Into the Night
Verified User
Heh. Flawed as the observation might be, you are absolutely right here!
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
Well put!
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Observations on you are not incorrect.Heh. Flawed as the observation might be, you are absolutely right here!
Into the Night
Verified User
Quite right. A redefinition fallacy still occurs even if the redefinition is popular or if it appears in a dictionary. It is still a redefinition fallacy.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Scott
Verified User
Nope. Leftists routinely fabricate statistics, and when they don't, leftists don't disclose the problem's in the underlying data.Agreed. You can certainly respect them though.Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics [snip]I can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:
**
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.
What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma [snip]
**
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
Setting aside your distrust of leftists, do you even have any evidence that the statistics in questions were done by people on the left?
What about the statistics in question do you believe "run counter to logic and common sense"?
Scott
Verified User
I don't have to.Do you have any evidence that they are fabricated?Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics, especially ones that are fabricated.I can't, but I can certainly cite some sobering statistics about their children:
**
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.
What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma [snip]
**
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.
Here, at least, we can agree. This isn't a court of law. Presenting evidence certainly isn't required here. It's certainly a good -idea- if one wants to maintain one's credibility, but if that's not an issue, then presenting evidence clearly isn't necessary.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, there is.....because unlike the idiot claims by the rabid "pro-life" folk, there has never been a "post birth abortion".
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You and I both do. Incontrovertible evidence.
Let me guess, you deliberately "haven't seen it", correct?
Did you read this: "What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma, and infectious diseases such as pneumonia, malaria, and HIV/AIDS."?
No mention of abortions. Globally, there are 73 million non-miscarriage, doctor-assisted abortions every year.
Ergo, you can't claim, on the one hand, that 6 million child deaths (your article doesn't seem to bitch and complain and gripe and snivel about the word "child" like you do) is somehow "one of the world's largest problems" that are entirely preventable, while simultaneously omitting the 73 million abortions that both kill children under 15 years of age and are entirely preventable.
Nonetheless, do some of your own research and see for yourself the leftists who paid for all of these predetermined conclusions.
Scott
Verified User
I'd agree, if you could restrain yourself from the insults. Or if you could at least wait until the end of your post. Then I could just snip off the end and actually respond to the rest.
That could well be true. I think one of the most important things is to avoid starting with the base insults. Once those start, people either start to tune out or worse, respond in kind, resulting in a flame war.
Scott
Verified User
No, it's of the utmost relevance. If the government wants to pay the cost of artificial fetus growers, that's certainly its perogative, but I doubt it'll happen. What I -don't- think is justified is to force women to be fetus growers.
If a pregnant female was given the choice to have the government continue to grow her fetus, I strongly suspect that many might well choose that option. It's not an option right now though. Until it is, there is only one option- either the female continues to grow the fetus, or she removes it and it dies.
Scott
Verified User
I don't mind answering questions, but I like to disarm loaded questions before responding to them. Your question on what I meant by highly intelligent in reference to some animals was immediately followed by whether my doctor was a dolphin, which I felt was arming your question. So I sought to disarm your first question by asking you a question of my own, which was my question on whether you thought someone needed to be a doctor to be highly intelligent. If you think about it, my question is actually asking you to examine your own assumptions- what makes -anything- highly intelligent? And, most importantly, what should we prioritize.
Scott
Verified User
I didn't say that. I said that I have yet to find a dictionary that says that abortions consist of killing babies and I then asked you why you thought that was the case.
The reasons for abortion: Statistics, safety, and access
There are many reasons for abortion, ranging from serious health risks and family planning to financial concerns. Learn more here.www.medicalnewstoday.com
That's the article I linked to in opening post of my "Why women have abortions" thread. Why did you link to it?
Insults without evidence. But at least you've waited until further down in your post to start them. I guess that's good enough for this post.
Scott
Verified User
I've already pointed out that I see nothing special about a human heartbeat in and of itself. Far more important is the intelligence of an animal, whether that animal be human or otherwise. I've already pointed out that some animals that humans eat on a regular basis can be quite intelligent once they've been born. Some examples:
Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals
Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.
