IBDaMann
Well-known member
Therefore, what beliefs are my words reflecting, beyond placing high value on human life?
When did I become a plural?
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
When did I become a plural?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
It's the correct English usage.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
An observation.
My questions remain unanswered.
Let me know when something changes.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
When a living human is caused to die, what would you call that? Hint: starts with a "k".
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
IOW, "the mother" and "the doctor" have killing supremacy.
Religion is irrelevant here. Biology and genealogy are not religions.
Taichiliberal LOOOOOOOVES contract killings.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Of course it's called killing.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. Those are Your words, not that of medical science. You don't get to insert your opinion in the mix. When you get pregnant, you have definitive say.2. You babble and ignore what has transpired for decades. Religious based opposition to abortion has been the forefront of politicians, PAC's and church "grassroots" groups for decades. A matter of fact, a matter of history. They ignore the biology that conflicts with their beliefs. "Genealogy" isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
3. Your childish taunt exposes your intellectual limitations.
Scott
Verified User
Nope. I can't cross-examine statisticsI can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:Sure. Bring me the millions of parents.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
**
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.
Agreed. You can certainly respect them though.
Do you have any evidence that they are fabricated?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Leftists routinely fabricate statistics, and when they don't, leftists don't disclose the problem's in the underlying data.
I do not respect statistics, especially when they run counter to logic and common sense
I don't have to. It is sufficient that I believe they are and that you are lying as you normally do. You have no credibility.
Yakuda
Verified User
If you focused it could be very good. The issues are rarely as "complicated" as some people make them out to be.
Yakuda
Verified User
That's what I'm suggesting and it's a fact. Whether it not anyone pays for it is irrelevant. Your claim is that a female is "necessary" therefore she holds all the cards and therefore can make unilateral decisions that effect other people's lives. I merely point out she isn't necessary once she been knocked up.
Scott
Verified User
Not I.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
I certainly acknowledge the possibility that you donate a good sum of your income to the plight of born children who live in poverty. I just think it's worth noting that many who are against abortions don't and I think this inherent hypocrisy is worth noting.
Yakuda
Verified User
Just admit you don't want to answer questions. I'm not interested in being polite to people who aren't decent enough to answer questions posed to them first.
Yakuda
Verified User
So something is true only if you read it in a dictionary? Really? Abortion terminates a life a life that will develop into a baby if you don't kill it.
The reasons for abortion: Statistics, safety, and access
There are many reasons for abortion, ranging from serious health risks and family planning to financial concerns. Learn more here.
www.medicalnewstoday.com
I bordering on not being polite to you anymore as you're either acting stupid or you are stupid. You don't stroke me as stupid so I suspect you're the play the quiet contemplative thinker. We hear about rape and incest because in the final analysis that's the only half way reasonable argument argument for abortion but it's so rare as to be inconsequential
Scott
Verified User
Have you heard of the presumption of innocence? Just in case you haven't:
**
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
**
Source:
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia
Now, I understand that we're not in a court of law. But I still think that this legal principle shouldn't just be followed in the courts. I think that -anyone- who makes a claim should be the one to present the evidence for said claim if asked. You, on the other hand, apparently think that we should operate under the presumption of guilt, at least when you are making the charge.
So, with all of that said, I think it's patently clear that it should be -you- who offers a concrete example that I have engaged in special pleading. You had said that I had engaged in special pleading after I had agreed with you that new trends aren't necessarily good or acceptable, but in the case of using terms such as "they" and "their" for describing when people in certain situations, such as when their gender is unknown. For the audience, I provided plenty of evidence as to why this is a good idea back in post #269:
I think that's a good place to start providing evidence for your assertion.
Scott
Verified User
Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means. I've found that we -can- do this with the term living human- essentially, the boundaries of what a human life can be is that it has to have at least one human cell, such as a sperm, and can go all the way to the final stage of human development, that of an elderly citizen. What we -can't- do is agree on where the boundary should be, but I've found that this term can be useful when talking about multiple stages of human development, such as both the preborn -and- the born stages. When I want to be specific as to what stage I'm referring to, I simply use the term that defines said stage to avoid any confusion as to what I'm referring to.
Scott
Verified User
Any word that can't be found in an online dictionary or encyclopedia is ambiguous by default. Anyone can define such words as they see fit. Now, there are scenarios where that's fine, but using such terms to bolster claims on controversial subjects clearly isn't one of them.
I did search on all of the definitions for living over at wordnik.com. Heart and heartbeat were never mentioned. Here's the first one that -is- mentioned:
**
- adjective Possessing life.
Source:
We next turn to the definition of life itself. Again, no mention of the words heart or heartbeat. The first definition on wordnik.com is again apt for our discussion:
**
- noun The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Source:
Once again, I did a search in all the definitions for human found on wordnik.com. DNA or its longer name, DeoxyriboNucleic Acid, were not found. I'll list the first 2 definitions they did have:
**
- noun A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.
- noun A person.
Source:
I think both of these definitions are useful. The first for making it clear that humans are a species. The second one, person, is one that is found in law, though at this point in time in the U.S., another term has to be added to ensure that it's not confused with corporate people- "natural". As an added bonus, the definition of natural person is already involved in the discussion as to whether or not this includes pre born humans:
**
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
Scott
Verified User
The first definition for ultimate on wordnik.com is this:
**
- adjective Being last in a series, process, or progression: synonym: last.
Source:
This is the way I'm using the word.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No, they are YOUR words; I'm just rephrasing them. See below.
IOW, "killing supremacy". See above.
Irrelevant. This is about biology and genealogy. Religion isn't necessary (and is thus irrelevant).
Nope, that's what you and @Scott are doing.
It is relevant whenever someone like @Scott intentionally obfuscates what a 'child' is.
Abortion is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer who is a pregnant woman who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.
This is the 'contract killing' superset of abortion, while this is the 'abortion' proper subset of contract killing.
Scott
Verified User
Looking at what I said above, I think I wasn't as clear as I would have liked to be, though the word "perhaps" offers a big clue as to what I meant. It seems clear to me that society as a whole is less approving of abortion the closer a fetus gets to actually being born. I think this is reasonable, but it ofcourse leaves the possibility that a fetus should be considered a natural person at a certain point in time prior to birth. What that point in time should be is definitely not clear. What I can say is that most abortions are carried out fairly early on in the U.S.:
**
- Most abortions occur in the first trimester. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data for 2021 show that 81% of US abortions took place at or before nine weeks’ gestation and an additional 13% were at 10–13 weeks.
Source:
