Abortion

[Hawkeye10]

Seeing that you're on the anti abortion side of this debate, I think it stands to reason that you'd see it that way. I think that -both- definitions are correct, in the sense that they are both used. But I definitely believe that the second one is the one that humanity should eventually agree on, either that or agree to being more specific as to what type of father we're talking about (father of a fetus or father of a child that has been birthed).

Those of us who want abortion rare safe and legal are pro or anti?

 

[Scott]

That depends on which definition of father one is using. The first 2 definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition make that abundantly clear:
**

• noun A male whose sperm unites with an egg, producing an embryo.
• noun A male whose impregnation of a female results in the birth of a child.

**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

So, you would be right if we were using the first definition, but not right if were to to use the second. Personally, I think there's an easy way to differentiate- father of a fetus and father of a child who has been birthed. Interestingly, The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, does not directly call a female whose sperm has united with one of her eggs a mother, despite having a total of 10 definitions for the word. I find this interesting. I do acknowledge that one of those 10 definitions could be said to indirectly imply that a sperm that's united with a female's egg is a mother, through that super ambiguous term "child", ambiguous because a child can be in any stage of human development.

The first definition is correct. The second definition is grossly incorrect.

Seeing that you're on the anti abortion side of this debate, I think it stands to reason that you'd see it that way. I think that -both- definitions are correct, in the sense that they are both used. But I definitely believe that the second one is the one that humanity should eventually agree on, either that or agree to being more specific as to what type of father we're talking about (father of a fetus or father of a child that has been birthed).

Those of us who want abortion rare safe and legal are pro or anti?

I myself would think it'd be ideal if no woman felt the need for an abortion. I suspect that most if not all of those on the "pro choice" side feel the same way. Ofcourse, we don't live in such a world. What I think it comes down to is, do we allow females the choice of having an abortion if they feel the need to have one? I believe they should have that choice.

 

[Scott]

On the contrary, it is -you- who is muddying the waters by using a vague term like "living humans"

There is NOTHING vague about that term.

On the contrary, it is a very vague term to label an embryo or a fetus, because as far as I know, there is no legal definition for the term. I can't even find a dictionary definition. I think a better term would be natural person, because that term -is- legally defined and whether fetuses qualify is currently under debate:
**

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

I personally think that embryos and fetuses shouldn't be considered a natural person, but, like I said, it's at least currently under debate.

 

[Scott]

There is NOTHING vague about that term. It's been VERY clearly and unambiguously defined.

Living --- has a heartbeat (as an undeniably clear indicator of life... no fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered "dead")

A lifeform doesn't need to have a heartbeat, or even a heart, to be alive. Here's the first definition of living on wordnik.com, courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**

• adjective Possessing life.

**
Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Human --- homo sapien species

I perused the various definitions for human over at wordnik.com. Here are the first 2 that they list, courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**

• noun A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.
• noun A person.

**

Neither of them say at what stage of human development a set of cells is considered to be a human. So I decided to take a look at wordnik.com's page for person. I think the first definition, again from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition, is almost comedic considering our discussion:
**

• noun A living human. Often used in combination.

**

The thing is, wordnik.com has no definition for the compound term "living human". So, once again, I think it would be better to stick with natural person. wordnik.com -does- have a single definition for that term, courtesy of Wictionary:
**

• noun law A human being, as opposed to an organization.

**
Source:

natural person — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

As I've mentioned earlier, natural person is a term in law. That's pretty solid ground to work with.

 

[Scott]

On the contrary, it is -you- who is muddying the waters by using a vague term like "living humans" instead of the much more specific phrase of removing fetuses from a pregnant woman.

^^^ continued usage of dehumanizing language

There is nothing "dehumanizing" about using a phrase like 'removing a fetus from a pregnant woman'. A fetus is a stage of human development, just like human sperms and eggs are a stage of human development.

