Abortion

[IBDaMann]

Again, your problem

You're the one with the problem. You're a dishonest and EVASIVE supremacist who does not value human life.

I think we can all agree that that makes you a shitty person.

 

[Scott]

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life.

Ahhhhh, gotcha. Then again, your moniker might not make your gender clear enough to people like @Walt who believe that horses have five genders.

I actually get along quite well with Walt, despite the fact that we don't always agree on subjects. I'm curious if you've noticed the following phenonemom- people who you get along with quite well in online forums tend to avoid threads where they disagree with you. I fully admit that I tend to follow this rule myself.

 

[IBDaMann]

I asked if you could find a dictionary or encyclopedia entry that used the word kill in reference to abortions.

You don't get how this works. The ball had been in your court for weeks. You needed to provide examples of abortions that are not killings. You tipped your king, remember? You're done.You forfeited.

 

[Scott]

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

Come to think of it, I don't recall one either. Maybe I'll see if some of them wish to participate: @Phantasmal @Jade Dragon @ThatOwlWoman

I believe all of those women are on the left, but the same applies to those on the right. It would appear that abortion is something that women don't like talking about much on either side of the debate.

 

[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.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. I used to have a name that got on here to constantly suggest I was a woman despite the fact that I told him repeatedly that I wasn't. Finally decided it'd be best to just change my name here to the one I use in every day life. 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. There was a young one that was on tv a fair amount but I can't remember her name.

reason your way through it.

you're smarter than this.

What do you think I'm missing?

 

[Phyllis Diller]

What do you think I'm missing?

it's not a subset of.

most of them are an example of.....

most abortion are NOT done by "self".

and abortionist don't work for free.

it's clearly an EXAMPLE of a contract killing.

why do you hate babies?

 

[Scott]

What questions?

OK, you want to play it that way, fine.

1. What abortions are performed without the customer signing the contractual paperwork and waivers?

Illegal ones I imagine.

2. What entities with a heartbeat and human DNA are somehow not living humans?

As I've mentioned before, I have been unable to find a dictionary entry for 'living human'. This is a problem because it means that there is no guideline on how to define the term- we can say that a living human is anything from a sperm or an egg to an elderly citizen. This flexibility -can- be useful at times, but not when we're talking about very specific stages of development like when abortions are possible- which would only be during the embryo or fetal stages of development.

3. How is {customer who is a pregnant woman} somehow not a proper subset of {customer}?

I have no problem with this part.

4. How is the killing of a living human somehow not a killing?

2 problems here:
1- We haven't come to an agreement as to what constitutes a "living human".
2- We haven't come to an agreement as to what constitutes a killing.

I see that your questions 5 to 8 all use some form or other of the word kill, so I'm skipping them because they have the same problem as question number 4.

9. Why do you advocate for fathers to not be allowed to save the lives of their children?

Here the problem is your use of the word children. I don't deny that embryos and fetuses can be defined as children, it's just that using the term children can be incredibly misleading, because children is -usually- used for living humans who have already been born. In any case, in answer to your question, I believe that females alone should have the choice on whether to carry their pregnancy to term or not. They're the ones who are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to developing a tiny sperm and egg to the point of a fetus that's ready to be birthed. A prospective father can certainly try to persuade said pregnant female to keep it, but in the end, I strongly believe it should be the female's choice to make.

I think it should be said that I strongly suspect that in many if not most cases where a female chooses to have an abortion, the female probably feels that the prospective father would not provide sufficient support to make the endeavour worthwhile. I actually spoke to a friend of mine yesterday, who told me that while she plans to never have an abortion if she gets pregnant, she has an aunt who had one after the prospective father abandoned her after she got pregnant. She apparently lived in a place where she couldn't get an abortion legally, so she got one illegally, which resulted in it being incredibly difficult to get pregnant once she -wanted- to get pregnant. She finally managed to have one near the end of her child bearing years via In Vitro Fertilization.

