Abortion

[AProudLefty]

You're the one that loves killing unconscious people like those in a.coma

Your gaslighting won't work.

 

[Yakuda]

Your gaslighting won't work.

Your stupidity won't either

 

[Scott]

When a word or compound word has no legal definition and can't even be found in a dictionary, this certainly doesn't mean that said word can't be used, but it can certainly make it harder for people to agree on what the word should mean, especially if the word is being used to bolster one's point of view in a controversial subject such as abortion.

Maybe you're not looking thoroughly enough?

I've looked as much as I'm willing to look. You're welcome to look for yourself.

In any case, it doesn't matter. The 'word or compound word' has already been published on JPP for all to see. Feel free to find it in plain sight right there instead of wasting your time digging through dictionaries.

The problem on JPP is that there are multiple definitions for "living human" and everyone wants their own definition to be used. If you'd like a dictionary word that excludes human sperms and human eggs, there is already one available- natural person. For the audience, here's the definition of natural person as it applies to fetuses:
**

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

 

[Scott]

Unfortunately, Yakuda isn't very good at restraint.

True.

I respect this about you. You really don't get into the "insult hurling" game like many folks on here do (heck, I'm even guilty of hurling insults here and there).

You don't do it much though, and you like to write long posts like I do, which is why we tend to have very long discussions .

 

[AProudLefty]

Unfortunately, Yakuda isn't very good at restraint. He loves his insults.

I respect this about you. You really don't get into the "insult hurling" game like many folks on here do (heck, I'm even guilty of hurling insults here and there).

Really? You have insulted posters' intelligence multiple times.

 

[Scott]

If the government wants to pay the cost of artificial fetus growers, that's certainly its perogative, but I doubt it'll happen. What I -don't- think is justified is to force women to be fetus growers.

Well, the problem here is that nobody is actually forcing a woman to "be a fetus grower".

Don't kid yourself, every governing district that doesn't allow pregnant females to remove the fetuses growing inside them is forcing said females to be fetus growers.

What's actually happening here is that a woman (and a man) WILLINGLY CHOOSE to have sex, knowing full well that their choice to have sex MAY result in a pregnancy. IOW, they are GAMBLING.

From our past conversations, I believe we agree that there is a portion of women who conceive due to rape. I suspect that you might be amenable to them having abortions, but I also suspect that they would probably have to -prove- they were raped, and I suspect that might be hard to do. I suspect there are more cases where women are essentially tricked or even coerced into having sex. Also, as you rightly point out, it takes 2 to tango, but ofcourse in the game of pregnancy, it's always the female who gets stuck with the hot potato while the man frequently bails. I've only known one woman who had an abortion and I don't really know why, but when it comes to a second hand account (the aunt of a friend of mine), I heard that this aunt decided to have an illegal abortion because the man abandoned her soon after she got pregnant.

It reminds me of some lyrics in a song I thought was quite good. I'll quote them below:
**
Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love
He said don't worry bout a thing baby doll,
I′m the man you've been dreamin of
But 3 months later he say he wont date her or return her calls
And she swear 'god damn if I find that man Im cutting off his balls′
Then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk mile in her shoes
Then you really might know what its like to have to choose
**
Source:

Everlast - What It's Like (radio edit) lyrics | Musixmatch

Lyrics for What It's Like (radio edit) by Everlast. We′ve all seen the man at the liquor store beggin for your change the hair on his face is ...

www.musixmatch.com

The video to the whole song is here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1nGPM9yHA

 

[Scott]

On JPP, the defiition of 'living human' hasn't been agreed upon.

This is where you have the opportunity to propose a better definition of 'living human'.

My personal definition of "living human" is all stages of human development, from sperm and egg to elderly humans. For those who'd like to exclude the sperm and egg stages of human development, there is already a term for this: natural person. For those in the audience who are unfamiliar with this term, there's a good article here on the subject:

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

 

[Scott]

As I've stated previously, I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

It is totally irrelevant what you cannot find.

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion,

It was your assertion that you were too incompetent to find something.

Not, it wasn't. For the audience, my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."

Exactly. You make my point for me.

Certainly not the point you were making before, but if you can't figure that out, that's fine.

You insist that you are too incompetent to find the meanings of the words "living" and "human" ANYWHERE ...

Again, not true. I said "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Do you notice that the quote is around both words put together? Everyone here is using "living human" as a -compound- word, which is 2 words together, not the single words "living" and "human".

 

[Scott]

Just as I can have a rational discussion about a political position... I can explain the definitions I use.

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use.

Nope. The problem arises when you reject tautologies and math under the pretense that they are somehow matters of opinion with which one can simply disagree.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means.

The only thing causing confusion is your deliberate EVASION.

I suspect it may be best to simply agree to disagree here.

I suspect that we already agree, despite your claims to the contrary.

What draws you to that conclusion?

 

[Scott]

I am certainly -on- one of the sides. As to what can be said, I have no control over that.

Nice pivot. At issue is your control over your participation in a civil discussion, or your EVASION of same.

If I had wanted to 'evade' this discussion, I would have never responded to your question that assumed that I supported contract killings in another thread, way back in post #764 of a thread that had nothing to do with contract killings or abortions. For the audience, that post is here:

Post in thread 'Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates'

Sep 10, 2025

I think at this point you're just trolling IBD.