On the contrary, it is -you- who is muddying the waters by using a vague term like "living humans" instead of the much more specific phrase of removing fetuses from a pregnant woman.

^^^ continued usage of dehumanizing language to obfuscate the fact that living humans who have not committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die are being CONTRACT KILLED by hired hitmen (to the tune of many tens of millions each and every year).

Your above assertion on abortion being the same thing as being "contract killed" is why it is so very important to use specific language whose meaning is agreed on, rather than vague terms like "living human" that I have so far not been able to find in any dictionary or encyclopedia. When we leave the realm of dictionaries and encyclopedias in favour of our own definitions, the sky's the limit in terms of what we can claim is true. I think a line from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi is particularly apt here:
**
In Star Wars: A New Hope, Obi-Wan tells the young and impressionable Luke Skywalker that his father was a great pilot, a Jedi Knight, and was betrayed and killed by Darth Vader. However, only two of those things were true, as Luke finds out while hanging on for his life in Cloud City. It turns out that Vader is Anakin Skywalker — Luke's father — but when the young Jedi confronts Obi-Wan the old master simply says, "What I told you was true, from a certain point of view." He goes on to justify his lie by claiming that "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." This could arguably be true for subjective ideas like beauty or love, but is a bit of a stretch for factual truths like the identity of someone's father.
**

Source:

Star Wars Redefines Obi-Wan's Most Controversial Quote

"A certain point of view."

screenrant.com

There's actually a really good discussion on this and other lies told in the Star Wars universe, in the name of protecting more important things, though it makes a case that it was precisely these types of lies that drove Vader to the dark side.

 

[gfm7175]

Because after a living human is born, they [he] no longer requires a woman's body [residence within his mother's womb] to sustain it [him].

Fixed that for you.
@IBDaMann would be very disappointed in me if I didn't correct your grammatical and terminology errors.

Question: Does this fact change the living human into anything other than a living human? If not, then why is this fact relevant to the contracted killing of living humans?

Especially in first world countries, this tends to mean that if the woman so chooses, she can give up the baby for adoption. This is clearly impossible before the living human is born.

I'll just mention that I also technically take issue with the usage of the words "the woman". This isn't just any ordinary woman; this is a MOTHER.

Btw, the father is DEFINITELY "getting the shaft" here, wouldn't you say?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCjtE8f0beY&list=RDkCjtE8f0beY&start_radio=1

What's at stake here is the woman's [mother's] autonomy [killing supremacy].

Fixed that for you.

 

[gfm7175]

I suspect you won't like Wikipedia's definition either, because it uses the terms embryo and fetus instead of your preferred vague words, but I think it just goes to show you that defintions of abortions tend to prefer using words such as embryo and fetus precisely because of their precision, rather than vague words like the ones you prefer.

It sounds like you wish to justify the contracted killing of living humans so long as those living humans are within a particular developmental stage or stages (e.g. fetal, elder, etc)

 

[gfm7175]

I have, yes, though I think it's much better to call a fetus by that name rather than 'living human', because it makes it clear what stage of development this living human is in.

It doesn't matter. It's still contract killing and it's still morally reprehensible, no matter the age of the living human.

I also believe that if a pregnant woman [a mother] wants to remove an embryo or fetus from her body [place a hit on her own child while he's still in the womb], she should be allowed to do so.

Fixed that for you.

Here we have to stop, because I don't believe that a doctor who induces an abortion upon the request of a pregnant woman can in any way be considered to be a "hitman".

What else would you call the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer who is a pregnant woman who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb?

 

[gfm7175]

The definition certainly made it clear that removal of the fetus would cause its death, but physicians frequently cause the deaths of various groups of cell in order to preserve what is more important.

DEHUMANIZING LANGUAGE. You cannot reduce a living human down to being nothing more than "various groups of cell" in order to legitimize his mother placing a hitjob against him.

Such normalization of dehumanizing language is how the 'crimes against humanity' flames get stoked.

