Abortion

Ok so it isn't a murder.
Like I said, it doesn't fall under the purview of IBD's framework for 'living human', so he'd probably tell you to stop with your distractions and to instead remain focused on what falls INSIDE the framework.

With that said, IF I would go down your rabbit hole (well, I'm already going down your rabbit hole), I would argue that your rabbit hole example IS murder. I would also argue my position on that rabbit hole via using a different framework of what constitutes a "living" human (it would go beyond "has a heartbeat").

Now, with THAT also said, instead of spending all of your time arguing with people over the "life status" of the 0.000000001% of weird/extreme examples that essentially never actually happen, why not just stay focused on the "life status" of the 99.999999999% of normal/common examples (which include both the biological undeniability of a 'homo sapien' being involved AND the medical undeniability of a 'heartbeat' being involved?
Now does heartbeat indicate consciousness/awareness/sentience?
RQAA.
 
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.
Then it's not a fucking vaccine. This stupid ass word play bullshit is why i insult you fucking idiots.

Here's the bottom line regarding the topic. You get pregnant take responsibility. Terminating a life because it's inconvenient is not taking responsibility it's killing. No one else in fuckig society can terminate a life when that life inconveniences them except for the animals who can't keep their legs closed.and who cent keep it in their pants.
 
Have you heard of the presumption of innocence? Just in case you haven't:
**
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
**
Source:

Now, I understand that we're not in a court of law. But I still think that this legal principle shouldn't just be followed in the courts. I think that -anyone- who makes a claim should be the one to present the evidence for said claim if asked. You, on the other hand, apparently think that we should operate under the presumption of guilt, at least when you are making the charge.

So, with all of that said, I think it's patently clear that it should be -you- who offers a concrete example that I have engaged in special pleading.
Dial it back ... the correct answer is "no, that's not how rational discourse works."

If you're suggesting that you shouldn't be the one to offer a concrete example of me engaging in special pleading, I disagree.

If you are going to say that abortion is not a contract killing, you need to provide an example of an abortion that is not.

As I've already mentioned many times, I have yet to see a dictionary, an encyclopedia or a legal dictionary define abortions and killings at all, let alone "contract killings". Until that changes, I believe you have very little evidence to back up your assertion that abortions are not just killings, but "contract killings".

As to your pretense that the word "killing" shall not be allowed, you need to provide an example of an abortion that is not a killing.

You can call abortions killings, contract killings or whatever else strikes your fancy. I'm just saying that if you can't find a dictionary that supports your fancy, let alone a legal one, I won't follow you into those rabbit holes.
 
[pivot #1] Life doesn't end at birth. [pivot #2] Many would say that that's when it actually starts. [pivot #3] As I've noted in the past, the most common reasons females have given for having abortions are financial.
i.e. convenience. Those women expressed how financially inconvenient it would be for them to have to take responsibility for their deliberate actions. Killing supremacists then begin to spin "inconvenience" into being so much more than just mere "inconvenience", however, inconvenience only rises to the level of inconvenience.

So what we have is inconvenience taking precedence over, and being the determining factor in, a life-and-death situation.

I'm sure you would agree that millions of born children shouldn't be dying each year, and yet they do.
Egregious passive voice fallacy. You stripped away all deliberate decisions and actions and made one really lame passive voice expression.

Right here you are once again treating abortions as though they are just random occurrences that you can somehow rightfully address in the passive voice. This is the point in which you feign indignance and write "... but I never SAID that abortions are random occurrences. " I know, you weren't honest enough to come right out and say that this is what you are doing ...

... but you are doing it.

Do pro-deathers care about the welfare of the children they pay someone to kill? Oooops. Stupid question.​


[pivot #4] 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
Don't worry, I haven't shifted my focus onto the irresponsible pregnant women who have their own children executed to reduce their own inconvenience, to avoid all accountability for their own deliberate choices and actions, and to maintain killing supremacy. I remain laser-focused on the living humans who are being executed because of the inconvenience they represent to those with killing supremacy. The victims of the contract killings remain the center of the play and I am keeping my eye on the ball.

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.
Nope. Your exaggerated melodrama is insufficient to distract me. It is never acceptable to kill someone else over one's irresponsible decisions. Those pregnant women deliberately engaged in activity that resulted in pregnancy. The pregnancy did not cause the irresponsible behavior. No woman should be killing her own children, especially just for convenience.

As I mentioned to you in a previous post,
I think we can all agree that these nine words were not needed. Why don't you ever write "As you have told me repeatedly ..."?

[pivot #5] this is where alleged pro lifers tend to fall flat,
I'm right over here. Stay focused on me. Answer my nine questions and address my commentary. I'm not any of the other unnamed people to whom you pretend to refer.
 
