Abortion

[Into the Night]

RQAA

Random post. No apparent coherency. Answer the questions put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Your bad English is noted. Lack of understanding too. It is more than one question. And I have answered them.

Lie.

Your denial is noted.

I have answered your questions.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. In the post in question, I asked him "Did you just learn this?" which was my entire post. He didn't answer my question; he just EVADED like @Scott. I simply mentioned to AProudLefty that he didn't answer my question.

i.e.

Understood. I though you were referring to the nine quesions you asked him, which he never answered.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is more than one question.

Too funny! AProudLefty cannot count!

Did you just learn this?

It looks like there's only one question there, with only one question mark.

And I have answered them.

You never answered my question, despite there only being one. Who are "they" anyway?

 

[Into the Night]

@gfm7175 @IBDaMann @Into the Night

Random post. No apparent purpose.

 

[Into the Night]

It's questions. Plural. I've answered them.

Lie.

 

[IBDaMann]

Understood. I though you were referring to the nine quesions you asked him, which he never answered.

Those nine questions are for @Scott . He is actively EVADING them. Feel free to ask @Scott some additional questions for him to EVADE and I'll compile a list on Politiplex. @gfm7175 , you're welcome to get in on that as well.

 

[gfm7175]

Living beings don't need heartbeats to be living. Which is why human sperm and eggs should qualify as "living humans" under your definition.

Can you think of any human with a heartbeat that is not living?

1- Do you believe that women who freeze their embryos and then decide to discard them are "murdering" their children?

Yes, that's what I believe.

Now it's my turn to ask a question: Is {customer who is a pregnant woman} a proper subset of {customer}? Note: I am not asking you what you "believe". I am asking you a question that is based in set theory... belief is irrelevant here... A secondary question: Do you accept set theory?

2- All human cells, including sperm and egg cells, have at least one complete set of DNA from both of their parents.

Not true. Sperm and egg cells are both haploid (only containing a "halved" set of (23) chromosomes).

A new human isn't formed until a sperm and an egg join together, "fertilized", to form a zygote (a "full" set of (46) chromosomes, (23) from the father and (23) from the mother). Thus, sperm in and of itself isn't a living human. Egg in and of itself isn't a living human either. Sperm and egg, joined together, "fertilized", IS the beginning of an entirely new human (with a "full" set of (46) chromosomes).

The only difference between regular cells and sperm and egg cells is that regular cells have -2- sets of DNA from their parents,

It's actually ONE set of DNA, a "full" set of chromosomes (46). See above.

whereas sperm and egg cells only have 1.

It's actually a 1/2 set of DNA, a "halved" set of chromosomes (23). See above.

I'm pretty sure the reason they only have one is so that they can pair up with their counterpart (if sperm, that'd be egg, if egg, that'd be sperm) to again form 2 sets of DNA- at that point, the fertilized egg also has 2 sets of parents, it's just that those parents are different parents then the parents of the sperm and egg cells before joining.

Sperm is NOT a "new human". Egg is NOT a "new human". They both only have a "halved" set of chromosomes (23).
It is only when sperm and egg JOIN, "fertilization", that a "new human" with a "full" set of chromosomes (46) is formed.

3- There is no growth if the fertilized eggs if they don't remain in a fertile female's body.

There is no longer any growth if the unborn child's life is snuffed out by the professional killer that his mother hired to perform the hit on him.

 

[gfm7175]

@gfm7175 , just for laughs, what distance do you consider to be "pretty close"? Within 3 meters? What do you think?

That sounds "pretty close" to me. Sure, let's go with that.

 

[gfm7175]

Brainbead patients have heartbeats.

IOW, braindead patients are living.

 

[Scott]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then.

Find me a dictionary that takes the reader step by step through the Pythagorean Theorem.

Dictionaries are for definitions of words, not for explaining how theorems work.

I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

Because it's not a definition; it's logic.

Flawed logic.

In every case of an abortion, a customer signs contractual papers. We have been over this. Contract paperwork is signed. Waivers are signed. You know this. Abortions are contracts.

I can agree that an abortion provider makes an agreement with a pregnant female who wants to remove the embryo or fetus from her body.

Abortions are killings.

This is where we disagree. Dictionaries define abortions as ending the life of the fetus or terminating a pregnancy. I've never seen the word "kill" used in these definitions.