In the most extreme cases, abortions may be performed to ensure the life of the mother,

Such 'fraction of a percent' cases have already been set aside. I'm more interested in the 99+% of instances that fall under the category of contracted killings of living humans in order to convenience the life of another living human.

but even when the case is not so extreme, there are many reasons that physicians decide to perform abortions,

There is one VERY common reason (over 99% of all cases) and there are a few extremely rare reasons (a fraction of a percent of all cases).

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed. Similarly, I think it should be ok for fertile males to ejaculate.

Sperm ≠ living human.

I know, I know, millions of "human lives" may die each time some intrepid male does the deed,

Sperm ≠ living human.

but I think some lives are more important than others.

You've made that very clear.

 

[gfm7175]

Living things die all the time.

Contracted killing ≠ "natural causes".

Okay, I have to admit that @IBDaMann is indeed "da man". I'm really starting to see how supremacy is at the very core of this, much like how supremacy is at the very core of LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+.

While LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ desires privilege supremacy, ABORTABORTABORT!!! desires killing supremacy.

I'm starting to see a connection......... key word: supremacy.

We can't even survive if we don't consume things that were living on a regular basis.

Right, but those things that are being consumed aren't living humans.

The important thing is to be aware that not all lives should be valued equally.

What about all living human lives?

The fact that I don't currently live in the U.S. is not the reason I'm not that interested in the subject. The reason I'm not that interested in the subject is because I care less about what the framers of the constitution thought would be best here and more what would -actually- be best. In other words, I think the U.S. should have stuck with the Roe vs. Wade decision.

IOW, you oppose a republican form of government..

 

[gfm7175]

Sure, but then I don't see why human sperm and eggs can't be thought of as "living humans" as well.

Because sperm and eggs (in and of themselves) lack a complete set of DNA (from both parents). Growth/development of a new human cannot occur unless fertilization first occurs.

 

[AProudLefty]

Contracted killing ≠ "natural causes".

Okay, I have to admit that @IBDaMann is indeed "da man". I'm really starting to see how supremacy is at the very core of this, much like how supremacy is at the very core of LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+.

While LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ desires privilege supremacy, ABORTABORTABORT!!! desires killing supremacy.

I'm starting to see a connection......... key word: supremacy.

Right, but those things that are being consumed aren't living humans.

What about all living human lives?

IOW, you oppose a republican form of government..

Too silly for words.

 

[Scott]

I doubt anyone doubts that the fetuses in question are human fetuses, as no other fetus would reside in a woman's body.

Ergo, the species IS human. We agree on this.

We do.

A living human, on the other hand, could be at any stage of development-

Right. A living human IS a living human, no matter which stage of growth/development a living human happens to be in, whether fetus or elder.

Agreed, but not all stages of development are equal.

Age is irrelevant.

Here is the flaw in your argument. A human embryo or a fetus has nowhere near the intelligence of a human who's, say, 20. Now, if you were to ask what the difference is between a fetus that's close to the point where they would be born and a newborn baby, -there- I would say that the difference isn't that large. I suspect this is the reason that abortions tend to stop being allowed once a fetus gets relatively close to that point in time. I'll give Canada, the country I myself was born in, as an example:
**
Abortion in Canada is legal throughout pregnancy and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems. However, access to services and resources varies by region. While some restrictions exist, Canada is one of the few nations with no criminal restrictions on abortion. Abortion is subject to provincial healthcare regulatory rules and guidelines for physicians. No jurisdiction offers abortion on request at 24 weeks and beyond, although there are exceptions for certain medical complications.
**

Source:

Abortion in Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

On the contrary, it is -you- who is muddying the waters by using a vague term like "living humans" instead of the much more specific phrase of removing fetuses from a pregnant woman. I doubt anyone doubts that the fetuses in question are human fetuses, as no other fetus would reside in a woman's body. A living human, on the other hand, could be at any stage of development- it's another super ambigious word like "child"

Nope. Both words are CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined.

