Abortion

[Scott]

As you know, I have posited that human sperm and eggs could be called "living humans", though it seems that there you -do- object.

Yes, I object to that claim because it makes no sense. Sperm, in and of itself, will always remain sperm and ONLY sperm. In and of itself, it will never go through any of the stages of human growth/development. Same goes for eggs.

Both human sperm and human eggs -can- become people who are born if they are joined together in a fertile human female body. Conversely, fertilized eggs will not progress in development if they are not in a fertile female's body. The most important point is being in the fertile female body.

As you know, I have posited that human sperm and eggs could be called "living humans", though it seems that there you -do- object. Apparently, it's because they don't yet have a heart beat, but many animals have heart beats and yet unless you're a vegetarian, that doesn't stop them from being on the menu.

???? What does eating animals have to do with [human abortions]?

I think it's natural that people are incredibly speciest- I'm sure I am to some extent myself. But I think there should be limits. It's one thing to value the life of any born human above that of any animal, but when it comes to 'living humans' that aren't yet born, I draw the line, especially if the female within whom said unborn human resides no longer wishes to have said unborn human within her.

 

[AProudLefty]

What does RQAA stand for?

Requested question asked and answered.

It's @Into the Night's term.

 

[IBDaMann]

As I've stated previously, I have yet to find a definition for "living human"

It is totally irrelevant what you cannot find.

It can be a useful term because of its ambiguity-

There is no ambiguity. It is a concrete term.

Living : Heartbeat
Human : Human DNA

In our discussions, I have made everything I have posted unambiguously clear.
In our discussions, you have been completely EVASIVE, pivoting at every turn.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

it can refer to everything from sperms and eggs

Nope.

.. but if we're looking for words that specify stages of human development

We're not.

The term natural person is better

Nope. The term "natural person" is completely ambiguous.

The ultimate battle ground here is the legal one.

Ambiguous. What came first, the chicken or the egg? What is the ultimate battleground, philosophical discussion of what the law should be, or the enactment of legislation?

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.

So you define "natural person" as "someone" who is "pretty close" to "being born".

That certainly guarantees maximum ambiguity. Your ambiguous description also alludes to birth, an action performed by a presumably different "natural person". This does not pass internal consistency. Your term is not usable.

@gfm7175 , just for laughs, what distance do you consider to be "pretty close"? Within 3 meters? What do you think?

You apparently want to define it as when a human fetus gets a heartbeat.

Why are you using the word "it"? I'm not. Let's focus on the term that I am using, that I am defining, i.e. living human.

Living: heartbeat
Human: Human DNA

It looks like it's up to individual U.S. states as to how that will go in the U.S.

It looks like you are entirely free to answer questions:

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

 

[AProudLefty]

It is totally irrelevant what you cannot find.


There is no ambiguity. It is a concrete term.

Living : Heartbeat
Human : Human DNA

In our discussions, I have made everything I have posted unambiguously clear.
In our discussions, you have been completely EVASIVE, pivoting at every turn.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?



Nope.


We're not.


Nope. The term "natural person" is completely ambiguous.


Ambiguous. What came first, the chicken or the egg? What is the ultimate battleground, philosophical discussion of what the law should be, or the enactment of legislation?


So you define "natural person" as "someone" who is "pretty close" to "being born".

That certainly guarantees maximum ambiguity. Your ambiguous description also alludes to birth, an action performed by a presumably different "natural person". This does not pass internal consistency. Your term is not usable.

@gfm7175 , just for laughs, what distance do you consider to be "pretty close"? Within 3 meters? What do you think?


Why are you using the word "it"? I'm not. Let's focus on the term that I am using, that I am defining, i.e. living human.

Living: heartbeat
Human: Human DNA


It looks like you are entirely free to answer questions:

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

Why do you pretend I haven't answered your questions?

 

[IBDaMann]

What does RQAA stand for?

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

Living beings don't need heartbeats to be living.

Wasted bandwidth. Give me an example of something with a heartbeat that is not living.

