Abortion

[IBDaMann]

Alright, thanks for the explanation.

You bet.

Interesting.

I'll reserve judgement as to whether this is in fact a "standard tactic amoungst leftists".

Your judgement is not requested. I provided you that information as a courtesy.

We clearly disagree here.

Your agreement is not required. You were not present in our conversations. You are not able to find a value-added contribution by @AProudLefty on JPP. Also, your agreement cannot be secured by any rational discussion; you are dishonest in this regard.

I've seen no evidence that

Spare me how you have once again turned a blind eye to mountainous evidence.

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.

Nope. It wasn't even his idea. He just jumped on the bandwagon as a pivot, as a way of EVADING topics, just as effectively as you do.

I do believe that you and ItN do sometimes have fairly similar posting styles

When it comes to science, math and logic, the correct answer will always be the same, regardless of who is providing you that correct answer. Leftists deal almost exclusively in incorrect answers, faulty logic and EVASION. Ergo, they stand poised to shout SOCK! whenever someone exposes their fallacies and supremacies using impenetrable logic.

In short, leftists are typically dishonest; AProudLefty is exceptionally dishonest.

For me, the most distinctive difference between you and ItN is that you generally tend to refrain from what I call "soundbite posts",

Why aren't our disagreements your first clue? AProudLefty claims my denouncement of the IDF as the world's most active terrorist organization, and Into the Night's "Israel is always right" to be indistinguishable. Are you claiming that AProudLefty is that stupid, or do you recognize that he is doing it as a pivot to EVADE contributing in any value-added way?

Into the Night and I disagree on a handful of topics that we have debated here on JPP, and AProudLefty knows this.

 

[AProudLefty]

AProudLefty claims my denouncement of the IDF as the world's most active terrorist organization, and Into the Night's "Israel is always right" to be indistinguishable.

Where did you see this? Your imagination?

Are you claiming that AProudLefty is that stupid, or do you recognize that he is doing it as a pivot to EVADE contributing in any value-added way?

You're the one who evaded my answers to your questions.

Into the Night and I disagree on a handful of topics that we have debated here on JPP, and AProudLefty knows this.

Multiple personalities can disagree with each other.

You might not have MPD, but you certainly use the same language!

Be yourself. Don't copy. You are unique!

 

[Taichiliberal]

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.

And as the reader can clearly see, this squawking maga moron insists that his revisionist definitions of what others write and what is defined by dictionary and medical text supersedes all. The chronology of the posts confirms this.

My intent wasn't to get this trollish Maga buffoon to concede a point or admit error, but to expose him for what is the MAGA core base...which is a stubborn denial of reality and a proud willful ignorance. Once I've done this, I just ignore the little dipstick for a month or so and watch him dog my posts and threads like a bitch in heat craving attention. I hope Squawky is at least getting compensated for his efforts. Later, people.

 

[IBDaMann]

And as the reader can clearly see, this squawking maga moron insists that his revisionist definitions of what others write and what is defined by dictionary and medical text supersedes all.

And as the reader can clearly see, this raving Marxist is getting spittle everywhere. He won't just come out and admit that he finds the titillation of killing living humans to be a compelling political strategy. I bet he's selling the Party of Death on incorporating snuff films into political ads.

My intent wasn't to get this trollish Maga buffoon to concede a point or admit error,

Your intent was to babble gibberish peppered with choice ad hominem, and to never pretend to support anything. You have no point.

but to expose him for what is the MAGA core base...which is a stubborn denial of reality and a proud willful ignorance.

When were you planning to start?

Once I've done this, I just ignore the little dipstick for a month or so and watch him dog my posts and threads like a bitch in heat craving attention.

Projecting. You're just a self-loather who is a craven coward.

 

[Scott]

A few points here:
1- Do you believe that women who freeze their embryos and then decide to discard them are "murdering" their children?

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?

 

[Scott]

2- All human cells, including sperm and egg cells, have at least one complete set of DNA from both of their parents.

Great. Find me one such sperm or egg cell that has a heartbeat, and I'll have to rethink my definition.

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.

 

[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?

 

[Scott]

WRONG!
Neither a sperm nor egg cell has a complete DNA set.

