better have a very compelling reason for allowing some people to do it and I don't think, because its inconvenient, isnt a very compelling reason
I hear ya loud and clear!So it's ok to terminate a life because you can't find a definition? See gfm7175 this is the type of silly nonsense this clown is playing with.
So terminating a life is ok with you but you set another arbitrary line to make yourself feel better.Terminating a life after certain timeframe is already illegal. Dr. Gosnell is in prison.
Dictionaries are written by people, people who are NOT "neutral".
In fact, YOU'RE IN LUCK! I've actually just wrapped up my work of writing a dictionary. It's in my publisher's hands atm, but it'll soon be publicly available for your own perusal. It happens to have an entry within it for the term 'living human', and that definition reads: "homo sapien with a heartbeat".
I'm now going to call up my publisher so that you and I can get onto "neutral ground" with "neutral words" asap.
You're babbling. Perhaps your neutral "dictionary" will help you?Well, "a fetus" is more specifically referring to an unborn child (a living human), "a pregnant woman" is more specifically referring to that child's mother, and "causing the death of the fetus" is more specifically referring to the mother contracting the killing of her child (and the disposal of the child's body) with a professional killer (a "doctor").
Contract killing is illegal.Why not make use of more precise language? Why not say what you really mean and mean what you really say?
Abortion is not a set theory.Well, sure, if those people choose to set aside all rationale by rejecting set theory.
You're the one who want to create a new dictionary.and I strongly suspect that they're purposely EVADING precise language, just like you are.
Gibberish.So terminating a life is ok with you but you set another arbitrary line to make yourself feel better.
In that case, under YOUR OWN framework, a sperm still isn't a "living human". A sperm, in and of itself, will only ever be a sperm, nothing more. It never goes through any stages of human development.There is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats, so I see no logical reason why the definition of the compound term "living human" needs to include a heartbeat. The only thing that I think is required is that it be a stage of the development of a human being.
I find his statement entirely accurate.I find your statement somewhat misleading.
... and the DNA of that zygote differs from the DNA of that sperm, correct? Ergo, IBD's statement was entirely accurate.I think a more accurate description is that the male sperm's DNA is combined with the female's egg DNA and that together, they create a fertilized egg, also known as a zygote.
Unfortunately, your definition is in error. Neither sperm nor egg are "stages of human development".I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
Sure it is you but you draw an arbitrary line so you can feel better about yourself for being ok with it.Gibberish.
Terminating a life is not ok with me.
I have no idea but I suspect it's something like an embryo. If so that's a life. You have no problem terminating that life up to an arbitrary time line.
Define life. A tumor is a form of life.I have no idea but I suspect it's something like an embryo. If so that's a life. You have no problem terminating that life up to an arbitrary time line.
Sure but an embryo is not a tumor. A cockroach is a form of life but still not an embryoDefine life. A tumor is a form of life.
So how do you murder what is not conscious?Sure but an embryo is not a tumor. A cockroach is a form of life but still not an embryo