This stupid ass word play bullshit is why i insult you fucking idiots.
I feel your frustration.

Here's the bottom line regarding the topic. You get pregnant take responsibility.
Yup.

Terminating a life because it's inconvenient is not taking responsibility it's killing.
This seems pretty straightforward to me.

No one else in fuckig society can terminate a life when that life inconveniences them except for the animals who can't keep their legs closed.and who cent keep it in their pants.
Killing supremacy. Yes.
 
If you're suggesting that you shouldn't be the one to offer a concrete example of me engaging in special pleading, I disagree.
You don't get to disagree on this point without being objectively in error. It's like rejecting math.

As I've already mentioned many times,
We really didn't need this. Why don't you ever write "... as you have tried many times to teach me ..."?

I have yet to see a dictionary, an encyclopedia or a legal dictionary define abortions and killings at all,
How is that relevant?

let alone "contract killings".
Do you not know what those words mean? Why are you pretending to write sentences in your posts that don't appear in any dictionary or encyclopedia?

Until that changes, I believe you have very little evidence to back up your assertion that abortions are not just killings, but "contract killings".
You are a dishonest, time-wasting denialist.

You can call abortions killings, contract killings or whatever else strikes your fancy.
Nope. I can only refer to abortions accurately and precisely.

I'm just saying that if you [don't allow me to dictate what you c an post and not post] , I won't follow you into those rabbit holes.
FTFY. Color me surprised.
 
I feel bad that you had to go through the trouble of reinventing that wheel.
Yes, it's painful to have to try to find a way to "dumb down" an already very basic and well-known concept.
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
You're absolutely right, my statement is (in actuality) an incorrect statement. That tends to happen whenever one "dumbs down" concepts beyond a certain point (in order to provide at least SOME sort of a stepping stone for gaining understanding).

This is kind of like when young kids will initially be taught (and will hold a very basic understanding) that "the sky is blue" before they later gain more knowledge in science and eventually learn that "the sky is blue" is, in actuality, an incorrect statement.
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.
(y)
 
I've already pointed out that I see nothing special about a human heartbeat in and of itself.
... except for the fact that no fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered "dead".
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:

Intelligence is irrelevant. Even the stupidest of living humans are still living humans.
 
I have never said that they are holy, but they are certainly authoritative.
Thus, you are treating numerous dictionaries as "holy" books (even though they often contradict each other). We can stick with using the word 'authoritative' if you prefer... my response will stay the same regardless.
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.
Why do you respect incorrect definitions?
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.
Maybe you're not looking thoroughly enough? In any case, it doesn't matter. The 'word or compound word' has already been published on JPP for all to see. Feel free to find it in plain sight right there instead of wasting your time digging through dictionaries.
 
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.
Unfortunately, Yakuda isn't very good at restraint. He loves his insults.
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.
I respect this about you. You really don't get into the "insult hurling" game like many folks on here do (heck, I'm even guilty of hurling insults here and there).
 
What I -don't- think is justified is to force women to be fetus growers.
Well, the problem here is that nobody is actually forcing a woman to "be a fetus grower". What's actually happening here is that a woman (and a man) WILLINGLY CHOOSE to have sex, knowing full well that their choice to have sex MAY result in a pregnancy. IOW, they are GAMBLING.
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.
There IS a third option (don't gamble if you can't handle losing), but you won't like that one...
 
Like I said, it doesn't fall under the purview of IBD's framework for 'living human', so he'd probably tell you to stop with your distractions and to instead remain focused on what falls INSIDE the framework.

With that said, IF I would go down your rabbit hole (well, I'm already going down your rabbit hole), I would argue that your rabbit hole example IS murder. I would also argue my position on that rabbit hole via using a different framework of what constitutes a "living" human (it would go beyond "has a heartbeat").

Now, with THAT also said, instead of spending all of your time arguing with people over the "life status" of the 0.000000001% of weird/extreme examples that essentially never actually happen, why not just stay focused on the "life status" of the 99.999999999% of normal/common examples (which include both the biological undeniability of a 'homo sapien' being involved AND the medical undeniability of a 'heartbeat' being involved?

RQAA.
Good thing that abortion is illegal after certain number of weeks, huh?
 
Good thing that [contract killings are] illegal [outside of a] certain [timeframe], huh?
FTFY. It's a shitty thing that contract killings are even allowed in the first place, huh? It's a shitty thing that some people are above the law and get to put out hits on other living humans, huh?
 
FTFY. Are you crazy? What kind of shitty person wants any contract killings to be legal anywhere?
AI Overview



+4
Yes, contract killing, also known as murder-for-hire, is illegal in the United States and almost every country in the world. The agreement itself is a crime, regardless of whether the killing is successfully carried out.
 
Back
Top