Abortion

[AProudLefty]

If you'd look at their discussions about the whole Israel/Palestine thing, then you'd see that they both hold very different views on that subject. You'll also notice that I've been rather quiet on that subject in comparison to the both of them. That alone should be solid evidence that we are all different people.

He will say something along the lines of: "But... but... but I have not said THE SPECIFIC WORDS ______________". IOW, he rejects deductive reasoning when convenient in the same manner that you reject set theory when convenient.

That's fair. Nobody sees every single post that occurs on this forum. However, if you take a gander into pretty much any Israel/Palestine related thread, you will probably find several back and forth posts between IBD and ITN in which they are in strong disagreement with each other.

You can also dig up some accounting-related posts between IBD and myself in which we both clearly disagree about some particulars (even though we are in agreement on most aspects).

You can also dig up some posts on the subject of Christianity. IBD is a self-proclaimed atheist (not to be confused with the religious belief that God does NOT exist) while ITN and I are both self-proclaimed Christians. ITN and I do attend churches of differing denominations (there's MANY different ones out there, and some churches are even non-denominational) but as Christians we both share the same core belief that Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is.

ITN is from Washington, I'm from Wisconsin, and IBD is from Maryland (I think?).

One could go on, but I would think that this is a good bit of evidence that we are different people.

So why use the same language? Be original! Be unique!

 

[gfm7175]

You don't get to disagree without providing an example.

I strongly disagree.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Gaddammit legion

Qit jeckin offf

 

[gfm7175]

I see that your comment's gotten IBDaMann to change his avatar, must admit I find it rather funny .

I really like his current avatar. He's very creative with that sort of stuff.

Mine just stays the same old "boring" catbird. It does have some reasoning behind it, though.

1) The simplest reason is that they're my favorite bird. What they lack in appearance they more than make up for in personality.
2) I view a catbird as representative of a "conservative" similar to how I view a cowbird as representative of a "leftist". Catbirds can recognize their own eggs, so if a cowbird subsequently lays its eggs in a catbird nest (expecting the catbird to raise its young FOR it), the catbird will actually eject those foreign eggs from its nest. I view that as representative of "rejecting the socialism of leftists".
3) Catbirds are also rather good mimics. They can (quite well!) mimic the calls of other bird species. In fact, during breeding season, male catbirds will attempt to impress females with all sorts of mimicry vocalizations that they've learned over the years. The better a male is at this, the more a female will view the male as "experienced" and "resourceful" (IOW, as a good mate). As this relates to JPP and my avatar, I personally enjoy mimicking the vocalizations of leftists from time to time (poking fun at them).
4) A catbird's preferred habitat is within dense shrubs/thickets and they are generally reclusive. I find that behavior to be representative of my own behavior.

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspected that IBDaMann had been mistaken on this point,

... and you are mistaken once again. @AProudLefty finds my denouncement of Israel's genocide indistinguishable from Into the Night's "Israel, Right or Wrong" policy. He is fully aware of these positions while cackling about how we are the same person.

your response here definitely lends weight to my suspicion.

Your judgement is poor and you are routinely dishonest. I don't think anyone really cares about your suspiscions. What is undeniable is that you are completely unable to find a value-added post by @AProudLefty .

 

[AProudLefty]

... and you are mistaken once again. @AProudLefty finds my denouncement of Israel's genocide indistinguishable from Into the Night's "Israel, Right or Wrong" policy. He is fully aware of these positions while cackling about how we are the same person.

Your imagination.

Your judgement is poor and you are routinely dishonest. I don't think anyone really cares about your suspiscions. What is undeniable is that you are completely unable to find a value-added post by @AProudLefty .

That one is called irony. You have not contributed anything of value to JPP. Abortion is a contract killing? What a riot!

 

[Scott]

You can define the term "living human" however you like. Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term,

Dictionaries are not "holy"

Agreed.

Dictionaries are not... "authoritative" sources for word definitions

Disagreed.

In fact, dictionaries will often-enough contradict each other,

I suspect you don't really understand how dictionaries work. Dictionaries frequently offer -multiple- definitions for a given word. These definitions can be quite different from each other. So if one dictionary has a definition for a word that another doesn't, that's perfectly fine- I know that IBDaMann doesn't like me pointing out that definitions are just how words are used by people, but it's the truth. Different people use words differently and many times, the -same- people use the same word differently, depending on the context of where they're using it. There are limits, however. The fact that I have yet to find a dictionary that defines abortion as "killing", let alone "contract killing" or "murder" demonstrates this. These limits can be -very- useful when talking about controversial subjects, such as abortion. As I've already mentioned, "living human" is not a compound word I've found in any dictionary or encyclopedia, which can make it useful for some purposes, but pretty useless when one wants to talk about specific stages of human development.