 

[Scott]

Your problem is that you're not really paying attention to what people are generally consenting -to-. Having consensual sex means only one thing- that both parties consented to having sex. Now, as I've mentioned before, people -can- try to make a contract, whether verbal or written, as to what would happen if the female in the relationship were to get pregnant. However, as I've found out, it appears that courts may not recognize any such agreement. -Here-, we may well agree- I think that agreements other than simply consenting to sex -should- be able to be made, but apparently the law doesn't currently agree.

Unless that changes, it appears clear that what happens after a male donates his sperm via the vaginal cavity during sex is generally out of his control law wise, regardless of what agreements he makes with the female before that point in time.

Actually, I suspect the law may well be amenable in one way only- if the agreement is that, if there is pregnancy, the baby is given up for adoption via birth surrogacy as agreed to in a contract made before the pregnancy. Just not the other way around- that is, the only case I've seen where a male made an agreement with his partner that if she got pregnant, she would abort, the judge apparently dismissed the case.

Long winded drivel.

When I see a response starting with an insult, I think it's generally best to just tune out the rest- it's probably not going anywhere good.

 

[Scott]

You said children: "Then that poster was accurate sperm don't become children, sperm AND egg do."

I'm just pointing out that a sperm and an egg have no chance in hell of creating a child alone. Without the use of a female's body, they can go no further.

I never said otherwise.

Right just like a gun has no chance of killing anyone without someone using it.

Agreed.

A females body is not needed for it to go further. Have you not been conscious the past 4 decades?

If you're suggesting that a fertilized egg doesn't need a female's body to develop into a baby, perhaps by artificial means, perhaps. But I think we can agree that the government's not going to splurge on providing fetuses removed from female bodies such expensive equipment to keep the fetuses developing into babies.

 

[Scott]

Your first question indeed asked me what I meant by highly intelligent. The thing is you asked another question as well- whether my doctor was a dolphin. This is why I asked you if you were suggesting that you needed to be a doctor to be considered to be highly intelligent. You still haven't answered my question.

Well until you have the decency to answer the question that was poised to you first, I don't give a fuck what you would like.

There we go again with the profanities. Time to tune out.

 

[Scott]

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? Baby is an ambiguous term. It can be an embryo, a fetus or what I consider to be a real baby, that is a 'living human' that has been birthed. Abortions simply can't happen to birthed babies. By using the term baby, you are muddying the water as to what you actually mean. Adding in word "kill" further the muddying as I have yet to find a dictionary that uses that term when it comes to the termination of a pregnancy. I think that everyone could agree that ending its life is neutral.

Second of all, a female who has an abortion could already -be- a mother. As a matter of fact, concern for welfare of the born child or children she already has is at times cited as the reason pregnant females have cited as a reason for the abortions they have.

First, don't kill babies if you don't like the words.

I've yet to find a dictionary that says that abortions consisting of killing babies. Why do you think that is?

Second, convenience is the reason for the vast majority of abortions that are performed.

According to who?

 

[Scott]

As I've said to you in the past, I believe that a couple planning to engage in sexual intercourse -should- be able to make a contract stipulating that if the female gets pregnant due to said sexual intercourse, she would have an abortion. I know of only one example where a man actually tried this and it went to court- the judge apparently dismissed the case.

So, given this fact, a man's control of his sperm ends once he donates his sperm to a female's vagina, regardless of whether or not he makes a contract with her beforehand as to what should happen to the sperm should it impregnate the female, at least if the contract stipulates that the female should have an abortion if this happens. We don't have to agree to accept that this is how things are.

That doesn't make any of this just.

I agree. Perhaps in the future, if a female signs a contract with a potential father as to what she will do if her egg becomes fertilized by his sperm, it will be binding, even if she promises to have an abortion. I'm just saying what the legalities are right now.

 

[Scott]

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?

Have you considered how many more -elder- adults there would be who would die over the age of 65 if a significant proportion of those X million deaths between the ages of 0-64 didn't occur?

The number might be around the same, or perhaps even less. I don't think you're really thinking this whole thing through-

I don't think you're understanding basic logic.​

You said: "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?"

If a "significant proportion" of abortions didn't occur, then deaths between the ages of birth and five would necessarily rise (outside of a freak miracle of absolutely ZERO of those children dying between birth and five) because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to birth before dying.​

I said (to make a point about the silliness of what you said): "Have you considered how many more -elder- adults there would be who would die over the age of 65 if a significant proportion of those X million deaths between the ages of 0-64 didn't occur?"