The word child has -many- definitions in dictionaries, ranging from "unborn infant" to "offspring", meaning that if one says child without context, one really doesn't know if we're talking about a human fetus or an elderly citizen. This is what I mean by it being an ambiguous word. The term "human fetus", on the other hand, is quite specific in terms of what stage this particular 'living human is at.

The thing is, "living human" is just as ambiguous- perhaps even more so, since I have yet to find a dictionary or encyclopedia that lists this compound word at all. A better compound word appears to be "natural person", as, like child and how we've been defining "living human", it has definitions that can encompass everything from conception to an elderly citizen. When I say better, I say it for certain types of discussion, where the stage of development doesn't matter. When it comes to abortion, however, I think that the stage of development very much matters, to make it clear that we're only talking about ending the life of embryos and fetuses (and even here, there generally seems to be cutoffs well before a female would give birth).

 

[Scott]

I agree that there's a lot of very bad things happening, but I suspect you don't realize that avoiding abortions can frequently just lead to further suffering down the road.

I also suspect that "further suffering down the road" is part of what life is. Suffering is a part of life for everyone; it's unavoidable.

Sure, but there should be limits to just how much suffering people have to take. Which brings me to the next point I made...

Here's a sobering statistic from 2023 on deaths that year of children between the ages of newborns to 5:
**
In 2023, an estimated 4.8 million children died before the age of five, including 2.3 million newborns.
**
Source:

https://data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2024/

Yes, it's sad that roughly 5 million children between newborn and five die in a year (idk offhand if 2023 is a good representation of a "typical year" or not, but let's say that it is). It's also sad that almost 100 million children die each year between conception and birth (a much shorter timeframe), with 75%+ of those deaths occurring via contracted killings.

For the audience, when gfm says "contracted killings", she means induced abortions. Anyway, I'd first like to contest your believe that 100 million die each year between conception and birth. According numberofabortions.com, the amount of abortions worldwide this year is just over 30 million and we've only got another quarter of a year until the year is over. That suggests that there will only be around 40 million abortions this year. But perhaps much more important, have you considered how many more -birthed- children there would be who would die between birth and the age of five if a significant proportion of those 40 million abortions didn't occur?

 

[Scott]

I agree that there's a lot of very bad things happening, but I suspect you don't realize that avoiding abortions can frequently just lead to further suffering down the road. Here's a sobering statistic from 2023 on deaths that year of children between the ages of newborns to 5:
**
In 2023, an estimated 4.8 million children died before the age of five, including 2.3 million newborns.
**
Source:

https://data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2024/

I think it would make so much more sense for those wanting to end most if not all abortions would instead spend their energy on trying to save the lives of "living humans" who are -not- aborted, but die soon after birth anyway.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

GOAL: End most/all "abortions" (hitjobs targeting unborn living humans)
ACTION: Try saving the lives of already born living humans.

What I'm getting at is that I think it makes more sense to try to avoid the deaths of living humans who are being born and who are very young than trying to prevent females from having abortions. When it comes to abortions, the prospective mothers themselves think it would be best to terminate their pregnancy. This isn't the case for the millions of newborns and young children whose mothers -didn't- abort, and yet who die anyway for lack of resources.

 

[FastLane]

Abortion is the voluntary termination of a Human life.

 

[AProudLefty]

Abortion is the voluntary termination of a Human life.

Shhh according to the twins @gfm7175 and @IBDaMann it's contract killing. Those women placed a hit on the fetuses. Do keep up.

 

[Scott]

Indeed. I think that even you tacitly agree with this, which is why you seem to have no qualms about the millions of sperm that are "killed" every time a fertile male ejaculates, or every time a woman's eggs are flushed out due to not being fertilized.

Why would I have any qualms about either of those? Neither of those are examples of a living human.

Why not?