|
Post by Admin on Jul 30, 2023 23:50:21 GMT
It appears that you misunderstood. I didn't say morality was objective; I said I was speaking objectively. Remember what you said about semantics, just earlier? I do. That isn't semantics. That would indeed sound like an absolute, supposed objective view of morality if it wasn't prefaced with the word "if." Surely you noticed that when you removed it from the quote. "Expelling a type of mucus" is closer to nose blowing than an abortion. Remember when you needlessly defined abortion as "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy"? I do. (i.e. lol indeed.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 31, 2023 19:53:23 GMT
"Remember what you said about semantics, just earlier? I do." That isn't semantics.. Yes sorry; more like hair-splitting. Actually it would be an absolute objective view whether prefaced by a conditional or not. You said "Objectively speaking, if killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then aborting a rape baby is immoral." This is both an objective statement yes; but at the very least, you are suggesting a possible objective something that , I think it is fair to say from our exchanges, you have had sympathy with .
BTW you might recall that the Bible says there are no such thing as 'innocent' human beings in that we are all sinful by nature, from the time of our birth to the time of our death (Romans 1:18-32). So from that point of view, "objectively speaking" for the religious (who make up a good chunk of pro-lifers, one imagines, there can be no killing of an "innocent human being" ever .. even "if" one says it. Not in the context of abortions it isn't. Which it was. I have noticed that in discussions of abortion there is little apprehension, or is it selective ignorance, by pro-lifers as to the early date of most terminations and what in fact the aborted mess looks like at that stage. Not you, obviously for whom it is all nose blowings... The context, if I remember correctly, was in distinguishing between miscarriages and abortions. Remember that? It never hurts to define terms on such occasions. Given one or two of the interlocutors here, such a recourse is often necessary. Remember how Djorno didn't know that. medically speaking, miscarriages are just spontaneous abortions? LOL indeed indeed.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 31, 2023 19:58:58 GMT
As already said, and with reasons, the argument from responsibility is not effective.
And yet you pointed out that's the true argument. 'Abortion lets women escape responsibility for their actions'.
True, but not significant enough. Men might also encourage an abortion to avoid their responsibilities, (although you only grudgingly mentioned men in this context once, one remembers - entirely characteristic that). But the point, still, is that your repeated iterations of the responsibility objection still cannot easily be used to curtail reproductive choice - and regularly smacks of victim blaming too.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2023 23:54:14 GMT
"Remember what you said about semantics, just earlier? I do." That isn't semantics. You said "Objectively speaking, if killing an innocent human being is, without exception, immoral, then aborting a rape baby is immoral." This is both an objective statement and one intended to establish an objective measure of morality. Or to put it another way, if one was being subjective one might say that a rape baby's abortion is more justified. What happened to "fair enough"? The statement neither implies nor intends anything more than what it says. I didn't say you did, but you did craft a relatively lengthy response about objective morality that was apparently driven by your now obvious desire to dismiss the condition of a conditional statement. Try that with this one: If all circles are round, then any circle is round. You will note that the statement doesn't establish that all circles are round. Likewise, the statement in question does not assert that it's always immoral to kill an innocent human life. I advise you to read it again with special attention to the first word: if. What I'm noticing now is that we have become our own peanut gallery. Well done. This may come as a surprise to you, but when someone blows their nose, they are expelling a type of mucus. But when someone has an abortion, they are expelling a human life of the innocent type. What do you expect the "aborted mess" to look like? How belittling and literally dehumanizing it would be to point at the aftermath of a third trimester abortion and say, "Oh look, someone expelled a type of arm." I suppose the semantic sugarcoating is necessary for those who need to believe they merely expelled a ball of snot so they can sleep at night.
