Abortion

[Scott]

And terminating a life... is a very serious thing

That depends on the life being terminated. I suspect you wouldn't have many qualms about terminating the life of a mosquito or a fly and perhaps even much larger animals, such as chickens and cows.

That's correct because they aren't human

Different stages of human development have different levels of intelligence. Most people are alright if human sperm and eggs die on a regular basis. It's only after the 2 are joined that people start to care much about the longevity of these "living human" beings. Others think that termination is fine so long as the the fertilized egg doesn't yet have a heartbeat. To this I say that humans are hardly the only living being to have a heartbeat and we kill many animals with fully developed hearts on a regular basis. As I've said before, I think the important thing should be level of intelligence, not whether conception has occurred or whether the fertilized egg has a heartbeat.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, it's because I'm losing my patience with your continuous wild accusations.

You "losing your patience" is code for "you are digging in and plan on continuing to EVADE".

 

[IBDaMann]

Convenience isn't even a synonym for financial:

{Financial Hardship} is a proper subset of {Inconvenience} for all who accept math.

 

[AProudLefty]

You "losing your patience" is code for "you are digging in and plan on continuing to EVADE".

Your post is code for "I am desperately wanting you to agree."

 

[AProudLefty]

{Financial Hardship} is a proper subset of {Inconvenience} for all who accept math.

I thought you said it wasn't math? Your sarcasm directed at me indicated that.

 

[IBDaMann]

I thought you said it wasn't math?

Why did you think that? What part of what I wrote did you misunderstand?

 

[AProudLefty]

Why did you think that? What part of what I wrote did you misunderstand?

Do not deny your own posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do not deny your own posts.

You're making random statements again. Why did you think that I said it wasn't math? What part of what I wrote did you misunderstand?

 

[AProudLefty]

You're making random statements again. Why did you think that I said it wasn't math? What part of what I wrote did you misunderstand?

I was mimicking your partner. Mocking you two.

Here is your post:

What did I calculate?

 

[Scott]

Again, the important thing is the quality of the life in question. As I've mentioned before, I doubt you'd have qualms about killing something like a mosquito.

You keep changing the goalposts. Now it's quality of life. Who should decide that a fetus has or might have a poor quality of life? Yes mosquitos are human and so no problem crushing them to death

I haven't changed the goalposts. I usually say level of intelligence instead of quality of life. That being said, there is something to be said about quality of life too. Producing a human fetus is a lot easier than raising a born child. If anyone should have the choice as to whether to terminate a fetus, it should be the pregnant female, and usually, that's indeed the person who chooses to do so. I personally don't think we should have yet more born children who die before the age of 15:

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

As to mosquitos, yes, I agree, they're not human. More importantly, though, their level of intelligence is far below that of a human- perhaps even below that of a human fetus, at least one that's a few months old. But there are larger animals that can rival and even surpass the intelligence of a human fetus:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

Are Cows Dumb or Intelligent? (What do they Think About?) – Fauna Facts

faunafacts.com

 

[Scott]

I said "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Do you notice that the quote is around both words put together? Everyone here is using "living human" as a -compound- word, which is 2 words together, not the single words "living" and "human".

Yes, and you have been told to stick with the Individual words "living" and "human".

Again, people here aren't using the words individually here, and for good reason. "Living" can be anything from a single celled organism all the way up to the most complex forms of life, such as a fully mature human. The term human at least exists in dictionaries, but dictionaries don't actually say when a human being begins. Fortunately, we have encyclopedias such as Wikipedia that do- they are quite clear that human development starts with Gametes, that is, human sperm and egg. For the audience, feel free to check Wikipedia on the matter:

Development of the human body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

Nope. The problem arises when you reject tautologies and math under the pretense that they are somehow matters of opinion with which one can simply disagree.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree here.

Nope. You don't get to disagree [snip]

Disagreeing is easy- that won't change by you thinking that you can control who disagrees with you. Trying to understand -why- people disagree much less so.

 

[Scott]

I suspect that we already agree, despite your claims to the contrary.

What draws you to that conclusion?

Your continued EVASION.

Oh boy, more unsubstantiated assertions -.-

 

[Scott]

If I had wanted to 'evade' this discussion, I would have never responded to your question that assumed that I supported contract killings in another thread, way back in post #764 of a thread that had nothing to do with contract killings or abortions. For the audience, that post is here:

Post in thread 'Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates'

Sep 10, 2025

I think at this point you're just trolling IBD.

... or you could hazard an answer.

Why do you think contract killings are OK?

[ for purposes of discussion, a "contract killing" is defined as the killing of living human A by living human B who was paid by living human C for his "unaliving" services. Furthermore, living human A does not get a say in the matter, the killing fee is negotiated between humans B and C, and the entire matter is human C's choice. ]

I once had a young female friend who also liked to take control of language terms when it came to abortion. It...

• Scott

My response was positively prescient in the problem that I suspected would result between us. Quoting:
**
I once had a young female friend who also liked to take control of language terms when it came to abortion. It ended in us being unable to discuss the subject anymore because she refused to accept dictionary definitions of the term.
**

Here is the root of our problem- you want to control the meaning of words in our discussion. I don't. I'm fine with you defining words however you like, I just need to make it clear how -I- define those same words, or compound words as the case may be. Generally speaking, I prefer using -dictionary- definitions, because they tend to focus on common definitions for words and also strive to use language that is neutral, rather than taking sides in controversial debates, such as definitions for a word like abortion.

Nope. What you want is to virtue signal your killing supremacy position [snip]

The audience will note IBDaMann's continued wish to control the meaning of words in our discussion- in this case, the meaning of the word abortion.

 

[Scott]

What I -do- have control over is on how I define words.

... which amounts to EVASION.

No, it amounts to setting boundaries. You also define words to your liking as well and that's fine. If you don't like how I define words, you're free to stop discussing subjects where I use these words.

Nope. It amounts to EVADING simple, straightforward yet inconvenient questions

I haven't 'evaded' any of your questions. I've responded to all of them- some of them are questions with false assumptions built in. When that happens, I point out the false assumptions.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, people here aren't using the words individually here,

Yes, they are. Treat them individually. Think of it like someone having written "the red airplane". There is no such special thing as a "red airplane" that isn't a "red" + "airplane".

I'm not going to waste time with you on this leg of your EVASION.

 

[Into the Night]

I see that you agreed with my second point, namely that "we can all define words related to our discussion on abortion however we like". If you truly agree with this second point, then no definition can be "in error" when it comes to personal definitions for words. Conversely, this makes things -immensely- difficult when it comes to having a debate on a contentious issue such as abortion. I've already given you an out here- use the term natural person if you want to exclude human sperm and eggs. That word -is- in a legal dictionary and I fully respect this definition.

You don't get to redefine abortion or murder.

 

[IBDaMann]

Disagreeing is easy- that won't change by you thinking that ...

Nope. You still don't get to reject math and logic.

 

[IBDaMann]

The audience will note IBDaMann's continued wish to control the meaning of words in our discussion ...

Nope. No audience will note such, because it isn't happening. You are EVADING straightforward English conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

I haven't 'evaded' any of your questions.

Lie.

I've responded to all of them-

Lie.

some of them are questions with false assumptions built in.

Lie.

When that happens, I point out the false assumptions.

Lie.