Abortion

[gfm7175]

Margot is
Just FYI...Margot is not a woman...

Ah, looks like his avatar got both me and gfm to believe he was. Ah well, thanks for the heads up -.-

Hold up.... Margot is a man?!

 

[TOP]

Hold up.... Margot is a man?!

Yes....one of multiple socks...

 

[gfm7175]

Yes....one of multiple socks...

Interesting.....

 

[Scott]

Just FYI...Margot is not a woman...

Ah, looks like his avatar got both me and gfm to believe he was. Ah well, thanks for the heads up -.-

Hold up.... Margot is a man?!

It appears that he is biologically a man, but identifies as a woman, according to Yakuda:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Thursday at 1:49 PM

Ah, looks like his avatar got both me and gfm to believe he was. Ah well, thanks for the heads up -.-

But that is a picture of "him". Margot told me he is a man but identifies as she.

• Yakuda

I respect people identifying as whatever they like and will address them by their preferred pronoun, which in this case appears to be she/her. I think I'd draw the line if someone were to switch pronouns on a regular basis, but so far, I haven't found anyone like that yet.

 

[TOP]

It appears that he is biologically a man, but identifies as a woman, according to Yakuda:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Thursday at 1:49 PM

Ah, looks like his avatar got both me and gfm to believe he was. Ah well, thanks for the heads up -.-

But that is a picture of "him". Margot told me he is a man but identifies as she.

• Yakuda

I respect people identifying as whatever they like and will address them by their preferred pronoun, which in this case appears to be she/her. I think I'd draw the line if someone were to switch pronouns on a regular basis, but so far, I haven't found anyone like that yet.

Well...that must be a recent development and it is kind and very respectful of you to recognize what may be the gender of the moment...

 

[Scott]

Well...that must be a recent development and it is kind and very respectful of you to recognize what may be the gender of the moment...

As long as she doesn't change it often, I can work with it .

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe to you, but not everyone.

Why do you care, Scottie? I'm married. Are you looking for a date on JPP??? TOP is single. Do you want me to send you her picture?

Okay, Tyrant. I'll make sure to shoot you or support someone shooting you if you start blasting people.

 

[Into the Night]

Like you, I'm a teacher- and English teacher in my case.

You are not a teacher. I have already pointed out your illiteracy several times.

And yes, I've always found that the best way to discuss anything is civilly.

Blatant lie. You resort to strawman fallacies. pivot fallacies, insults fallacies, and coutier fallacies. You lie even to yourself.

Also, while it's great when people agree on things, I've found that most of the conversations I've had here are with people I disagree with on a given subject. Agreements frequently lead to very short interactions:
Me: "I believe this"
Other poster: "So do I!"
Me: likes post

And that's that .

Blatant lie. Your history of your posts shows otherwise.

 

[TOP]

As long as she doesn't change it often, I can work with it .

The patience, understanding, compassion, and tolerance of a true fellow educator...

 

[Scott]

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.

I'll take your word for it. I think there's enough people against what Israel's doing for me to focus my energy on other things.

That's mainly what I've been doing... I've been leaving that issue alone for others to discuss and argue over. I'm not the most vocal on here when it comes to "foreign affairs" topics in general; it's just not my cup of tea.

In general, I'm the same, with the exception of the war in Ukraine. The reason for that is that that conflict has the potential of drawing the U.S. and Russia into a nuclear war with each other, which has the potential of killing most if not all life on earth.

 

[Scott]

Anyway, you seem to be saying that atheism shouldn't be confused with the religious belief that God doesn't exist.

Right. I'd say that there are three main "camps" on this issue, if you will:

1) The theistic/religious belief that a god (or gods) exists. [This is the "camp" that ITN and I, as Christians, both fall under].

2) The theistic/religious belief that a god (or gods) DOES NOT exist. [This is what most people (I'd say incorrectly) call "atheism", and this is what your Wikipedia link (I'd say incorrectly) claims "atheism" is]. To avoid confusion with terminology, I will instead call this the "Church of No God" (ITN coined the term).

3) The nontheistic/nonreligious "lack of theism", or "without theism". IOW, maybe a god or gods exists and maybe a god or gods DOESN'T exist. [This is actually "atheism" and this is the "camp" that IBDaMann falls under]. This is what most people (I'd say incorrectly) claim "agnosticism" is.

I see.

What I'd like to know is if you agree with the following introduction of Atheism from Wikipedia's page on Atheism:
**
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.
**

Source:

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like pretty much everything that I've come across on Wikipedia, I find it to be erroneous (because it rejects the etymology of the prefix "a", such as in the word "atypical"). See above for how I would amend it.

Alright. I personally like it, as it's what I learned was its definition growing up. I think you've even alluded to it yourself in the preceding text you wrote- that is, that most people tend to define Atheism the way Wikipedia does.

 

[Scott]

Do you include urination and defecation as stages of human development?

Do urine and feces have the potential of developing into babies that are born?

Your question uses the word "potential" which calls for speculation and can be properly answered with either a "yes" or a "no."