If you aren't the one in need of an explanation of the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, perhaps you can explain to me how there's a 50% risk of deliberate termination. Edited to add: I see you're struggling with your response given the number of times you've changed it. Do you need a minute?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2023 21:07:01 GMT
What happened to "fair enough"? After reflection and looking at things closely again, I decided it was not so fair after all and was open to exploration. I always reserve the right to edit if no reply has yet been made. First, note that I last said that it would only be "an absolute objective view, whether prefaced by a conditional or not." Which is still true. It still would sound like an absolute, supposed objective view of morality, whether held necessarily true or not. That would be the point. There is no need to keep insisting it is logically true. I advise you to read it again with special attention. Second, as pointed out before this depends on to whom it is "immoral": for instance, "round" (as in circles) is far less open to interpretation and subjectivity than "immoral" and "innocent" as in killing. This while, once again, biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an "innocent human being" so theologically speaking at least, it is based on a false premise. You also said " [with the statement] I was speaking objectively" But the notion of "innocent" is not an inherently objective term, again, unlike "round" in circles (One doubts that you are using it in a strictly legal sense, especially when considering "innocent babies"). It s a moral judgement on a presumed lack of culpability. Pro-lifers typically use emotional language over science and it seems to be creeping in here too. Apart from that, fair enough LOL Stop with all the nuts then. Your sarcasm and emotionalism notwithstanding, when I referenced mucus, that was because is what one mostly sees in an early abortion. Something which not a "person" and indeed many would struggle to see it as properly as human at all, certainly without sense or pain. This is what I said just above and it appears it needs repeating: "I have noticed that in discussions of abortion there is little apprehension, or is it selective ignorance, by pro-lifers as to the early date of most terminations and what in fact the aborted mess looks like at that stage." www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue I might add that even in those overwhelmingly rare late abortions the distressing sight of the results ought not in themselves to be enough to cancel the healthcare rights of women. Also your repeated use of the word "innocent" in this thread is right out of the pro-lifer playbook of dog whistles. For, Biblical verse aside, was there ever a "guilty" human being aborted? How would one tell? Why not just admit that, quite simply, you were unaware of, or had forgotten, the fact of cervical mucus back then? And we can move right along along. A presence of salt crystals in early pregnancy mucus is associated with a 50% per cent risk of abortion. Repeated negative smears with no salt crystals indicate a normal pregnancy with less than the average risk of abortion. A miscarriage, as I had cause to explain on this board, is called a "spontaneous abortion." [ie not "Deliberate termination"] medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001488.htm#:~:text=Miscarriage%20is%20a%20naturally%20occurring,of%20conception%20leave%20the%20body. I hope that helps. Again. No, I just like to get things right, and hone exactly what I say, and as a matter of principle, only edit (unless I spot a glaring spelling mistake or mis type) before any reply is made.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2023 23:34:33 GMT
What happened to "fair enough"? After reflection and looking at things closely again, I decided it was not so fair after all and was open to exploration. I always reserve the right to edit if no reply has yet been made. Nobody is challenging your right to edit your posts, even after a response. There is no "emotionalism" in the statement. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, it remains objectively true that IF killing an innocent human being is always and without exception immoral, then killing any innocent human being is immoral. I've explained this to you several times and in just as many different ways, but you continue to assert that I'm arguing for objective morality. If that was my argument, I wouldn't dance around it, I would just say it straight up. Again these are are objective statements. Subjectively, I really don't give a rat's ass. If a woman wants to abort, then by all means, I'll hold the door open for her. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, which is what you're doing when you say all she did was expel some snot. You're leading this dance. We are arguing about the healthcare rights of the child. More specifically, the child's right to live. I say a lot of things for the sake of discussion, but here you're asking me to outright lie. Sorry, but I won't do that. Your spins and deflections never help anyone but yourself. If you were talking about miscarriage, the statement should have read: A 50% risk of miscarriage. Or even 50% risk of "spontaneous abortion." But it doesn't. The question now is... Why are you talking about miscarriages in a thread about abortion? I received three notifications of replies by you, but when I came here, there was only one. That means you actually deleted your first two attempts. So I read the reply and returned later only to see you edited it. Then you edited it again while I was responding. And these weren't grammatical or formatting edits; these edits completely changed your arguments. (See "fair enough" for an easy example.) If you want this discussion to progress, you should probably stop stagnating it with all this irrelevant crap about "emotionalism" and sarcasm and how things I say somehow mean what you what them to mean, and your tendency to goad your opponents into rephrasing their statements until they actually do. Sadly though, you'll likely just keep shooting rubber bands at the stars. "If killing an innocent human being is always and without exception immoral, then killing a rape baby is immoral."That statement remains objectively true. If you were interested in actual discussion, we would be discussing whether or not it is always and without exception immoral to kill an innocent human being. I don't think it is. What say you when you aren't dismissing the conditional in favor of that objective morality straw man?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 2, 2023 10:56:55 GMT
