Abortion

[IBDaMann]

According to who?

According to all the people that matter, i.e. pediatricians, psychologists, doctors, etc. Problems in prenatal development are immensely more impactful than problems in the development of a toddler, for example.

Do you seriously not know this?

 

[IBDaMann]

If the goal was to simply talk about what a human is, there was no need to put the term "living" behind it.

I will determine the wording of my position, thank you very much.

Here are wordnik's first 2 definitions for human:

If there are multiple definitions, you have to pick the one within the correct context, which means any such usage involving the word "person" is rejected.

The word "person" is not applicable. We're discussing "living humans", regardless of whatever else you call them.

 

[Into the Night]

Vishnu has as much right.

Nope.

Your nicknames for everyone are not original, RightNut.

Is that the best you can do, LeftNut?

 

[Into the Night]

English. Learn it.

Be original.

Roll, Roll, Roll.

 

[Scott]

You are not able to find a value-added contribution by @AProudLefty on JPP.

Strongly disagree with you there.

You don't get to disagree without providing an example.

I didn't even have to tell you that I disagreed with you.

 

[Scott]

Spare me how you have once again turned a blind eye to mountainous evidence.

Making unsubstantiated assertions does your credibility no favours.

Great random statement.

Nothing random about my statement.

 

[Scott]

Setting aside your characterization of APL's post quality, it does seem like he actually believes you, ItN and gfm are all the same person.

Nope.

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

Nope.

Or just stop talking about it. That works too.

 

[Scott]

It wasn't even his idea.

That'd actually give his belief a little evidence to stand on, in that at least one other person believes/claims to believe the same thing.

Nope. I have already explained this to you multiple times.

What do you believe you have explained?

 

[Scott]

That would be because I've rarely seen you and ItN disagree, and even then, the disagreements have been minor.

First you claim to have been tracking my conversations then you claim to have no knowledge of my conversations.

2 points:
1- I track what -everyone- says in this thread, but I think it's important to be precise as to what I am tracking. I am tracking who replies to who, which means that if you give me the number of any post in this thread, it's highly likely that I'll be able to tell you whether that post was responded to, and by whom. There are a few exceptions, such as when someone doesn't quote the person they're responding to- it can make it hard to know who they're responding to and so in instances of this nature, I may misattribute who they're responding to.

2- I have -some- knowledge of your conversations with ItN, in this thread and others. I have never claimed to have followed all of your interactions with him in this forum.

 

[Scott]

AProudLefty claims my denouncement of the IDF as the world's most active terrorist organization, and Into the Night's "Israel is always right" to be indistinguishable.

I can say that I myself didn't know you had this disagreement with Into the Night.

That's when you take my word for it.

I believe that gfm backed you up that you have this disagreement with Into the Night. So I think that your disagreement with ItN on this is probably true. What I am not sure about is whether Lefty knows about this disagreement. @AProudLefty , have you heard about this disagreement?

 

[Scott]

If I specify that a living human is any stage of human development between sperms and eggs and elderly citizens, do you think that no one can understand my definition?

I understand your definition, but your definition is in error.

I see that you agreed with my second point, namely that "we can all define words related to our discussion on abortion however we like". If you truly agree with this second point, then no definition can be "in error" when it comes to personal definitions for words. Conversely, this makes things -immensely- difficult when it comes to having a debate on a contentious issue such as abortion. I've already given you an out here- use the term natural person if you want to exclude human sperm and eggs. That word -is- in a legal dictionary and I fully respect this definition.

 

[Scott]

Heartbeat does not indicate consciousness/sentience/awareness. Proving it will show it to be a killing if abortion is done.

I'm not so sure. I think the prime issue should be 2 things- bodily independence and relative intelligence.

Both of which are completely irrelevant to what constitutes a living human, even under your own attempted (but erroneous) definition.

I started this discussion with Lefty because he seemed to be saying that if there is consciousness/sentience/awareness, there is killing. I am highly skeptical of this, because I believe that many non human animals may have these qualities and yet most people still slaughter them for their supper on a daily basis. I include myself here. Thus, the important thing should not be whether an animal has a heartbeat or even harder to discern things like whether they have some level of consciousness/sentience/awareness, but what -level- this consciousness/sentience/awareness is at. Also, the issue of bodily independence is very important in my view- I think that no female should be forced to grow a fetus inside her. I also think that if a female has doubts about growing a fetus inside her, she should probably terminate it as soon as possible because the longer it grows inside her, the more consciousness/sentience/awareness said fetus has.

 

[gfm7175]

IOW you are for forcing the underage victims of rape to carry pregnancies to full term.

You are for furthering the victicimizing of the underage victims based on your Christian ideology.

1) I'm for preserving human life rather than destroying it.
2) I'm for punishing guilty humans rather than punishing innocent humans.
3) Who said anything about "underage"?
4) Who said anything about "Christian"?

 

[gfm7175]

@gfm7175 is for Christian supremacy. Victims be damned.

What "Christian supremacy"?

 

[gfm7175]

I see that you agreed with my second point, namely that "we can all define words related to our discussion on abortion however we like".

Yes, I agree with this.

If you truly agree with this second point, then no definition can be "in error" when it comes to personal definitions for words.

Of course it can. -- E.g. -- a circular definition.
Definitions can also be too broad, too narrow, too vague, and etc.

Conversely, this makes things -immensely- difficult when it comes to having a debate on a contentious issue such as abortion. I've already given you an out here- use the term natural person if you want to exclude human sperm and eggs. That word -is- in a legal dictionary and I fully respect this definition.

Nah. I'm fine with "homo sapien with a heartbeat". That excludes sperm and eggs (which aren't homo sapiens to begin with).

 

[Yakuda]

What "Christian supremacy"?

That nut job has no clue.

 

[IBDaMann]

Or just stop talking about it. That works too.

I have long-since been aware that all you want is for those who shine light on your position to just go away.

 

[Scott]

Why aren't our disagreements your first clue?

That would be because I've rarely seen you and ItN disagree, and even then, the disagreements have been minor.

If you'd look at their discussions about the whole Israel/Palestine thing, then you'd see that they both hold very different views on that subject. You'll also notice that I've been rather quiet on that subject in comparison to the both of them. That alone should be solid evidence that we are all different people.

You may have noticed that I haven't participated in the whole Israel/Palestine thing in a while. I do remember IBDaMann saying some things on the subject, some of which I agreed with. I'm not sure if I saw Into the Night or you post on the subject. In any case, I like the saying "innocent until proven guilty". I've seen no evidence that any of you are the same person, so that's good enough for me.

 

[IBDaMann]

What I am not sure about is whether Lefty knows about this disagreement.

You'd be absolutely sure if you were to perform a modicum of research and see how @AProudLefty participated.

He's well aware.

 

[IBDaMann]

What "Christian supremacy"?

@AProudLefty is trolling, as always.