Abortion

[Scott]

Pregnant females naturally have to do this, as the pregnancy is literally housed in their bodies. Some decide that the best choice is to remove the embryo or fetus from their bodies.

From what I've seen, there is no category under reasons for abortion that is labelled "inconvenience". I also think that in many cases, having an induced abortion may well be the best choice for both the pregnant female and even the fetus. There are many people born into this world that do -not- have a good time. Ironically, it's conservatives who support the death penalty- and that would generally if not exclusively be adults, who are -far- more intelligent than any fetus.

Right that's terminating a life.

I don't know about you, but I have no qualms about terminating the life of a mosquito.

 

[Scott]

Using the word "except for the fact" suggests you think I'd disagree with you. I don't. I was trying to point out that lots of animals have heartbeats, yet we eat a lot of those animals anyway.

Lots of animals have heartbeats, but this discussion isn't about lots of animals. It's about humans... specifically, humans with heartbeats... humans with heartbeats who have certain "endowed by their Creator" unalienable rights, which include: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions, humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Are humans actually an animal? | Wyzant Ask An Expert

Are humans actually an animal?

www.wyzant.com

In this case, I think that talking about other animals is quite important, because of the fact that many animals have heartbeats and yet humans don't seem nearly as concerned about them regardless of their level of intelligence. Why is that? I think it's a clear case of speciesm, which definitely has certain similarities to racism. I can accept that you have certain beliefs regarding humans, for instance that God has given humans the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Personally, I recognize those lines from the U.S. constitution. It's fine writing, it's just that it doesn't always happen in real life. But perhaps more important to this discussion, there's no logical reason to appraise human life above other forms of life just because of our DNA. Now, one could argue that, once developed past a certain stage of development, human life becomes one of the most intelligent life forms on earth, and I'd agree with that- but that stage of development happens -after- humans are born, not before.

 

[Scott]

Depends on the stage of development of said living human. If they're human sperms, eggs, I think everyone can agree that it's not that big a deal. If not, males would be engaged in mass genocide every day with the millions of sperm they release every time they masturbate. If they're zygotes and embryos, I'd say it may be a bit regretable, but if the cause of death is removing them from a female's body who doesn't want said zygotes and embryos in her body, then I think that's the best option. If they're fetuses, I think that the same applies, at least in the early stages.

1) Sperm is not a stage of human development.

Wikipedia disagrees. Just check the right hand side of the following article:

Development of the human body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2) Living humans are living humans, regardless of age.

Sure. For Wikipedia and me, that'd start at the Gamete stage, that is, human sperm and egg.

3) You never actually answered the question. See the bolded text above.

I did. It's the entirety of the post you're responding to. For the audience, that post is post #840.

 

[Scott]

Can you think of any living human sperm that is not living and not human?

Can you think of any living human sperm that has a heartbeat [snip]

You didn't answer my question,

I answered your question with a question that reveals the answer to your question. It's meant to provoke thought.

I don't see how your question answers my question. So I'll answer my own question- the answer is, there is no living human sperm that is not living and not human. It's also classified by Wikipedia as the first stage of human development, along with human eggs.

 

[Scott]

You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours anyway- no, human sperms don't have heartbeats.

Exactly. No heartbeat, so they are NOT "living" as living has been defined within the framework of this discussion.

False. We clearly disagree on how living humans should be defined. I define living humans as any human component that is both living and human- sperms clearly qualify in that regard. They're also classified as the first stage of human development by Wikipedia.

 

[Scott]

You don't believe? The polio vaccine does just what they definition says in 99% of the cases.

For the audience, I've responded to Yakuda's post in a thread dedicated to vaccines here:

Post in thread 'The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines'

Yesterday at 12:10 AM

I never said they were incorrect. I said that I don't always -like- some of the definitions for words. Take the definition of vaccine from Cambridge:
**
a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies
**

I don't believe that any vaccine actually fulfills this definition, but I respect this definition anyway, as this is how the word is defined. It is the correct definition, in the sense that this is how most people...

• Scott

 

[Scott]

Why? A frozen embryo doesn't yet have a heartbeat. You have to wait at least 16 days after conception for that to happen:

First of our three billion heartbeats is sooner than we thought | University of Oxford

When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

www.ox.ac.uk

Because it's my belief that life begins at "conception" (fertilization).

You don't really believe that do you?

I really do believe that [life begins at conception]. If I didn't believe it, then I wouldn't be telling you that I believe it.

So, does that mean that you consider human sperm and egg to be dead?