Nobody is challenging your right to edit your posts, even after a response. Good to know. Then why make such an issue of me revising what I have written? "Innocent" is, for reasons already mentioned necessarily a subjective term, and moreover one normally used by pro-lifers as a dog-whistle for emotional objections to the procedure. And you haven't addressed the issue of different people demonstrably interpreting what is moral in different ways. Or that the Bible doesn't recognise "innocent" children in the first place, significant, when a lot of pro-lifers are objecting on theological grounds. That is a straw man since I did not say "all she did was expel some snot". I was talking about cervical mucus because is what one mostly sees in an early abortion. Anything to do with nose blowing has always been entirely yours. Including talking out of it, it would seem. Again as already mentioned, the rights of the unborn child are not universally recognised to say the least, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. In the EU for instance the rights of the child are subsumed into that of the mother. So in many cases you are talking of the putative, not actual rights. It is also still not clear why the rights of mucus (which is the result of the majority of abortions) should superceed those of the mother. *sigh* I originally said " most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus" when you said "I was referring to your comparison of having an abortion to blowing your nose.". You will note that I made no such comparison but to a type of mucus. And if you were aware of cervical mucus, then why drag in nose blowing at all when it is clear in context to what I referring? My reply was in regards to you questioning the 50% claim, which came from a government health website, and whenever I quoted it was always in connection with spontaneous abortion a.k.a. miscarriages. It seemed necessary to remind you since you said "perhaps you can explain to me how there's a 50% risk of deliberate termination. " The explanation is that you still appear to confuse deliberate terminations with miscarriages/spontaneous abortions. Which is odd, since it is one made clearly before. " Nobody is challenging your right to edit your posts" that was you, was it not? Given that most arguments against abortion (see Novastar's repeated efforts) are couched in hyperbolic and emotional terms, then drawing one's attention to such things is entirely apt. Feel free to rephrase your statements as any time. After all nobody is challenging your right to edit, right? First, once again: we would have to agree on terms. Upon reflection your statement is not like the "if all circles are round" comparison you have tried. Would a reasonable observer, seeing a mess of cervical mucus & etc typical of early abortions (pictures of which were helpfully supplied and, I noticed, not commented on) sensibly consider it a "human being" for instance? It is instead the makings of one, of "A human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning." Nope, can't see it there yet. Are humans 'innocent'? In Augustine's view all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. And as already mentioned We Are All Guilty of Sin - Romans 1:18-32. To show that a mucoid mess is "innocent" please show a guilty mucoid mess or such a subjective term is meaningless. Do you think everyone in the world could agree on what is moral and immoral if all the facts were known by everyone? One doubts it. However if above you meant that you don't think it is always immoral to kill, no need to confront such dilemmas. You can see from my various earlier exchanges that, perforce, I agree with you. For one thing it would otherwise be immoral to abort even if a mother's life was at risk, or the foetus was brain dead. You do seem rather hung up on this, when I think most points have been covered in detail some several times. You will excuse me then if I only reply to things fresh on this thread in future. Besides I have to go and give the oration over some innocent mucoid human being's funeral. There will naturally be much sniffling and blowing of noses over the coffin.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2023 2:50:06 GMT
Nobody is challenging your right to edit your posts, even after a response. Good to know. Then why make such an issue of me revising what I have written? "Innocent" is, for reasons already mentioned necessarily a subjective term, and moreover one normally used by pro-lifers as a dog-whistle for emotional objections to the procedure. And you haven't addressed the issue of different people demonstrably interpreting what is moral in different ways. Or that the Bible doesn't recognise "innocent" children in the first place, significant, when a lot of pro-lifers are objecting on theological grounds. That is a straw man since I did not say "all she did was expel some snot". I was talking about cervical mucus because is what one mostly sees in an early abortion. Anything to do with nose blowing has always been entirely yours. Including talking out of it, it would seem. Again as already mentioned, the rights of the unborn child are not universally recognised to say the least, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. In the EU for instance the rights of the child are subsumed into that of the mother. So in many cases you are talking of the putative, not actual rights. It is also still not clear why the rights of mucus (which is the result of the majority of abortions) should superceed those of the mother. *sigh* I originally said " most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus" when you said "I was referring to your comparison of having an abortion to blowing your nose.". You will note that I made no such comparison but to a type of mucus. And if you were aware of cervical mucus, then why drag in nose blowing at all when it is clear in context to what I referring? My reply was in regards to you questioning the 50% claim, which came from a government health website, and whenever I quoted it was always in