If a "significant proportion" of deaths between 0-64 didn't occur, then deaths from the ages of 65+ would necessarily rise (because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to age 65 before dying).​

You're actually making the point I was trying to make for me- forcing females to carry their pregnancies to term may just result in the birthed child dying anyway, in this case through things like malnutrition and the like. I think some females getting abortions may wish to avoid having their child suffer this type of fate.

 

[Scott]

I don't think you're really thinking this whole thing through- think of this from the perspective of a mother or family unit that doesn't have enough resources to feed themselves or their family already. Bringing in yet another baby may break the entire family. So -more- people may die as a result of not having an abortion instead of less. Now, I fully admit that I know of no studies that study this issue, but I just think you should consider that what you think would increase average life expectancy might actually decrease it. And this is -especially- true for those who don't consider an embryo or fetus to be a natural person.

Don't have children that you can't provide for.

Again, I don't think you've really thought this through- many people's definition of children begins at birth. From this perspective, having an abortion is doing just what you're suggesting- avoiding having children they can't provide for.

 

[Scott]

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?

{abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}.

You're a perfect example of someone whose words used to describe abortion reflects their beliefs.

 

[Scott]

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?

IBDaMann and Into the Night are the same person.

I've been reading enough of both of their posts to think that this is highly unlikely. I think it's safe to say that they generally agree with each other, but I've also seen a few instances where they don't.

 

[Scott]

You and Into the Night keep on saying that I am claiming that dictionaries define words.

I keep pointing out that you refuse to engage in the discussion.

An unsubstantiated assertion.

You won't answer any of my questions.

Clearly not true.

You are totally dishonest. You are a supremacist who holds indefensible positions, and you go down rabbit holes just to buy time.

More unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[Scott]

No subjunctive fallacy here.

Yes, it's a subjunctive fallacy. You just don't understand what a subjunctive fallacy is.

For the audience, IBDaMann cut off most of the post he's responding to. Had he not done so, it would have been clear that:
1- I know what a subunctive fallacy is.
2- I described it in great detail in the post he was responding to.
3- I also pointed out things from my previous response that I think IBDaMann missed as well.

Feel free to take a look at my post in question here:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Saturday at 5:12 AM

Obviously not -that- broke, or, like many millions of young children, your parents would not have survived: [snip]

Subjunctive fallacy.

No subjunctive fallacy here. For the audience, duckduckgo's search assist defines the subjunctive fallacy as follows:
**
The subjunctive fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes that what is true in a hypothetical situation (a subjunctive condition) must also be true in reality.
**

I suspect IBDaMann never read past what he quoted from my post #387. What I said -after- the colon makes it clear that I'm talking about the...

• Scott

 

[AProudLefty]

Too funny! AProudLefty cannot count!


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


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

Too funny. You forgot the questions you asked!

 

[IBDaMann]

Illegal ones I imagine.

Are you saying that they enter a verbal contract?

As I've mentioned before, I have been unable to find a dictionary entry for 'living human'.

Immaterial. We're using the definition I provided.

I have no problem with this part.

Is that an answer? The question is not answered by yes/no or whether you have a problem with the wording of the question.

2 problems here:
1- We haven't come to an agreement as to what constitutes a "living human".

I can't control your "agreement". You are simply EVADING because your killing supremacy is indefensible.

2- We haven't come to an agreement as to what constitutes a killing.

More EVASION, except this is utterly stupid.

I see that your questions 5 to 8 all use some form or other of the word kill,

Of course, you advocate for killing supremacy. Your current tactic is to refuse to engage in a conversation unless you control the conversation and control what I say. You are trying to conceal your killing supremacy, and so you refuse to converse unless I don't mention the subject matter, i.e. the killing of living humans.

You will play brain dead stupid and pretend to not know what human DNA is, what a heartbeat is, or what "kill" means before you will engage in a rational discussion.

so I'm skipping them

What a surprise. You still can't bring yourself to be honest, but now you want everyone to treat you as being completely stupid.

Let me know when something changes.