Abortion

gfm7175 said:
No, it is simply a rephrasing of what you wrote. It's still your position; I'm just removing the obfuscation from it.
Click to expand...
Bingo. EVERYTHING that is being tried by Democrats on abortion is obfuscation. For Scotch, it's so bad he has locked himself in paradox.
gfm7175 said:
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 standardizig the spelling and pronunciation of words.

:blah:
Click to expand...
Not because they are inanimate objects, but because that is not their purpose.

Words are defined by people. Every single word in the English language has an origin (usually from French or Latin uses, sometimes from other languages). The meaning of that word is unchanged from when it first entered the English lexicon. No dictionary can change it since that is itself an invalid redefinition. No popularity can change it since that itself is a redefinition.

Some words, like 'real' or 'reality', 'science', and 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic', are defined by philosophy. In other words, they depend on philosophy itself (reasoned arguments).

For example, 'real' is defined using a branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which itself is a study of how things are perceived. This is why there is no absolute 'real'. Anything that is 'real' is itself based on an observation, itself subject to error and distortion.

Oddly enough, 'religion' follows the same reasoning. 'Religion' itself is based on what is 'real' to an individual.

Science is not defined by phenomenology, since it is not based on how anything is observed, since science is not based on any observations. It is just the theories themselves, using a model and describing a perceived phenomena. Each of theory of science MUST be falsifiable. Examples: F=mA.

Nonscientific theories do NOT need to be falsifiable. If any arguments extend from them, they become religions.
Examples: the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Creation.

'Mathematics' is just a close set of rules (called axioms) that act like the rules of a game. Change a rule, and you are playing a different game. EVERYTHING in mathematics is locked within these rules, and any proof extending those rules.

'Logic' is the same way. Just a different set of axioms, and a different notation.

It is philosophy that defines what axioms to declare and why.
 
Into the Night said:
Bingo. EVERYTHING that is being tried by Democrats on abortion is obfuscation. For Scotch, it's so bad he has locked himself in paradox.

Not because they are inanimate objects, but because that is not their purpose.

Words are defined by people. Every single word in the English language has an origin (usually from French or Latin uses, sometimes from other languages). The meaning of that word is unchanged from when it first entered the English lexicon. No dictionary can change it since that is itself an invalid redefinition. No popularity can change it since that itself is a redefinition.

Some words, like 'real' or 'reality', 'science', and 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic', are defined by philosophy. In other words, they depend on philosophy itself (reasoned arguments).

For example, 'real' is defined using a branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which itself is a study of how things are perceived. This is why there is no absolute 'real'. Anything that is 'real' is itself based on an observation, itself subject to error and distortion.

Oddly enough, 'religion' follows the same reasoning. 'Religion' itself is based on what is 'real' to an individual.

Science is not defined by phenomenology, since it is not based on how anything is observed, since science is not based on any observations. It is just the theories themselves, using a model and describing a perceived phenomena. Each of theory of science MUST be falsifiable. Examples: F=mA.

Nonscientific theories do NOT need to be falsifiable. If any arguments extend from them, they become religions.
Examples: the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Creation.

'Mathematics' is just a close set of rules (called axioms) that act like the rules of a game. Change a rule, and you are playing a different game. EVERYTHING in mathematics is locked within these rules, and any proof extending those rules.

'Logic' is the same way. Just a different set of axioms, and a different notation.

It is philosophy that defines what axioms to declare and why.
Click to expand...
Random shuffle fallacy.

Roll em dice!
 
gfm7175 said:
Indeed he can.

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?
Click to expand...
Exactly. A redefinition fallacy is STILL a fallacy even if the redefinition appears in a dictionary or becomes a popularly used one.
gfm7175 said:
^^ Leftist "hivemind" language. ^^
A "guide" isn't necessary.
Click to expand...
I call it Liberal. It isn't English, but it kinda looks like it. In Liberal, however, words have no meaning (buzzwords) or shifting meaning (redefinitions).
gfm7175 said:
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).
Click to expand...
He is still locked in paradox on this.
 
Into the Night said:
Exactly. A redefinition fallacy is STILL a fallacy even if the redefinition appears in a dictionary or becomes a popularly used one.

I call it Liberal. It isn't English, but it kinda looks like it. In Liberal, however, words have no meaning (buzzwords) or shifting meaning (redefinitions).