Actually, they do. They just don't have -2- complete sets of DNA, like regular cells. 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. You don't seem to believe me, so I'll quote some sources:
**
The human sperm cell is haploid, so that its 23 chromosomes can join the 23 chromosomes of the female egg to form a diploid cell with 46 paired chromosomes.
**
Source:

Sperm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

**
Parts of sperm

• The head. This part of the sperm carries 23 chromosomes, which contain all the genetic information that the male will pass on. Fertilization occurs when a sperm cell penetrates an egg and combines with the 23 chromosomes the egg contains. That forms a single cell of 46 chromosomes. If all goes well, a baby will be born 9 months later.

**
Source:

Can an Undescended Testicle Cause Fertility Problems?

An undescended testicle can lead to fertility issues later in life. Find out why it’s a problem and how early surgery can help.

www.webmd.com

 

[Scott]

2- All human cells, including sperm and egg cells, have at least one complete set of DNA from both of their parents. The only difference between regular cells and sperm and egg cells is that regular cells have -2- sets of DNA from their parents, whereas sperm and egg cells only have 1. I'm pretty sure the reason they only have one is so that they can pair up with their counterpart (if sperm, that'd be egg, if egg, that'd be sperm) to again form 2 sets of DNA- at that point, the fertilized egg also has 2 sets of parents, it's just that those parents are different parents then the parents of the sperm and egg cells before joining.

WRONG. A fertilized egg has ONE complete set of DNA. It is NOT identical to either parent.

I never said that a fertilized egg was identical to either parent. A fertlized egg combines the genes of both the male sperm and the female unfertilized egg. What I've read on human sperms and human eggs makes no mention of complete sets. They simply say that a human sperm has a set of 23 chromosomes and a human egg also has a set of 23 chromosomes and that combined, they have 46 chromosomes- simple math.

 

[Scott]

The only reason I also use the term 'living human' is because it's such a catch all word.

Nope. You use it because it is very specific. All things that are not alive or that are not human are excluded. That's a lot of things excluded. The term "living human" is by no means any sort of "catch all".

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

It can also exclude one or more of these stages of human development.

No stage of any living human is excluded by the term "living human".

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.

The -problem- with this compound word is that I have yet to see it in any dictionary, encyclopedia or set of legal definitions.

Big deal. You have now seen it on JPP, which is a website just like any website you just mentioned, i.e. it has an IP address, an API, etc.

A dictionary, encyclopedia or legal tome is far more than just an IP address. Wordnik, which I use on a regular basis, is an enormous trove of information. From Wikipedia:
**
Wordnik, a nonprofit organization, is an online English dictionary and language resource that provides dictionary and thesaurus content. Some of the content is based on print dictionaries such as the Century Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, WordNet, and GCIDE. Wordnik has collected a corpus of billions of words which it uses to display example sentences, allowing it to provide information on a much larger set of words than a typical dictionary. Wordnik uses as many real examples as possible when defining a word.

Wiktionary, the free open dictionary project, is one major source of words and citations used by Wordnik.
**
Source:

Wordnik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is as well:
**
Initially available only in English, Wikipedia exists in over 340 languages and is the world's ninth most visited website. The English Wikipedia, with over 7 million articles, remains the largest of the editions, which together comprise more than 65 million articles and attract more than 1.5 billion unique device visits and 13 million edits per month (about 5 edits per second on average) as of April 2024.
**

Source:

Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Legal dictionaries, such as legaldictionary.net, are also great as they delineate how the law defines words, which is quite important, especially on such subjections such as abortion and the legal definition of a natural person.

 

[Scott]

Living beings don't need heartbeats to be living. Which is why human sperm and eggs should qualify as "living humans" under your definition.

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

No. Can you think of any living human sperm that is not living and not human?

Do you believe that women who freeze their embryos and then decide to discard them are "murdering" their children?

Yes, that's what I believe.

Why? A frozen embryo doesn't yet have a heartbeat. You have to wait at least 16 days after conception for that to happen:

First of our three billion heartbeats is sooner than we thought | University of Oxford

When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

www.ox.ac.uk

Now it's my turn to ask a question: Is {customer who is a pregnant woman} a proper subset of {customer}?

Sounds reasonable.

A secondary question: Do you accept set theory?

I do.

 

[gfm7175]

And as the reader can clearly see, this squawking maga moron insists that his revisionist definitions of what others write

No, it is simply a rephrasing of what you wrote. It's still your position; I'm just removing the obfuscation from it.

and what is defined by dictionary and medical text supersedes all.

Dictionaries are inanimate objects; they (in and of themselves) don't define anything. In fact, their purpose isn't for defining words but is rather for standardizing the spelling and pronunciation of words.

The chronology of the posts confirms this.