www.psychologytoday.com
Scott
Verified User
I have never said that they are holy, but they are certainly authoritative. That doesn't mean that I always like some of the definitions for words in dictionaries or even legal definitions, but I certainly respect them, especially the legal ones. When a word or compound word has no legal definition and can't even be found in a dictionary, this certainly doesn't mean that said word can't be used, but it can certainly make it harder for people to agree on what the word should mean, especially if the word is being used to bolster one's point of view in a controversial subject such as abortion. The closest legal word that I've found for human is natural person and it looks like how it should be defined is being debated as we speak:
**
Natural Person and Fetal Rights
The issue of whether an unborn fetus is considered a natural person, with all of the rights and protections associated with that status, has been a hot-button issue for a very long time. In the U.S., this issue is commonly referred to as “fetal rights,” and deals with not only issues of right to life (anti-abortion), but with protections related to the health and safety of the child from conception to birth. This is a complicated issue, with some people attempting to place a fetal age at which the baby can be considered “viable,” or alive; and others claiming that the baby has a right to life and protection from the moment of conception.**
Source:
Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
Natural Person defined and explained with examples. Natural Person is a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.
legaldictionary.net
Scott
Verified User
On JPP, the defiition of 'living human' hasn't been agreed upon. To be fair though, the definition of the similar term "natural person" hasn't been agreed upon either, and that term -can- be found both in a legal dictionary as well as a regular one. The definition of natural person seems to exclude any stage of development prior to the fetus, however, whereas 'living human', for which I have found no dictionary or legal dictionary definition to date, can be defined however anyone wants, so I find it useful to use that term to encompass all stages of human development.
Not true. Dictionaries don't define words, as Into the Night likes saying, they document how people define them. I think that merriam webster page explaining how it determines which words to include in its dictionary and what definitions for these words to include is quite illuminating in this regard:
**
To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.
Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use.
Citations
The marked passages are then input into a computer system and stored both in machine-readable form and on 3" x 5" slips of paper to create citations.Each citation has the following elements:
- the word itself
- an example of the word used in context
- bibliographic information about the source from which the word and example were taken
From Citation to Entry
How does a word make the jump from the citation file to the dictionary?The process begins with dictionary editors reviewing groups of citations. Definers start by looking at citations covering a relatively small segment of the alphabet – for example gri- to gro- – along with the entries from the dictionary being reedited that are included within that alphabetical section. It is the definer's job to determine which existing entries can remain essentially unchanged, which entries need to be revised, which entries can be dropped, and which new entries should be added. In each case, the definer decides on the best course of action by reading through the citations and using the evidence in them to adjust entries or create new ones.
Before a new word can be added to the dictionary, it must have enough citations to show that it is widely used. But having a lot of citations is not enough; in fact, a large number of citations might even make a word more difficult to define, because many citations show too little about the meaning of a word to be helpful. A word may be rejected for entry into a general dictionary if all of its citations come from a single source or if they are all from highly specialized publications that reflect the jargon of experts within a single field.
To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning.
The number and range of citations needed to add a word to the dictionary varies. In rare cases, a word jumps onto the scene and is both instantly prevalent and likely to last, as was the case in the 1980s with AIDS. In such a situation, the editors determine that the word has become firmly established in a relatively short time and should be entered in the dictionary, even though its citations may not span the wide range of years exhibited by other words.
Size Does Matter
The size and type of dictionary also affects how many citations a word needs to gain admission. Because an abridged dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, has fairly limited space, only the most commonly used words can be entered; to get into that type of dictionary, a word must be supported by a significant number of citations. But a large unabridged dictionary, such as Webster's Third New International Dictionary, has room for many more words, so terms with fewer citations can still be included.Authority Without Authoritarianism
Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English. That way, our references can speak with authority without being authoritarian.**
Source:
How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?
This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked. The answer is simple: usage... Find out more >
www.merriam-webster.com
Scott
Verified User
I'd say that the definition of vaccines themselves is flawed, but I can still respect the common definition of the term while not agreeing that vaccines actually do what they are claimed to do.
Scott
Verified User
Life doesn't end at birth. Many would say that that's when it actually starts. As I've noted in the past, the most common reasons females have given for having abortions are financial. I'm sure you would agree that millions of born children shouldn't be dying each year, and yet they do. I believe that those who want to like "defending the inalienable right to remain alive of a living human" should focus more energy on born children and less on pregnant females who may be concerned that carrying their pregnancy to term will mean a life of hardship and perhaps even a quick death after their birth. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, this is where alleged pro lifers tend to fall flat, as is noted by the following article:
Do pro-lifers care about the welfare of children?
Pro-lifers' commitment to life questioned: Do they care about children beyond birth? A look at policies that uplift struggling families.
defendernetwork.com
Yakuda
Verified User
Is someon holding you hostage and making you reply. Stop being as ass and I won't have to insult you
Yakuda
Verified User
Well when you smash your car into someone else's car you're responsible and whether or not you intended to do it it meaningless bullshit.