Abortion

[Yakuda]

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**

• noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
• noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.

**

Source:

mother — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.

In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.



No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.

A female that kills her baby in a abortion is not a mother.

 

[Yakuda]

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**

• noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
• noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.

**

Source:

mother — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.

In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.



No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.

if the women can decide to have the baby without the mans consent and then bring the force of the govt against him if doesnt pay support that's unjust. If she unilaterally gets to decide to keep the baby or not just demands that he unilaterally decides whether or not to support the baby. Save us the he agreed when he impregnated her. Thats utter nonsense

 

[gfm7175]

It's relevant because those on the pro choice side of this debate believe that not all "living humans" are equal in value.

Ahhhhhh, so the lives of some living humans are "more equal" than others. Got it.

Too young? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Too old? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Disabled? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Unwanted? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Wrong genealogy? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Wrong political beliefs? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
Wrong religious beliefs? TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!

Btw, I think that "pro choice" is the wrong terminology to be using. I'd suggest the term "pro supremacy", specifically killing supremacy. The pro supremacy side of the debate wants complete and total supremacy over which living humans are allowed to live.

We tend to believe that humans should be allowed to remove these "living human" stages prior to birth, whether that be from a fertile male's release of his sperm into a kleenex, where said sperm will inevitably die, or if a sperm impregnates a female, the ability for said female to remove her fertilized egg from her body, at least if it's still a few months away from being born.

There's that dehumanizing language again... Just say what you really mean...
By "remove", you really mean KILL ANOTHER LIVING HUMAN. (via a contracted hit job)

 

[gfm7175]

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**

• noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
• noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.

**

Source:

mother — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.

In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.



No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.

@IBDaMann Now Scott is pretending to not know what a mother is.

 

[Yakuda]

@IBDaMann Now Scott is pretending to not know what a mother is.

He's as smart as that dimwitted sc justice what's her face? Neither of them is a biologist. I can't imagine what it was like being her and feeling compelled to say something so utterly fucking stupid.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm trying to explain why many people believe that females [mothers] should be allowed to [possess killing supremacy in perpetuity,] have induced abortions [which includes the hiring of professional killers to place hit jobs on their own unborn children].

Fixed that for you.
@IBDaMann Yes, I accepted the open position at Grammarly.

 

[Scott]

I strongly suspect that you've never had serious financial problems in your life, at least during the time when you were either considering and/or had children.

Wrong angle. You need to explain why I should believe that I would have been better off being killed by my parents who were very poor and who experienced great inconvenience having me.

As I've said many times, I and many dictionaries use terms like ending the life of an embryo or fetus, not killing, just as people say that they slaughter animals, rather than kill them. In any case, it looks like my suspicion as to your financial well being was right.

All four of my grandparents were dirt broke, but managed to raise the families from which my parents came.

Obviously not -that- broke, or, like many millions of young children, your parents would not have survived:
**
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.
**

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.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Scott]

Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience"

Nope. They are the definition of "inconvenience."

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

 

[IBDaMann]

That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary

Yet you know that Century Dictionary doesn't own the English language and thus doesn't define any words

That which has given birth to anything; source of anything

So you reject this because you insist this is a definition, not mere word usage, and it contradicts the other definition which is also not mere usage, causing it to fail the internal consistency check, causing you to reject it summarily.

Oh wait, you will probably reject science and the scientific method before you reject the word usage from a non-authoritative source that support's your killing supremacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

As I've [lied] many times,

FTFY. You won't be honest, and you don't value human life.

I and many dictionaries use terms ...

but it's not usage, it's the definition, right?

 

[Scott]

Care to share your worst financial time?

My grandfather, having zero money, dragged my grandmother from town to town, looking for work. Wherever they went, my grandmother took on two part-time jobs to make some money. My grandmother did all of her own sewing, because they could not get any new clothes.

They nonetheless had two children who they quickly taught to help around the house and to find ways to do odd jobs for cash. My father never played any sports or participated in any activities. It was school and odd jobs.

My grandparents didn't kill their kids, and their poverty and adversity made their kids stronger.

Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did. The same can't be said for the millions of born young children that die each year. For the audience, statistics on this:

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

 

[IBDaMann]

Obviously not -that- broke, or, like many millions of young children, your parents would not have survived:

Subjunctive fallacy. You don't get to revise history by declaring what "would have been."

Killing a living human to avoid inconvenience is shitty and indefensible. Killing one's own children is horrific.

 

[IBDaMann]

Certainly rough times, but ...

There is no "but".

they also clearly had enough money to survive ...

... as does everyone who survives. No killing of one's own children is necessary.

and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did.

How many of those children whom you suspect of having better opportunities were killed in the womb?

The same can't be said for the millions of born young children ...

Yes, the same can be said.

 

[IBDaMann]

Tell that to the millions of parents

Sure. Bring me the millions of parents. I'll wait.

 

[IBDaMann]

You haven't shown any evidence that I'm engaging in special pleading.

I point it out every time and quote you. This is just another example of you deliberately refusing to see evidence you would rather not see.

 

[IBDaMann]

That depends on whether you believe that an embryo or a fetus is a human life,

If there is a heartbeat and human DNA, you don't get to deny the human life.

 

[Scott]

I strongly suspect that you've never had serious financial problems in your life, at least during the time when you were either considering and/or had children. Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience", -espcially- if ones has a child to care for. Care to share your worst financial time? We can do a comparison between mine and yours if you like.

Compare yours to my grandparents'. Explain how your situation warrants killing your own children.

I never had any children. But I definitely suspect that if I -did- have any children, the situation for them may well have been significantly worse than the situation of your own parents. There are many factors when it comes to such things, but I for one am glad that my children didn't end up as part of the statistics I've mentioned many times. For those who may have missed out on said statistics:

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

 

[IBDaMann]

The parents also don't have a "complete set of DNA (from both [of their respective] parents)",

FTFY. Sure they do.

 

[Scott]

Are there children in this world who are born into worse financial situations who nonetheless are loved and do well? Do those children regret having been born, or do they place a premium on family?

To your first question, sure, but there are also children in similar or even better financial situations who do poorly.

They had to be left alive in order to have that result.

An issue that makes this conversation complicated is the insistence of many, such as yourself, who want to stop women having induced abortions, using the term "children" to refer to both embryos, fetuses and humans who have actually been birthed. 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.

As to your second question, I strongly suspect that at least some may have thought that it would have been better that their parents waited until a more opportune time or perhaps that their parents were ones that stuck together

Fallacy. Waiting will give birth to an entirely different person. No child can be put off until a later time.

Again, the issue of whether an embryo or a fetus qualifies as a natural person is in contention. To use a metaphor, I think that sometimes, we make mistakes and it's better to start from scratch then continue a project whose future doesn't look good.

 

[Scott]

...you seem to have no qualms about the millions of sperm that are "killed" every time a fertile male ejaculates, or every time a woman's eggs are flushed out due to not being fertilized.

Why would I have any qualms about either of those? Neither of those are examples of a living human.

Why not?

Lack of a complete set of DNA.
Lack of a heartbeat.

From what I understand, sperms and eggs -do- have a complete set of DNA, just a single set, rather than a double set that is usual for other types of cells. I don't see why only having a single set of DNA should disqualify a human sperm or a human egg from being considered human. I also don't see what's so important about a human organism having a heartbeat to be qualified as human.