Abortion

[gfm7175]

My personal definition of "living human" is all stages of human development,

So, Charlie Kirk (adult stage of human development) is a "living human"?

That's one issue with your definition (and why I won't accept it).

from sperm and egg to elderly humans.

Sperm/egg is not a stage of human development. A sperm is not a human.

For those who'd like to exclude the sperm and egg stages of human development, there is already a term for this: natural person.

Nah, the term is called "homo sapien". A sperm is not a homo sapien and does not go through any of the stages of development that a homo sapien goes through.

 

[gfm7175]

I must admit this passage of yours put a smile on my face .

That's the intent behind humor. I'm glad that it worked!

I don't deny the possibility that at some point, a dictionary may include a definition for living human and even that said definition is the one you mention above. Even if that were the case, however, in this particular case I might decide to stick to my own definition for the term, simply because I know of no other word, compound or otherwise, that can include -all- stages of human development.

But I don't understand... I thought that a dictionary was "neutral ground"...

 

[gfm7175]

You suffer from the same problem as people like IBDaMann and Into the Night. You think that just because -you- think this language is "more precise" that everyone will just agree with you. I suspect that everyone, or at least most, of the people on the pro choice side of this debate don't. I believe that far from being "more precise", many of the words you used above are incredibly misleading.

If I've learned anything from my time here on JPP, it's that A LOT of people will NOT agree with me.

In fact, I don't even agree with some of my own past posts.

 

[gfm7175]

I strongly disagree. If a human sperm manages to unite with a human egg, it turns into a zygote.

IOW, a human sperm is not actually a living human.

 

[gfm7175]

It's the combined DNA of the human sperm and the human egg.

IOW, the zygote's DNA is NOT the sperm's DNA or the egg's DNA.
IOW, A is not B is not C.

 

[gfm7175]

Even Wikipedia disagrees with you on this. If you take a look at their "human growth and development" series, the first in the series is Gamete- that is, the human sperm and egg (aka ovum) cells. See for yourself if you don't believe me:

Development of the human body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The stages are listed on the right hand side, starting with Gamete.

I've seen it. Wikipedia is, once again, wrong.

 

[AProudLefty]

I feel VERY sympathetic towards the rape victim, but I ultimately do not think that an innocent unborn child should have to receive the death penalty due to the sin of another (the rapist).

IOW you are for forcing the underage victims of rape to carry pregnancies to full term.

You are for furthering the victicimizing of the underage victims based on your Christian ideology.

 

[AProudLefty]

@gfm7175 is for Christian supremacy. Victims be damned.

 

[Into the Night]

I've already told you why- I don't see the removal of a pregnant woman's fetus at her request to be a killing, but rather a termination.

Word games won't work, Scotch.

As I've explained elsewhere, society uses different words for procedures that end the life of various life forms.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Scotch. Omniscience fallacy. Your word games won't work.

We tend to reserve terms such as killing and especially murder for the wrongful and deliberate removal of human lives.

You are killing a human being for the sake of convenience. That is murder.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're getting into your religious beliefs, which not everyone shares.

Irrelevant. Murder is murder. You cannot justify murder with your word games, by blaming anything on a religion, or by using strawman fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

In most cases, yes. Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion after being raped?

In this case, the murder is upon the man that raped her.

 

[Into the Night]

IOW you are for forcing the underage victims of rape to carry pregnancies to full term.

Nope. The murder is upon the man that raped her.

You are for furthering the victicimizing of the underage victims based on your Christian ideology.

What is 'underaged'??

 

[Into the Night]

@gfm7175 is for Christian supremacy.

Good! Christ has certainly earned the right to rule over the whole Earth!

Victims be damned.

No, LeftNut. Criminals are damned. So are you, though you are not a criminal (as far as I know).

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. The murder is upon the man that raped her.

That can be argued because fuck the rapist.

What is 'underaged'??

RQAA. Be original.

 

[Into the Night]

So, Charlie Kirk (adult stage of human development) is a "living human"?

This was a political murder (assassination), and not a murder merely for the sake of convenience, like the abortions he advocates.

That's one issue with your definition (and why I won't accept it).

It's a redefinition fallacy. He's locked himself in several paradoxes trying to justify it.

Sperm/egg is not a stage of human development. A sperm is not a human.

This is a strawman fallacy. No more needs to be said on the matter other than this.

 

[Into the Night]

That can be argued because fuck the rapist.

No, I won't fuck rapists, LeftNut.

RQAA. Be original.

You're stuck again.

 

[AProudLefty]

Good! Christ has certainly earned the right to rule over the whole Earth!

Vishnu has as much right.

No, LeftNut.

Your nicknames for everyone are not original, RightNut.

Criminals are damned.

He said something that is correct!

 

[AProudLefty]

No, I won't fuck rapists, LeftNut.

English. Learn it.

You're stuck again.

Be original.

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect that you will find that a lot of people on the pro choice side of this debate place a fair amount of importance on things like the intelligence of pre born humans vs. humans after birth. I certainly do.

I'm not interested in any "sides". I have laid out my position, i.e. I am against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. All of my arguments flow from this position.

You, on the other hand, are for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. All of your EVASION is done to defend your killing supremacy.

I'm not saying anything new.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, we haven't.

Yes, we have. You have not refuted that previous logic. You have simply "disagreed" to buy time. Nonetheless, you have not refuted it.

As a matter of fact, Wikipedia explicitly puts ...

Ignored.

Anything prior to a living human with his DNA comes into existence, cannot be a life stage of that human. Either refute it or accept it. I'm not listening to "I disagree with logic ... and I reject math."