 

[Scott]

I also believe that a human with a heartbeat is a living human

I also believe that. I just believe that not having a heartbeat doesn't mean that it isn't a living human. You apparently agree with me on that count, since you believe that living humans begin at conception/fertilization of the egg and fertilized eggs don't have heartbeats until at least 16 days in.

 

[Scott]

Have you ever wondered why IBD doesn't share your and ItN's view that living humans begin at conception?

I can't say that I've wondered that.

Well, I certainly have. @IBDaMann , care to share your thoughts as to why you disagree with gfm and Into the Night regarding when living human beings begin?

 

[Scott]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Care to show your work?

It's within the Contract Killing thread that IBDaMann started. RIGHT HERE If I recall correctly, I think that it's post #2 that puts it into plain language. It's one of the very first posts, anyway.

It's not post #2. Post #2 is me responding to IBDaMann's post #1.

 

[IBDaMann]

While it's true that that the main focus of this discussion is about human abortions,

Nope. It is not true. The main focus of this discussion is the killing of living humans, and your EVASION of that point.

humans are a type of animal, at least scientifically speaking:

Nope. Humans are a type of animal in a particular arbitrary and non-binding taxonomy. In other taxonomies, for example, mankind is not an animal, and has been given dominion over all animals.

In this case, I think that talking about other animals is quite important,

... only because you are in the process of desperately EVADING anything of relevance that focuses attention on your killing supremacy, on how little you value human life, on your resolve to prevent fathers from saving the lives of their children, on your advocacy for contract killings, on your attempts to reduce human life to animal equivalency, and on your rejection of math, logic, biology, physiology and medicine.

because of the fact that many animals have heartbeats and yet humans don't seem nearly as concerned about them regardless of their level of intelligence.

So now that we have resolved that we are not nearly as concerned about animals, we should get back to discussing living humans and why you think it's perfectly OK for a woman to kill her own children if she believes that it would be more convenient for her to do so.

Why is that?

I think it's a clear case of speciesm,

Yes, yes, yes, ... you caught me. I am a specieist. I don't care about animals, only about living humans.

which definitely has certain similarities to racism.

You're a leftist; everything is RACISM! to a leftist. Step one is to become mindless from the leftism indoctrination process, and Setp 2 is to mindlessly regurgitate "RACIST!" at everyone who holds a differing view.

... for instance that God has given humans the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Personally, I recognize those lines from the U.S. constitution.

It's from the US Declaration of Independence.

It's fine writing, it's just that it doesn't always happen in real life.

The US only declared independence once. It went well. If at first you succeed, there's no need to try, try again.

... there's no logical reason to appraise human life above other forms of life ...

There's no logical reason to appraise your favorite color above other colors.

So, we reach the point where the rubber meets the road. You advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. Why? I'll be frank; your position is shitty and you know it, yet you won't abandon it. Why is that? Why do you insist that fathers sit by helpless while their children are executed for someone else's convenience? Shitty! What do you have to say for yourself?

 

[IBDaMann]

So, does that mean that you consider human sperm and egg to be dead?

Only that it is not a living human. Full stop. Now we return to the topic of killing living humans, and we refrain from concerning ourselves with those things that are not living humans.

 

[IBDaMann]

@IBDaMann , care to share your thoughts as to why you disagree with gfm and Into the Night regarding when living human beings begin?

You read my posts. I wonder why you don't know.

I am an atheist. I have no religious axiom that new human life begins at egg fertilization. I only have science, math, logic, and all other formal disciplines from which to formulate my reasoning.

At the moment, I don't have anything that tells me that a developing human is alive prior to having a heartbeat, but I am thinking about it. So just as I do not yet have anything that establishes life before a heartbeat, you similarly do not have anything that establishes any life stage prior to the development of a heartbeat.

The short answer is that I have no theism influencing my position whereas Christians have Christianity influencing their positions. My objective is to discover the information I need to move my position to meet up with their position.

 

[Scott]

I remember the several kids with polio in my grade school, and knew of many others too sick to attend school. The polio vaccine was certainly welcome in our schools. Don't recall a single complaint about vaccinating us kids, not one. We knew there were some who experienced bad side effects, but we saw what happened to those who caught it, and we jumped at taking the vaccines. Same with diptheria, and tetanus. I went to a small school, and having 6 or so kids with it along with the more who couldn't even leave their beds was a big demographic then.

