IBDaMann
Well-known member
Are you still being a troll because you know no other way?Still forgetting your own questions?
Are you still being a troll because you know no other way?Still forgetting your own questions?
Yet you know that Century Dictionary doesn't own the English language and thus doesn't define any wordsThat all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary [snip]
So you reject this [snip]That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**
- noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
- noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.
**
Source:
![]()
In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.
In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.
but it's not usage, it's the definition, right?As I've said many times, I and many dictionaries use terms like ending the life of an embryo or fetus, not killing, just as people say that they slaughter animals, rather than kill them.
{abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}. which is the requisitioned (contracted) killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.First of all, don't you ever think about the fact that the words people who are against abortions choose tend to reflect their beliefs?
IBDaMann and Into the Night are the same person.You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words. I've never said that. Dictionaries have -definitions- for words. You like calling it "usages", I've said I don't see the difference between these words in this context.
What is it you believe I reject?
Subjunctive fallacy.Obviously not -that- broke, or, like many millions of young children, your parents would not have survived: [snip]
I keep pointing out that you refuse to engage in the discussion. You won't answer any of my questions. You are totally dishonest. You are a supremacist who holds indefensible positions, and you go down rabbit holes just to buy time. Forgive me if I don't follow you down this particular rabbit hole.You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words.
Domer is bitter because he is a total nobody, and nobody listens to him, and he doesn't know anything, and he needs to be told what to think.IBDaMann and Into the Night are the same person.
Yes, it's a subjunctive fallacy. You just don't understand what a subjunctive fallacy is.No subjunctive fallacy here.
There is no "but".Certainly rough times, but [snip]
... as does everyone who survives.Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive [snip]
How many of those children whom you suspect of having better opportunities were killed in the womb?Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did.My grandfather, having zero money, dragged my grandmother from town to town, looking for work. Wherever they went, my grandmother took on two part-time jobs to make some money. My grandmother did all of her own sewing, because they could not get any new clothes.
They nonetheless had two children who they quickly taught to help around the house and to find ways to do odd jobs for cash. My father never played any sports or participated in any activities. It was school and odd jobs.
My grandparents didn't kill their kids, and their poverty and adversity made their kids stronger.
Yes, the same can be said.Certainly rough times, but they also clearly had enough money to survive and I strongly suspect that their children had better opportunities than they did. The same can't be said for the millions of born young children that die each year. For the audience, statistics on this:
![]()
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
Sure. Bring me the millions of parents.Tell that to the millions of parents whose young children die each year. For the audience, the statistics on this are quite clear, as I mentioned in my previous post:Nope. They are the definition of "inconvenience."Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience"
![]()
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
I point it out every time and quote you.You haven't shown any evidence that I'm engaging in special pleading. If you believe that words like they shouldn't be used to refer to someone whose gender isn't known, by all means, present your evidence.
If there is a heartbeat and human DNA, you don't get to deny the human life.That depends on whether you believe that an embryo or a fetus is a human life, or perhaps a term that is more well known, a "natural person". The question of whether sperms and eggs are human lives is also something that needs to be addressed.
FTFY. Sure they do.The parents also don't have a "complete set of DNA (from both parents)"
You do understand the irony?Are you still being a troll because you know no other way?
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:
You should remain focused on yourself and on your blatant dishonesty.There have been very good articles about the hypocrisy of pro lifers,
Not I. My position is, and always has been, to stand against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.who tend to focus their attention only on 'human lives' before they are born
Refuting a concrete example should be easy if you are correct. Your inability to refute a concrete example shows that you are in error.Making unsubstantiated assertions is easy
RQAA.Nope. I can't cross-examine statistics, especially ones that are fabricated.
You should remain focused on yourself and on your blatant dishonesty.
Not I. My position is, and always has been, to stand against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.
That is my unequivocal position. Now let's get down to a long-overdue deep dive into your position, which you have EVADED thus far.
1. What abortions are performed by the killer-doctor without the customer signing contractual paperwork and waivers?
2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?
3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?
4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?
5. Why do you advocate for women to be able to order hits on living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
6. Why can doctors be allowed to professional killers of living humans whereas no one else can, i.e. killing supremacy?
7. Why do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?
8. Why do you advocate for the targets of legalized contract killings by professional killers to get no say in the matter and no day in court with legal representation?
9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?
RQAA.
What is the species? Homo sapien?? GREAT! You definitely have a human present. It is biologically undeniable.There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being.
Does this human also have a heartbeat? Yes?? GREAT! This human is definitely living. It is medically undeniable.
Some people deny biology and genealogy.There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being. Some believe it should only be at birth,
I believe that it happens at the moment of fertilization ("conception"). At that moment, there is a separate human that has been formed (having a complete set of DNA from both parents) that is actively growing and developing per the stages of human growth/development (from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn, etc etc).There's also the matter of when 'living humans' come into being. Some believe it should only be at birth, others such as yourself believe it happens at some point time after a female has become pregnant.