... or you could hazard an answer.

Why do you think contract killings are OK?

[ for purposes of discussion, a "contract killing" is defined as the killing of living human A by living human B who was paid by living human C for his "unaliving" services. Furthermore, living human A does not get a say in the matter, the killing fee is negotiated between humans B and C, and the entire matter is human C's choice. ]

I once had a young female friend who also liked to take control of language terms when it came to abortion. It...

• Scott

My response was positively prescient in the problem that I suspected would result between us. Quoting:
**
I once had a young female friend who also liked to take control of language terms when it came to abortion. It ended in us being unable to discuss the subject anymore because she refused to accept dictionary definitions of the term.
**

Here is the root of our problem- you want to control the meaning of words in our discussion. I don't. I'm fine with you defining words however you like, I just need to make it clear how -I- define those same words, or compound words as the case may be. Generally speaking, I prefer using -dictionary- definitions, because they tend to focus on common definitions for words and also strive to use language that is neutral, rather than taking sides in controversial debates, such as definitions for a word like abortion.

 

[Scott]

What I -do- have control over is on how I define words.

... which amounts to EVASION.

No, it amounts to setting boundaries. You also define words to your liking as well and that's fine. If you don't like how I define words, you're free to stop discussing subjects where I use these words.

 

[Scott]

I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.

And terminating a life... is a very serious thing

That depends on the life being terminated. I suspect you wouldn't have many qualms about terminating the life of a mosquito or a fly and perhaps even much larger animals, such as chickens and cows.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your unsubstantiated assertion, there's the rather glaring issue that without a dictionary or encyclopedia that has 1 or more definitions for the compound word 'living human', we're on our own as to what it means. Which means each of us can define it however we like. These types of terms are the perfect soil for creating confusion as to what we're talking about, which is why I tend to use such terms only where both sides can at least agree on the upper limits on what such a term means. I've found that we -can- do this with the term living human- essentially, the boundaries of what a human life can be is that it has to have at least one human cell, such as a sperm,

Nope. There's no heartbeat.

There is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats,

Chanting. Repetition Fallacy.

If I'm repeating myself, it's only because you're not really paying attention to what I'm saying, thus the need for repetition.

I'm still waiting for your example of something with a heartbeat that isn't alive

Where did you get this notion that I believe that one or more things that have a heartbeat aren't alive?

 

[Scott]

For the audience, my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."

So it's ok to terminate a life because you can't find a definition?

Again, the important thing is the quality of the life in question. As I've mentioned before, I doubt you'd have qualms about killing something like a mosquito.

 

[Scott]

Just as I can have a rational discussion about a political position... I can explain the definitions I use.

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words.

Dictionaries are written by people, people who are NOT "neutral".

I strongly suspect that you are right in your assertion that no one is truly neutral. That being said, I strongly believe that those involved in publishing dictionaries are at least -trying- to be neutral. Trying to be neutral is immensely important when it comes to devisive debates on how words such as abortion should be defined.

 

[Scott]

In fact, YOU'RE IN LUCK! I've actually just wrapped up my work of writing a dictionary. It's in my publisher's hands atm, but it'll soon be publicly available for your own perusal. It happens to have an entry within it for the term 'living human', and that definition reads: "homo sapien with a heartbeat".

I'm now going to call up my publisher so that you and I can get onto "neutral ground" with "neutral words" asap.

I must admit this passage of yours put a smile on my face . I don't deny the possibility that at some point, a dictionary may include a definition for living human and even that said definition is the one you mention above. Even if that were the case, however, in this particular case I might decide to stick to my own definition for the term, simply because I know of no other word, compound or otherwise, that can include -all- stages of human development. There is also a word that seems tailor made for people who'd like to exclude human sperm and eggs- natural person.

 

[Scott]

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words. An example would be a definition of an abortion that states that it is the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, causing the death of the fetus. No one would disagree with that definition as far as I know.

Well, "a fetus" is more specifically referring to an unborn child (a living human), "a pregnant woman" is more specifically referring to that child's mother, and "causing the death of the fetus" is more specifically referring to the mother contracting the killing of her child (and the disposal of the child's body) with a professional killer (a "doctor").

Why not make use of more precise language? Why not say what you really mean and mean what you really say?

You suffer from the same problem as people like IBDaMann and Into the Night. You think that just because -you- think this language is "more precise" that everyone will just agree with you. I suspect that everyone, or at least most, of the people on the pro choice side of this debate don't. I believe that far from being "more precise", many of the words you used above are incredibly misleading.

 

[Scott]

True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words. An example would be a definition of an abortion that states that it is the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, causing the death of the fetus. No one would disagree with that definition as far as I know. People -would- disagree with defining an abortion as a killing or a contract killing,

Well, sure, if those people choose to set aside all rationale by rejecting set theory.

I suspect it may be best to just agree to disagree on this point.

 

[Yakuda]

That depends on the life being terminated. I suspect you wouldn't have many qualms about terminating the life of a mosquito or a fly and perhaps even much larger animals, such as chickens and cows.

That's correct because they aren't human