Late 1940s | Recommended Vaccines​

The vaccine everyone was waiting for — polio vaccine​

Parents were scared of the polio epidemics that occurred each summer; they kept their children away from swimming pools, sent them to stay with relatives in the country, and clamored for an understanding of the spread of polio. They waited for a vaccine, closely following vaccine trials and sending dimes to the White House to help the cause. When the polio vaccine was licensed in 1955, the country celebrated, and Jonas Salk, its inventor, became an overnight hero.

Smallpox
Diphtheria*
Tetanus*
Pertussis*
* Given in combination as DTP

Vaccine History: Developments by Year

In this section, you will learn about the history of vaccine development and when the different vaccines were added to the annual childhood immunization schedule.

www.chop.edu

For the audience, I've responded to EdwinA's post in a thread dedicated to vaccines, here:

Post in thread 'The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines'

Yesterday at 11:37 AM

while nothing is 100% the polio vaccine prevents polio in 99% of the people who get the vaccine.

I remember the several kids with polio in my grade school, and knew of many others too sick to attend school. The polio vaccine was certainly welcome in our schools. Don't recall a single complaint about vaccinating us kids, not one. We knew there were some who experienced bad side effects, but we saw what happened to those who caught it, and we jumped at taking the vaccines. Same with diptheria, and tetanus. I went to a small school, and having 6 or so kids with it along with the...

• Scott

• 

 

[Scott]

I never said they were incorrect. I said that I don't always -like- some of the definitions for words. Take the definition of vaccine from Cambridge:
**
a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies
**

I don't believe that any vaccine actually fulfills this definition, but I respect this definition anyway, as this is how the word is defined. It is the correct definition, in the sense that this is how most people define vaccines, even if I don't believe that putting substances found in vaccines actually protects anyone from anything.

This definition isn't the worst, but it's definitely lacking. For instance, it doesn't specify that "a substance" specifically contains an attenuated or inactive virus.

For the audience, I have responded to gfm's post in a thread dedicated to vaccines, here to be precise:

Post in thread 'The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines'

Yesterday at 12:24 PM

I never said they were incorrect. I said that I don't always -like- some of the definitions for words. Take the definition of vaccine from Cambridge:
**
a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies
**

I don't believe that any vaccine actually fulfills this definition, but I respect this definition anyway, as this is how the word is defined. It is the correct definition, in the sense that this is how most people...

• Scott

 

[Scott]

I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs lack a heartbeat

True, but irrelevant.

How so? If 'living' is defined as "has a heartbeat",

It's not. wordnik.com has dozens of definitions for living. None of them say anything about a heartbeat:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

 

[Scott]

By my definition of sperms and eggs, they are living humans. Since I've yet to find a dictionary or encyclopedia that has a definition for the term, I doubt you'll be able to get me to change my own definition. Honestly, you're much better off using the term "natural person" if you'd like to exclude sperms and eggs. It can be found in an online dictionary and a legal one and while it's contested as to where it begins, it seems clear that it begins no earlier than conception, which is the fertilized egg/zygote. Its legal definition can be easily referenced here:

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

Sperms and eggs are not humans.

Perhaps not, but I was using the term "living human", which I've yet to find a definition for in any dictionary or encyclopedia. As such, I decided to include human gametes (human sperm and eggs) as part of my definition for living human.

As I've told you many times before, if you'd like to avoid continuing this endless debate about how "living human" is defined, I suggest we use the term natural person. There is certainly some controversy as to when natural people begin, but it appears fairly clear that the earliest they can begin is at conception. See for yourself:

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]

No, not convenience, financial.

Thank you. Financial = Convenience

Convenience isn't even a synonym for financial:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

That's all you had to say.

I'm sure that's all you -wish- I'd said. For the audience, I'd gone on to point out that financial stresses can be so extreme, that they can lead to the premature death of -born- children. Quoting from the post IBDaMann was responding to:
**
For many, [financial stress] can be so extreme that the children who aren't aborted die before their 15th birthday. I strongly suspect that a quick death would have been better. See for yourself:

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]

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.

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

... because you are busy EVADING.

No, it's because I'm losing my patience with your continuous wild accusations.

 

[Scott]

I have yet to see a dictionary, an encyclopedia or a legal dictionary define abortions and killings at all,

How is that relevant?

That's answered by the sentence that followed the one you quoted above. To whit:
**Until that changes, I believe you have very little evidence to back up your assertion that abortions are not just killings, but "contract killings".**

No [snip]

Again, I think this is one of those points where I think it'd be best if we just agree to disagree.