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? Wouldn't it make for a congenial discussion if I were to answer it?

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.

 

[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.

@Into the Night never answers questions. He just mindlessly chants RQAA.

You on the other hand pretends that I don't answer your questions.

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.

When you copy each other, even have the same language and website, it begs the question.

 

[AProudLefty]

Wasted bandwidth. Give me an example of something with a heartbeat that is not living.

Brainbead patients have heartbeats.

 

[Scott]

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.

You have yet to make any sort of coherent argument.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think we can all agree that you have been attempting to control what others are allowed to post as the offense part of your EVASION.

I've been attempting to use common definitions for words such as abortion, definitions that can be found in dictionaries. Unfortunately, there are some amoung us who refuse to use dictionary definitions. This makes it rather hard to have a discussion on this subject.

 

[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.

 

[IBDaMann]

Brainbead patients have heartbeats.

Therefore a braindead human patient with a heartbeat is a living human.
Therefore a braindead JPP leftist with a heartbeat is a living human.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ofcourse. You couldn't be anti abortion if you agreed.

Of course, one of your position cannot value human life.

 

[AProudLefty]

Therefore a braindead human patient with a heartbeat is a living human.

The patient is dead.

Therefore a braindead JPP leftist with a heartbeat is a living human.

Your attempt at humor fell flat.

Your dancing and pivoting are noted. It won't work.

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Nope. Anyone reading your posts can see how you have EVADED the pertinent questions instead of making a coherent argument.

I've been attempting to [EVADE your questions by pivoting to] words such as abortion, definitions that can be found in dictionaries.

FTFY. It will be a glorious day when you decide to be honest.

Unfortunately, there are some amoung us who refuse [follow me down my rabbit holes] of dictionary definitions.

FTFY. It will be a glorious day when you decide to engage me in a conversation.

[Your exposure of my killing supremacy] makes it rather hard to have a discussion on this subject.

FTFY. When you decide to abandon your supremacy positions, you will make the world a better place.

 

[IBDaMann]

The patient is dead.

You said there was a heartbeat. The patient is alive. You said the patient was human. The patient is therefore a living human.

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. Anyone reading your posts can see how you have EVADED the pertinent questions instead of making a coherent argument.


FTFY. It will be a glorious day when you decide to be honest.


FTFY. It will be a glorious day when you decide to engage me in a conversation.


FTFY. When you decide to abandon your supremacy positions, you will make the world a better place.

When you stop lying about others' positions, you will make the world a better place.

 

[AProudLefty]

You said there was a heartbeat. The patient is alive. You said the patient was human. The patient is therefore a living human.

Heartbeat ≠ consciousness or sentience.

 

[Scott]

Again, the issue of whether an embryo or a fetus qualifies as a natural person is in contention.

... but there is no contention that both are living humans (especially if there is a heartbeat)

The only reason I also use the term 'living human' is because it's such a catch all word. It can mean anything from a human sperm and an egg to an elderly human. It can also exclude one or more of these stages of human development. The -problem- with this compound word is that I have yet to see it in any dictionary, encyclopedia or set of legal definitions. So while it's great as a catch all as anything that has human DNA and is alive, it's terrible for determining whether those human cells should be able to be terminated or not. That's why being more specific is better here. The closet word I've found that I -have- found in both a dictionary and perhaps more importantly, in the law, is a natural person. Like 'living human', what constitutes a natural person is also in contention, but at least it's a compound word that can be found in dictionaries and even in legal articles.

 

[Into the Night]

Requested question asked and answered.

It's @Into the Night's term.

Nope. Redefinition fallacy. It's repetitive question already answered.

It's such a common occurrence with you losers that I created that acronym. You somehow feel that by asking the same question that has already been answered over and over and over and over and over something different will happen.

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. Redefinition fallacy. It's repetitive question already answered.

It's such a common occurrence with you losers that I created that acronym. You somehow feel that by asking the same question that has already been answered over and over and over and over and over something different will happen.

You never answer questions.