Abortion

[gfm7175]

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.

IBDaMann said:
Living = heartbeat
Human = homo sapien

So, forget any dictionary or encyclopedia. Make use of those words instead. If there's something within those words that doesn't make sense to you (or you need clarification on), then ask. Otherwise, go with those words because those words are what IBDaMann is talking about.

Which means each of us can define it however we like.

Maybe now you're starting to understand why dictionaries and encyclopedia's are NOT "holy" "authoritative sources" in any way? Maybe now you're starting to understand why it is not useful to continuously appeal to their contents as if they are somehow "holy" or "authoritative"?

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.

I'm not sure how much simpler IBDaMann can make what he's talking about to you.

He's said: "living human" = homo sapien with a heartbeat.

Therefore, anything that does NOT have a heartbeat is NOT being discussed by him. Anything that is NOT a homo sapien is likewise NOT being discussed by him. Therefore, human sperm (human, no heartbeat) is NOT being discussed by him. Meanwhile, a human in the fetal stage of human growth/development (human, heartbeat) IS being discussed by him.

 

[gfm7175]

Any word that can't be found in an online dictionary or encyclopedia is ambiguous by default.

Nope. It can be found right here on JPP. Dictionaries are not "holy" or "authoritative" re: meanings of words.

Anyone can define such words as they see fit.

... and this is PRECISELY why dictionaries are NOT "holy" or "authoritative" re: meanings of words. They, TOO, are examples of "anyone defining words as he/she sees fit".

 

[Yakuda]

Nope. It can be found right here on JPP. Dictionaries are not "holy" or "authoritative" re: meanings of words.

... and this is PRECISELY why dictionaries are NOT "holy" or "authoritative" re: meanings of words. They, TOO, are examples of "anyone defining words as he/she sees fit".

Like the death stab is a "vaccine" for covid even though it didn't prevent people from getting covid.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

There is never hypocrisy in simply defending the inalienable right to remain alive of a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die.

 

[AProudLefty]

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.

Say so is not evidence.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

Dial it back ... the correct answer is "no, that's not how rational discourse works." If you are going to say that abortion is not a contract killing, you need to provide an example of an abortion that is not. As to your pretense that the word "killing" shall not be allowed, you need to provide an example of an abortion that is not a killing.

To prevent your instinctive dishonesty and your penchant for playing word games, let's focus on only those cases in which the fetus has a heartbeat and human DNA.

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

You have bounced around between fallacies like a pinball getting every single mega-point bonus. I'm here to tell you that your fallacies aren't worth my time to address. Just provide your examples of abortions that are not killings.

, 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:

Grammar errors are grammar errors. The English language does not allow plurals for singulars.

 

[IBDaMann]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion,

It was your assertion that you were too incompetent to find something. It was also your assertion that you are too logically inept to figure out that a contract to kill a living human is a contract killing.

there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia

That glaring issue is that none are needed.

Which means each of us can define it however we like.

Wait, that would mean that each of us can determine our own political positions willy-nilly. That can't be the case, right?

Just as I can have a rational discussion about a political position (with someone who is not EVADING, of course), I can explain the definitions I use. If you don't like a particular definition, you need to explain why my definition is inaccurate (which you refuse to do), not pretend that I need to use some erroneous definition. I don't need to use any erroneous definitions.

These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about

The only thing causing confusion is your deliberate EVASION.

You have not explained why living (heartbeat) human (human DNA) is somehow insufficient.
You have not explained how a contract to kill a living human is somehow not a contract killing.

Your pivots to what you cannot find elsewhere are ignored. Let me know when something changes and you can be honest.

, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits

Nope. You are one of the "sides" and you simply refuse to accept anything other than that which allows you to control what is allowed to be said.

I've found that we -can- do this with the term living human

I should hope so. Have you also "found" that killing a living human is a killing?

- 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,

Nope. There's no heartbeat.

By the way, the DNA of the sperm that creates a new living human differs from the DNA of the new living human created. Therefore, the sperm with a differing DNA cannot be a life stage of the newly formed living human with different DNA.

... but I've found that this term can be useful when talking about multiple stages of human development,

Yes, a living human has multiple stages.

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.

If you wish to create such a "stage" or "category", be my guest.

 

[IBDaMann]

Any word that can't be found in an online dictionary or encyclopedia is ambiguous by default.

I'm writing this sentence right now, and it doesn't appear in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Are you saying that the preceding sentence is erroneous?

If I specify that a fetus with a heartbeat and human DNA is a living human, you don't think anyone can understand, follow along and discuss rationally ... or just you?

 

[AProudLefty]

Heartbeat does not indicate consciousness/sentience/awareness. Proving it will show it to be a killing if abortion is done.

 

[IBDaMann]

• 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.

Here is the proper wording, with the dishonesty removed and the truth inserted:

• Most killings of living humans by killer-doctors occur in the first trimester after the fetal heart is developed and is fully beating; 81% of such killings in the US took place at or before nine weeks’ gestation and an additional 13% in the 10–13 weeks range.