 

[Taichiliberal]

When all is said and done:

1. A personal/private decision by the pregnant woman and a partner/spouse (if such is involved) and her personal physician.

2. Once the state inserts itself in that decision based on a specific religious doctrine that counters medical science, we are in a theocracy.

3. State & federal regulations formerly protected the life of the mother and MEDICALLY DETERMINED when a pregnancy reached a level of development where termination would be akin to "murder".

 

[Into the Night]

Those nine questions are for @Scott . He is actively EVADING them. Feel free to ask @Scott some additional questions for him to EVADE and I'll compile a list on Politiplex. @gfm7175 , you're welcome to get in on that as well.

I have only one: Why does Scott support contract murder? No, Supremecy is not a valid answer. Scott must answer for himself.

 

[Into the Night]

Dictionaries are for definitions of words, not for explaining how theorems work.

False authority fallacy. No dictionary defines any word.

Flawed logic.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU making logical fallacies.

I can agree that an abortion provider makes an agreement with a pregnant female who wants to remove the embryo or fetus from her body.

Therefore a contract murder.

This is where we disagree. Dictionaries define abortions as ending the life of the fetus or terminating a pregnancy. I've never seen the word "kill" used in these definitions.

False authority fallacy. Word games.

Abortion is contract murder.

 

[Into the Night]

When all is said and done:

1. A personal/private decision by the pregnant woman and a partner/spouse (if such is involved) and her personal physician.

Most murders are planned in private.

2. Once the state inserts itself in that decision based on a specific religious doctrine that counters medical science, we are in a theocracy.

Redefinition fallacy. State intervention to stop a murderer is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by religion. It has no constitution. It is a form of dictatorship.

3. State & federal regulations formerly protected the life of the mother and MEDICALLY DETERMINED when a pregnancy reached a level of development where termination would be akin to "murder".

Abortion is contract murder. Word games won't help you.

 

[IBDaMann]

That sounds "pretty close" to me. Sure, let's go with that.

By Scott's definition, if a person is being born, and a dog is pretty close, then the dog is a living human.

 

[IBDaMann]

When all is said and done:

1. A personal/private decision by the [co-conspirators] and [the professional killer-doctor].

2. Once the state inserts itself in that decision based on [society placing a high value on human life] the [first step is taken to ending the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die]

3. State & federal regulations formerly protected the [lives of living humans, but now allow flagrant contract killings where killing supremacy is enforced].

FTFY. Your support for the Party of Death is noted.

 

[Scott]

I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread.

Not at the moment. The women who agree with you are...

...not participating, but neither are any who disagree with me. I just find it interesting that no women on either side are participating in this debate.

I think this means that not a single woman seems to be participating in this thread. I think this is interesting. I do remember that even some conservative women have bucked at the idea of not allowing them the choice to have abortions.

"Even some"? What are you even trying to say?

I thought that perhaps even amoung conservative women, this is an issue that they are averse to discussing in public, at the very least.

If I find "even some" leftists who are against [abortions], will that change your position?

No, though I would certainly respect their wishes to not have an abortion if they got pregnant. Their body, their choice.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. For instance, someone can claim that I believe that "everything is random anyway" and, when I point out that I'm not sure where they got this idea, they can double down on their unsubstantiated claim by saying something like "I'm not sure why you're denying it".

Agreed. Someone can deny that signed contract papers for killing services from a professional killer to kill a living human and to dispose of the body is a contract killing, and when I point out that contract papers were signed specifically to kill a living human, he can just double down on his belief that none of that is true, and even that *I* am somehow the one causing the communication problem by clearly using the correct words.

Again, your problem here is that you're using words that simply aren't used in dictinaries to describe abortions- the word kill simply isn't used in any dictionary I've seen. Words like 'termination of a pregnancy', or removal of the fetus, resulting in its death are used instead.

 

[Scott]

Find me a dictionary or encyclopedia that says that induced abortions are a subset of contracted killings then. I've done some looking and never found a dictionary or encyclopedia with such a definition for induced abortions.

It's my understanding that the logic of this has already been explained to you in this thread. I remember awaiting your explanation as to how {customer who is a pregnant woman} isn't a subset of {customer}.

The customer part isn't the problem. It's the killing part that's the problem. I just explained this in my previous post here to IBD and it's why I asked if you could find a dictionary or encyclopedia entry that used the word kill in reference to abortions.