He is still locked in paradox on this.
Click to expand...
You redefine words all the time.

You are locked in a paradox.
 
gfm7175 said:
Key word: TOGETHER. That means that a sperm and an egg, SEPARATE, are merely COMPONENTS of living humans (namely, their sex cells) and are not actually new living humans in and of themselves.

Four legs are not a stool. A seat is not a stool. Four legs and a seat, joined together and securely fastened, create a new stool.
Click to expand...
I feel bad that you had to go through the trouble of reinventing that wheel. Systems engineers understand these concepts as "composite" and "containment" relationships and in only two words, such matters are correctly resolved and everyone can move on to the next question/topic.

If you mail-order four skateboard wheels, two trucks, a board, various screws, etc..., i.e. the components of a skateboard, when they all arrive in a box at your doorstep, you do not have (a valid) skateboard. What you have is a bunch of components that each have a "containment" relationship with the box, i.e. the components are contained in the box, and are not configured. You purchased those components because, in your mind, you envisioned a certain configuration of those components that would be greater than the mere sum of the individual components, and would be worth more to you configured in that way than those individual components, i.e. you'd be able to ride a skateboard! When properly configured, each component would then have a "composite" relationship with "valid skateboard". A validly configured skateboard then acquires EMERGENT properties (this is the key), i.e. properties that did not exist when those components were not validly configured, such as usability as a skateboard!

Most humans generally value human life, with "life" being the emergent property of one's properly configured physiology. Killing a living human involves disrupting that valid configuration and removing the emergent behavior. Now that I think about it, an abortion is a great example of such.

So, for the bad news, your statement is incorrect. No living human is somehow a properly configured sperm+egg. Both the sperm and the egg are destroyed, and a living human is produced (conservation of mass applies) with my definitions leaving an irritating 3-week gap for the heart to develop before I declare generally that he is alive. My objective is to bridge the gap from my definition to your definition without you moving.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a transformative organic emergence, and you won't find that in Wikipedia or in any dictionary or encyclopedia, so I suppose that you can say that it therefore obviously doesn't happen. Christians point to this as God endowing a human with life, i.e. conception. From a Christian's perspective, an abortion is more than just the killing of a living human; it is a direct insult to God who just blessed the world with a wonderful new creation. As Into the Night mentioned, whether or not there is a beating heart, right there is God's gift to the world and no one has the right to deprive him of his inalienable rights that are endowed by God (one's Creator). The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted as protecting the inalienable rights of all, not just of those at certain life stages.
 
Scott said:
No, we aren't.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are, or at least we will when you decide to engage in rational, adult conversation. Until then, you are correct, we aren't using anything.

Scott said:
Since I have been unable to find a dictionary, encyclopedia or legal dictionary definition, I am using my own definition of 'living human'. My definition of 'living human' includes human sperm and eggs.
Click to expand...
Nope. You haven't ever stated your definition of "living human." Nobody has any idea what it includes, not even you.
 
Scott said:
It is, though it looks like I need to elaborate. You seem to have assumed that I wouldn't agree that a "customer who is a pregnant woman" is a proper subset of a customer. You've made a false assumption.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered the question. Someone who isn't intending on being fully EVASIVE would have answered either "Yes, I acknowledge that it is a proper subset" or "No, I do not accept that it is a proper subset." Instead, you keep answering questions that I did not ask. First, you made it clear that there was a part of the question with which you had no problem ... without answering said question, and now you are assuring me that I have made a false assumption ... also without answering the question.
 
Scott said:
The fact that you believe that abortions are contract killings reflects the fact that you believe that abortions are killings,
Click to expand...
Bad logic. Because abortions are killings performed on contract, abortions are contract killings. Your dishonesty has prevented you from either refuting that abortions kill living humans, or acknowledging the living humans who are being killed in abortions.

Scott said:
rather than other words that I've seen used in [erroneous, non-authoritative sources]
Click to expand...
FTFY. Correct. I prefer to be correct and accurate.
 
Scott said:
I've already pointed out time and again that I have yet to find a dictionary use the k word when it comes to abortions.
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered that said dictionary simply made an editorial decision to alter its usage descriptions so that the politically rabid will continue to use their dictionary? You and your supremacist colleagues might very well bully and intimidate others, but that doesn't work with me.

Also, you make yourself look really stupid when you announce that you aren't smart enough to understand terms that aren't in the dictionary that you peruse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top