 

[Scott]

You can define the term "living human" however you like. Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term, there isn't even a guide as to how people usually define the term.

^^ Leftist "hivemind" language. ^^
A "guide" isn't necessary.

Only if you like arguing interminably about how "living human" should be defined.

 

[Scott]

You can define the term "living human" however you like. Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term, there isn't even a guide as to how people usually define the term. But I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs are living and they are certainly human.

I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs lack a heartbeat

True, but irrelevant.

I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs... lack a complete set of DNA (having only 23 chromosomes instead of 46).

Regular human cells have -2- complete sets of chromosomes, thus the 46 total chromosomes in such cells. Human sperms and eggs only have a single set, thus just 23 chromosomes. Wikipedia gets the details below:
**
Humans are diploid organisms, normally carrying two complete sets of chromosomes in their somatic cells: one copy of paternal and maternal chromosomes, respectively, in each of the 23 homologous pairs of chromosomes that humans normally have. This results in two homologous chromosomes within each of the 23 homologous pairs, providing a full complement of 46 chromosomes. This total number of individual chromosomes (counting all complete sets) is called the chromosome number or chromosome complement. The number of chromosomes found in a single complete set of chromosomes is called the monoploid number (x). The haploid number (n) refers to the total number of chromosomes found in a gamete (a sperm or egg cell produced by meiosis in preparation for sexual reproduction). Under normal conditions, the haploid number is exactly half the total number of chromosomes present in the organism's somatic cells, with one paternal and maternal copy in each chromosome pair. For diploid organisms, the monoploid number and haploid number are equal; in humans, both are equal to 23. When a human germ cell undergoes meiosis, the diploid 46 chromosome complement is split in half to form haploid gametes. After fusion of a male and a female gamete (each containing 1 set of 23 chromosomes) during fertilization, the resulting zygote again has the full complement of 46 chromosomes: 2 sets of 23 chromosomes.
**

Source:

Ploidy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

I value the different stages of human life differently. Most would agree that fertile males masturbating shouldn't be a crime, even though millions of sperms may meet their end every time it happens.

Sperm in and of themselves will NEVER EVER grow/develop into a living human

By my definition of sperms and eggs, they are living humans. Since I've yet to find a dictionary or encyclopedia that has a definition for the term, I doubt you'll be able to get me to change my own definition. Honestly, you're much better off using the term "natural person" if you'd like to exclude sperms and eggs. It can be found in an online dictionary and a legal one and while it's contested as to where it begins, it seems clear that it begins no earlier than conception, which is the fertilized egg/zygote. Its legal definition can be easily referenced here:

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]

I value the different stages of human life differently. Most would agree that fertile males masturbating shouldn't be a crime, even though millions of sperms may meet their end every time it happens. Similarly, few would consider it a crime every time an unfertile egg is flushed out of fertile female's body. Apparently, things change for a fair amount of people if that same egg were to be fertilized by an egg.

I think you meant to say "same egg were to be fertilized by a sperm".

Yes, thanks for the correction.

Yes, all sorts of "things" change at that point. At that point, there's now a zygote (a diploid cell) containing a FULL/COMPLETE unique set of DNA from both parents (46 chromosomes, 23 from the father's sperm and 23 from the mother's egg).

As I've pointed out in a previous post, both human sperm and human eggs have a complete set of chromosomes, that is, 23. Other human cells just have 2 sets, thus having a total of 46 chromosomes. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, they join their chromosome sets and thus the fertilized egg/zygote goes back to what might be called the 'regular' chromosome total for human cells, which is 46.

At that point, the now-formed zygote (a newly formed human with a unique set of DNA, distinguishing it from any other human) will continue to grow/develop as a human, going through all of the various stages of human growth/development [from zygote to elder] (unless, of course, some killer-doctor gets contractually hired by the child's mother to snuff the life out of the child before it can even be born).

There you go with your "kill" word again. In point of fact, there are various ways that a zygote may not become a born child- induced abortion is only one of them.

 

[Scott]

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 terminate her pregnancy, she should be allowed to do so.

I disagree.

Ofcourse. You couldn't be anti abortion if you agreed.

Of course, one of your position cannot value human life.