My intent wasn't to get this trollish Maga buffoon to concede a point or admit error, but to expose him for what is the MAGA core base...which is a stubborn denial of reality and a proud willful ignorance. Once I've done this, I just ignore the little dipstick for a month or so and watch him dog my posts and threads like a bitch in heat craving attention. I hope Squawky is at least getting compensated for his efforts. Later, people.

 

[Scott]

All human cells, including sperm and egg cells, have at least one complete set of DNA from both of their parents.

Not true. Sperm and egg cells are both haploid (only containing a "halved" set of (23) chromosomes).

Yes, they only have half as many chromosomes as regular cells, but regular human cells have -2- sets of chromosomes. Wikipedia explains:
**
The term haploid is used with two distinct but related definitions. In the most generic sense, haploid refers to having the number of sets of chromosomes normally found in a gamete. Because two gametes necessarily combine during sexual reproduction to form a single zygote from which somatic cells are generated, healthy gametes always possess exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in the somatic cells, and therefore "haploid" in this sense refers to having exactly half the number of sets of chromosomes found in a somatic cell. By this definition, an organism whose gametic cells contain a single copy of each chromosome (one set of chromosomes) may be considered haploid while the somatic cells, containing two copies of each chromosome (two sets of chromosomes), are diploid.
**

Source:

Ploidy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

A new human isn't formed until a sperm and an egg join together

Human sperms and eggs are living and human. For me, that's enough to classify them as living humans. Together, they can create embryos, fetuses and if a pregnancy comes to turn, born babies, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still living humans even if they don't join.

 

[Scott]

There is no growth if the fertilized eggs if they don't remain in a fertile female's body.

There is no longer any growth if the unborn child's life is snuffed out by the professional killer that his mother hired to perform the hit on him.

Setting aside your description of performing an abortion, I was actually thinking of cases where the mother decides to freeze her fertilized eggs thinking that she may wish to conceive at a future date, but then decides not to conceive. I suppose you would consider her pulling the plug on the life support of her fertilized eggs to be murder?

 

[Scott]

When all is said and done:

1. A personal/private decision by the pregnant woman and a partner/spouse (if such is involved) and her personal physician.

2. Once the state inserts itself in that decision based on a specific religious doctrine that counters medical science, we are in a theocracy.

3. State & federal regulations formerly protected the life of the mother and MEDICALLY DETERMINED when a pregnancy reached a level of development where termination would be akin to "murder".

I agree with 1 and I think I agree with 2. However, with 3, I have my doubts that there is some medical way to determine when pregnancy termination would be akin to murder.

 

[Scott]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then. I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life. I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread. I think this is interesting. I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions. There was a young one that was on tv a fair amount but I can't remember her name.

reason your way through it.

you're smarter than this.

What do you think I'm missing?

it's not a subset of.

most of them are an example of.....

most abortion are NOT done by "self".

and abortionist don't work for free.

I agree with your 3rd sentence and I think that you are -generally- correct when it comes to your 4th, though I suspect that there are probably a few cases where abortionists do work for free.

it's clearly an EXAMPLE of a contract killing.

Only if you believe that removing human fetuses from pregnant human females should be defined as killing fetuses. As I've pointed out many times before, I haven't found any dictionaries that define removing human fetuses as killing them and I certainly don't define it this way either.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

I agree with your 3rd sentence and I think that you are -generally- correct when it comes to your 4th, though I suspect that there are probably a few cases where abortionists do work for free.



Only if you believe that removing human fetuses from pregnant human females should be defined as killing fetuses. As I've pointed out many times before, I haven't found any dictionaries that define removing human fetuses as killing them and I certainly don't define it this way either.

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[gfm7175]

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?

My guess is that you'll have a difficult time getting IBD to veer away from the relevant subject matter of this thread, even if for a moment.

ITN and I are generally more willing to allow SOME deviation away from the relevant subject matter, treating it as a "side discussion", but IBD is like a "buck in rut" when it comes to any potential distractions from the task at hand... he's very laser-focused, eye always on the ball.

 

[gfm7175]

You can define the term "living human" however you like.

Indeed he can.

Since I have been unable to find a dictionary definition for the term,

Dictionaries are not "holy" or "authoritative" sources for word definitions, yet you keep insisting upon treating them as such. In fact, dictionaries will often-enough contradict each other, so which one is the "holy" one and why?

there isn't even a guide as to how people usually define the term.

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

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 and lack a complete set of DNA (having only 23 chromosomes instead of 46).