Abortion

[Scott]

IBDaMann said:
Living = heartbeat
Human = homo sapien

So, forget any dictionary or encyclopedia. Make use of those words instead. If there's something within those words that doesn't make sense to you (or you need clarification on), then ask. Otherwise, go with those words because those words are what IBDaMann is talking about.

I've already pointed out that I see nothing special about a human heartbeat in and of itself.

... except for the fact that no fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered "dead".

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. The bottom line is that having a heartbeat is not enough to warrant giving fetuses special rights.

 

[Yakuda]

I and others believe that no vaccine prevents anything other than anxiety by those who believe it actually prevents them from getting a given disease. I also believe that all vaccines that aren't actual placebos harm the human body.

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

 

[Yakuda]

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. In other words killing. Inconvenience is not a good enough reason to terminate a life.

Here's where you acting stupid comes into play. This is why I have very little regard for you and your opinions.

 

[gfm7175]

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".

The bottom line is that having a heartbeat is not enough to warrant giving fetuses special rights.

The bottom line is that you value killing supremacy more than you value human life.

 

[Scott]

I've already pointed out that I see nothing special about a human heartbeat in and of itself. Far more important is the intelligence of an animal, whether that animal be human or otherwise. I've already pointed out that some animals that humans eat on a regular basis can be quite intelligent once they've been born. Some examples:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals

Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

Intelligence is irrelevant.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Scott]

I have never said that they are holy, but they are certainly authoritative.

Thus, you are treating numerous dictionaries as "holy" books (even though they often contradict each other). We can stick with using the word 'authoritative' if you prefer... my response will stay the same regardless.

Dictionaries are simply repositories for how words have been defined by people. Different people define words in different ways. Context also matters, as words can mean different things depending on the context within which they're used. Dictionaries can be immensely useful when people can't agree on how a word should be defined. I think that generally speaking, dictionaries try to remain as neutral a possible and that's a very good thing when dealing with debates where most of the participants are anything but.

 

[gfm7175]

Great. That means that a living human is getting the 'living' aspect snuffed out of him by another living human. What would you call it when one living human forcefully ends the life of another living human?

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.
2) Living humans are living humans, regardless of age.
3) You never actually answered the question. See the bolded text above.

 

[Yakuda]

1) Sperm is not a stage of human development.
2) Living humans are living humans, regardless of age.
3) You never actually answered the question. See the bolded text above.

They play word games and avoid the actual issue.

 

[Scott]

That doesn't mean that I always like some of the definitions for words in dictionaries or even legal definitions, but I certainly respect them, especially the legal ones.

Why do you respect incorrect definitions?

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.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

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.

Under your attempted (and failed) definition, it's the word 'human' that is the issue. Sperm are not humans (they don't go through the stages of human development). There can't be a human involved before there is a human involved.

 

[Yakuda]

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.

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

 

[gfm7175]

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. I also believe that a human with a heartbeat is a living human, as no fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered "dead".

We may argue about how the term "living human" should be defined, but you can't deny that human sperms and eggs are very much alive.

Based on this, I can. If living means "has a heartbeat", then sperms and eggs are NOT living (as they lack a heartbeat). Sperms are eggs are also not humans (they lack the required chromosomes, they don't go through any stages of human development, etc).

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.

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.

 

[EdwinA]

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

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

I well remember the March Of Dimes campaigns, too.

 

[gfm7175]

I think that generally speaking, dictionaries try to remain as neutral a possible and that's a very good thing when dealing with debates where most of the participants are anything but.

If my dang publisher would just hurry up with getting my dictionary published, we could quickly enter "neutral ground" on this discussion.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

 

[gfm7175]

True, but irrelevant.

How so? If 'living' is defined as "has a heartbeat", then the presence of a heartbeat is VERY relevant. You could even say that it's the ONLY thing that is relevant.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, not convenience, financial.

Thank you. Financial = Convenience: financial hardship = great inconvenience.

That's all you had to say.

 

[IBDaMann]

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

... because you are busy EVADING. Of course.

 

[IBDaMann]

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, how is your unwillingness to engage in a conversation in the English language relevant to the subject matter?

Answer: It isn't. You have already forfeited. Why are you pretending to still be playing?