I value the different stages of human life differently. Most would agree that fertile males masturbating shouldn't be a crime, even though millions of sperms may meet their end every time it happens. Similarly, few would consider it a crime every time an unfertile egg is flushed out of fertile female's body. Apparently, things change for a fair amount of people if that same egg were to be fertilized by an egg. As I've mentioned previously, both Into the Night and gfm believe that this would be murder. I find it interesting that you have decided not to answer this question as of yet. Perhaps you aren't sure?

I think he just finds it to be irrelevant.

Based on what he's said in other posts, I don't think that's actually the case. I think he actually considers a natural person to only begin when there's a heartbeat- which means that prior to that, he doesn't consider the fertilized egg/zygote to be one.

 

[Scott]

Actually, they do. They just don't have -2- complete sets of DNA, like regular cells.

There is no "2 complete sets" of DNA. There's only one complete set (46 chromosomes).

We're both a bit off. I've seen no mention of "complete sets of DNA" in the sources I've found. Instead, there are complete sets of chromosomes. A complete set of chromosomes in humans is 23 chromosomes. Most cells have 2 complete sets, forming 46, while human sperms and eggs only have 1, so just 23. If the sperm joins with the egg, they combine their sets into a zygote, which once again has the 'normal' number of chromosomal sets for human cells, which would be 2, making for 46 chromosomes total.

 

[Scott]

This is so that they can join with each other and thus form a set of DNA that combines the male and female's genes together.

I'd recommend saying 'father' and 'mother' instead of "male and female" because it's more specific/precise (a particular male and female instead of a generic male and female).

I disagree. In the case of the father, the definition of a father at times stipulates that the female must first give -birth- to their progeny:
**
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

In the case of the mother, the definition at times stipulates that they must have given birth first:

**
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

 

[Scott]

It's a catch all for all stages of human development. I know of no other term that can encompass them all.

Great, then we've found the correct term.

Not if you want to exclude human sperms and human eggs from the term. If that is your goal, just use the term natural person. It seems clear to me that that term -does- exclude human sperms and human eggs. Whether it includes zygotes/embryos/fetuses is under debate:

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]

You, Into the Night and gfm all exclude the human stages of human development known as human sperm and human egg from the term "living human". I don't.

"Human sperm" and "human egg" are NOT stages of human development [snip]

I'm tired of this argument. Why not just the term "natural person"? As far as I know, everyone agrees that this term doesn't include human sperms and human eggs.

 

[Scott]

Are you asking me a question that is relevant to the topic?

Definitely. In response to this question, Into the Night answered in the affirmative in post #504. So did gfm in post #528. Is that your answer as well?

That's not my point. I'm wondering why I should answer any of your questions? Can you give me a good reason? You won't answer any of mine.

I've answered all the questions of yours that I found to be worth answering up until this post of yours. Note that this post of yours is post #624. I haven't yet gotten to most posts after this number.

Let me know when we can focus on my list on nine questions that you have EVADED thus far with really lame excuses.

I didn't "evade" it, though it took me a while to get to it- you first asked your questions in post #415 and I responded to said post in post #547.

 

[Scott]

You can define the term "living human" however you like. Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term, there isn't even a guide as to how people usually define the term. But I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs are living and they are certainly human.

I deny it, for the moment. Where does that leave you?

At an impasse with you, gfm and, I believe, Into the Night on this. Why not just use the term "natural person". It's a term that is recognized in a legal dictionary and it seems to clearly rule out any human life prior to conception:
**

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

I notice that you won't acknowledge the lack of a heartbeat.

I've acknowledged it. I've also stated that a heartbeat is not a requirement for life. It's not even a requirement for human life at certain stages of development.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've answered all the questions of yours that I found to be worth answering

No True Scotsman.

I didn't "evade" it,

You continue to EVADE them all.

 

[Scott]

Can you think of any human with a heartbeat that is not living?

No.

Great. That means that a living human is getting the 'living' aspect snuffed out of him by another living human. What would you call it when one living human forcefully ends the life of another living human?

Depends on the stage of development of said living human. If they're human sperms, eggs, I think everyone can agree that it's not that big a deal. If not, males would be engaged in mass genocide every day with the millions of sperm they release every time they masturbate. If they're zygotes and embryos, I'd say it may be a bit regretable, but if the cause of death is removing them from a female's body who doesn't want said zygotes and embryos in her body, then I think that's the best option. If they're fetuses, I think that the same applies, at least in the early stages.