I think you should quit before you fall too far behind.

That idiot spends all his time telling others how smart he is.

I wouldn't classify IBDaMann as an idiot, far from it, but I think that in this particular conversation I've been having with him, he's gone way off course and there's no way he can salvage it.

 

[Scott]

But even if one DOES define living in a manner that allows for sperm to be considered both living and human, a sperm is not an individual organism (it lacks the other 23 chromosomes that are necessary to form a new organism).

You've raised the bar: I said that human sperm were living and human.

Sperm have no beating heart. Sperm do not have complete genetic material.

Irrelevant when it comes to determining if they are living and human.

You are a science and physiology denier. What else is new.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

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.

Well, technicaly, a poster would have to believe that you (1) aren't lying and (2) actually know all of this to be true.

Correct. That's the nature of an online forum, and the reason why credentials are meaningless on such a forum.

Credentials -can- be meaningful in online forums- it all depends on the evidence that they're real. But as I've said in the past, I never saw any reason to doubt that you, ItN and IBD were different people.

 

[Scott]

No, it's of immense relevance. For the audience, IBDaMann conveniently snipped off the final sentence of my post. It was this:
"In that sense, it's exactly like a sperm- it requires other components in order to become a born baby."

I think it's clear that he would like to distract from the fact that the similarities between a human sperm and a human egg and a zygote are massive. For starters, a sperm and an egg are all a zygote were until they were joined. And just like the sperm and the egg, without additional material, they have no hope of ever creating a birthed human. They are simply components in a much larger picture. And no, a female's fertile womb is not just "a question of technology", and forcing her to grow a zygote to being born is nothing short of slavery.

If I willingly choose to drive 40mph in a 25mph "speed trap" zone that SOMETIMES has a cop sitting there, and I subsequently get pulled over for speeding and get issued a citation, am I having a citation forced upon me?

Sure, but as a society most people are in agreement that this is fair. The situation is different when it comes to forcing pregnant females to grow fetuses.

This "forcing her to grow a zygote to being born" belief of yours is akin to you believing that pregnancy arises in the very same manner as a wild Pokémon arises whenever a trainer walks through tall grass. If I had the motivation and talent to do it, I would create a meme of the Pokémon encounter screen, include a picture of a fetus where the Pokémon picture would be, and replace the game's "A wild [Pokémon name] appeared!" encounter text with the text: "A wild Fetus appeared!"

I see that someone has done such a picture at this point. You're missing the point though- most people know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. The issue is whether females should be forced to grow embryos and fetuses inside them. I think that forcing them to do so amounts to slavery.

 

[Scott]

I'm saying that when it comes to illegal abortions, there is probably little if any paperwork involved.

I get it, but you acknowledge the verbal contract, yes?

If you're saying that most illegal abortions occur when [snip]

Did you just add the qualifier "illegal" and render your post a waste of time?

No idea why you think adding the illegal qualifier makes my post a "waste of time".

It's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Oh boy, another arcane fallacy -.-

 

[Scott]

First, you state that I hadn't given my definition of "living human". I had, but decided to repeat it for you and instead of a "thank you", I get a statement that I decided was best snipped off after 6 words -.- As I've said before, you can and do define "living human" however you like [snip]

You are being dishonest.

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

You know that I defined "living" and "human" individually, and that I did not seek to define some new term "living human".

We had actually been talking about -my- definition of "living human", not yours. For the audience, here's what IBDaMann wrote back in post #675:
**
You haven't ever stated your definition of "living human."
**

In response, I said that I had, but that perhaps you hadn't seen it. So I posted my definition, which was this:
**
My definition of a living human encompasses all stages of human development, from human sperms and eggs and ends with elderly humans.
**

This all happened in post #854.

 

[IBDaMann]

I wouldn't classify IBDaMann as an idiot, far from it, but I think that in this particular conversation I've been having with him, he's gone way off course and there's no way he can salvage it.

"Salvage" is not the correct word to apply to a discussion in which you refuse to participate.

 

[IBDaMann]

We had actually been talking about -my- definition of "living human", not yours.

Nope. Way back you demanded that I define my terms. I answered all your questions, I specified my position, I defined all my terms ... and you EVADED. You haven't answered any of my questions.

Here's where we stand:

* You demand killing supremacy for women, such that they can legally kill their own children for their own convenience, and can rely on the government to physically and legally prevent fathers from saving the lives of their own children who are targeted for execution. You consider the denial of said supremacy to be VICTIMIZATION.

* You demand killing supremacy for professional killers to legally enter into killing contracts with pregnant women to kill their children and to dispose of the bodies. You consider the denial of said supremacy to be VICTIMIZATION.

* You demand LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ supremacy for the sexually abnormal to engage in public indecency/nudity/sexual behavior with impunity, even when endangering children. You consider the denial of said supremacy to be VICTIMIZATION.


[*-SUPREMACY_Killing_Supremacy_L+Supremacy]

 

[IBDaMann]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

You substantiated it. You simply believe that you get get to disagree with absolute truth that is not a subjective matter of opinion.