 

[IBDaMann]

Heartbeat does not indicate consciousness/sentience/awareness.

Stipulated.

 

[AProudLefty]

Stipulated.

Good. Now consciousness has been shown to arise later.

 

[IBDaMann]

Good. Now consciousness has been shown to arise later.

Irrelevant.

 

[AProudLefty]

Irrelevant.

It is relevant to killing.

 

[Scott]

I believe that a natural person should only be defined as either someone who has been born or perhaps someone who is pretty close to being born. You apparently want to define it as when a human fetus gets a heartbeat.

Why are you using the word "it"? I'm not.

I can understand your discomfort with using the pronoun "it" for "living human", seeing as your definition of "living human" would probably fit perfectly with your definition of "natural person". The thing is, the way I define "living human", it definitely -doesn't- fit perfectly with "natural person".

I think we can agree that a 'living human' can be either male or female. We use it for objects, but -also- for animals that are not human or a "natural person". The thing about "living human" is that, for me, it can cross the boundary between a "natural person" and a simple complex of human cells. Given this fact, I think it may well be best that I use the pronoun "it" in this case.

 

[Scott]

What does RQAA stand for?

RQAA is an initialism used by Into the Night meaning "Repeated Question Already Answered".

Alright, thanks for the explanation.

It mirrors the "Asked and Answered" objection in the US legal system.

Interesting.

A standard tactic amongst leftists is to repeatedly ask a question that has already been answered repeatedly as though it has never been answered or as though it cannot be answered.

I'll reserve judgement as to whether this is in fact a "standard tactic amoungst leftists". Based on what I recall, it seems that both the left and the right ask questions that have already been answered. To be fair, I think at times they aren't actually -aware- of the fact that the question has already been answered. I have been known to repeatedly answer some questions, though there are limits to just how many times I'll answer the same question.

However, another standard leftist tactic is pivoting as a distraction, including the extremely common cry of "You're just a sock!" (as though that would even be relevant to the topic).

I've definitely had that one lobbed against me, but I suspect it wasn't just those on the left that lobbed that one my way.

AProudLefty is one of those who is completely unable to contribute intelligently to any thread or to add value to the board, so he just trolls and derails.

We clearly disagree here.

One of his schticks is to pretend that he cannot distinguish between different people and to assert that people who disagree with him must be socks of the same person.

I've seen no evidence that APL (my shorthand for his name) is pretending to do anything. I strongly suspect that he legitimately believes that some people here are socks of each other. That doesn't mean he's right though. I've already pointed out to a few people who think that you and ItN (my shorthand for Into the Night) are the same person that I've seen some definite differences between the 2 of you.

AProudLefty, whenever something stupid that he posts is pointed out to be stupid, he reverts back to his trusty pivot of "IBDaMann, gfm7175 and Into the Night are all the same poster."

Setting aside your characterization of APL's post quality, it does seem like he actually believes you, ItN and gfm are all the same person. I do believe that you and ItN do sometimes have fairly similar posting styles, though not always. For me, the most distinctive difference between you and ItN is that you generally tend to refrain from what I call "soundbite posts", wherein a handful of words are used, or even just one (RQAA for instance). But gfm is another matter entirely. He has a posting style that's almost always distinctive in my view.

 

[Scott]

What is the species? Homo sapien?? GREAT! You definitely have a human present. It is biologically undeniable.

Does this human also have a heartbeat? Yes?? GREAT! This human is definitely living. It is medically undeniable.

Living beings don't need heartbeats to be living.

Wasted bandwidth.

I strongly disagree. The reason has to do with the line following the one you quoted. Essentially, if a living being doesn't need a heartbeat to be living, it would mean that human sperms and human eggs are also living beings. Since they have human DNA, this would mean that they are "living humans" as well.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is relevant to killing.

Nope. It is completely irrelevant.

 

[IBDaMann]

I strongly disagree.

You only get to disagree if you provide an example of a living human who does not need a heartbeat to remain alive.

if a living being doesn't need a heartbeat to be living, it would mean that human sperms and human eggs are also living beings.

We have already established through other logic that sperm/egg is not a life stage of a human.

 

[AProudLefty]

RQAA is an initialism used by Into the Night meaning "Repeated Question Already Answered". It mirrors the "Asked and Answered" objection in the US legal system. A standard tactic amongst leftists is to repeatedly ask a question that has already been answered repeatedly as though it has never been answered or as though it cannot be answered.

However, another standard leftist tactic is pivoting as a distraction, including the extremely common cry of "You're just a sock!" (as though that would even be relevant to the topic). AProudLefty is one of those who is completely unable to contribute intelligently to any thread or to add value to the board, so he just trolls and derails. One of his schticks is to pretend that he cannot distinguish between different people and to assert that people who disagree with him must be socks of the same person. AProudLefty, whenever something stupid that he posts is pointed out to be stupid, he reverts back to his trusty pivot of "IBDaMann, gfm7175 and Into the Night are all the same poster." Since "RQAA" is Into the Night's term, AProudLefty responds to me with it.

Oh look! @gfm7175 and @Into the Night liked your post!