connection with spontaneous abortion a.k.a. miscarriages. It seemed necessary to remind you since you said "perhaps you can explain to me how there's a 50% risk of deliberate termination. " The explanation is that you still appear to confuse deliberate terminations with miscarriages/spontaneous abortions. Which is odd, since it is one made clearly before. " Nobody is challenging your right to edit your posts" that was you, was it not? Given that most arguments against abortion (see Novastar's repeated efforts) are couched in hyperbolic and emotional terms, then drawing one's attention to such things is entirely apt. Feel free to rephrase your statements as any time. After all nobody is challenging your right to edit, right? First, once again: we would have to agree on terms. Upon reflection your statement is not like the "if all circles are round" comparison you have tried. Would a reasonable observer, seeing a mess of cervical mucus & etc typical of early abortions (pictures of which were helpfully supplied and, I noticed, not commented on) sensibly consider it a "human being" for instance? It is instead the makings of one, of "A human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning." Nope, can't see it there yet. Are humans 'innocent'? In Augustine's view all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. And as already mentioned We Are All Guilty of Sin - Romans 1:18-32. To show that a mucoid mess is "innocent" please show a guilty mucoid mess or such a subjective term is meaningless. Do you think everyone in the world could agree on what is moral and immoral if all the facts were known by everyone? One doubts it. However if above you meant that you don't think it is always immoral to kill, no need to confront such dilemmas. You can see from my various earlier exchanges that, perforce, I agree with you. For one thing it would otherwise be immoral to abort even if a mother's life was at risk, or the foetus was brain dead. You do seem rather hung up on this, when I think most points have been covered in detail some several times. You will excuse me then if I only reply to things fresh on this thread in future. Besides I have to go and give the oration over some innocent mucoid human being's funeral. There will naturally be much sniffling and blowing of noses over the coffin. My comment wasn't about your edits; it was about your apparent struggle that your edits exposed. Why is innocence only a subjective term when discussing abortion? Surely you would agree that before we legally kill someone, they should be objectively guilty of the crime. You were talking about cervical mucus because you were talking about miscarriages, not about abortions as your esteemed doctor would have us believe. "50% risk of abortion." Still lol. The right to life may not be universally recognized, but here in the US, it's recognized as an inalienable right. I would argue that it's not necessarily immoral to abort a pregnancy that would kill the mother. If the options are save one or save none, I would think that the latter is the immoral choice. I have no moral or legal objections to abortions done out of such necessities. But when people start confusing abortions for miscarriages and contraception, or when a woman aborts out of spite (or no reason at all), I think more than few eyebrows should be raised and that honest, open discussions should be paramount to the issue. It's not a debate to be won; it's a problem that needs to be resolved. The semantic spins and disingenuous deflections (from both sides) have ever only served the former.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2023 19:07:16 GMT
My comment wasn't about your edits; it was about your apparent struggle that your edits exposed. It is true that I tend to revisit what I say and if then finding possible improvements to be made, always before a reply, I correct and amend until satisfied I see that as strength, not a weakness. Not everyone can write off the top of their head and be at their best. As we often see here. If you mean that I said that, then that is a strawman. But that aside it is a common expression amongst pro-lifers. Eg "As a nation, it’s time to put politics aside and do the right thing to protect innocent little babies, "Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) 2013 in a Philadelphian debate www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-gosnell-resolution-091136 The emotionalism in the abortion debate has been scholarly examined, as in here; www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917300958That depends on whether the legal killing is a punitive action in the first place rather than a health issue. See above for the biblical view of the guilt through sin of us all. Also one might argue that the mucoid might be 'guilty' of threatening a woman's health and welfare. As already noted several times, and now here for the last time, a miscarriage is a form of abortion since a miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." Write it down somewhere and keep it safe. "It was discovered that the presence of ferning or ring [salt] crystals in early pregnancy mucus was associated with a high incidence of abortion, while patients with normal non-crystalUsing smears were less likely to abort than the average..." core.ac.uk/download/pdf/287589836.pdf Where one can see abortion used in the miscarriage sense. I am really not sure why this simple medical fact exercises you so much. I am sure it is. So is the right to bear arms (notably those like assault rifles with no real practical use for hunting, for instance), those various states with "Stand Your Ground laws, capital punishment etc - let alone those states which allow abortion. So I guess that right is not black and white and depends on context. Glad to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2023 22:53:14 GMT
My comment wasn't about your edits; it was about your apparent struggle that your edits exposed. It is true that I tend to revisit what I say and if then finding possible improvements to be made, always before a reply, I correct and amend until satisfied I see that as strength, not a weakness. Not everyone can write off the top of their head and be at their best. As we often see here. If you mean that I said that, then that is a strawman. But that aside it is a common expression amongst pro-lifers. Eg "As a nation, it’s time to put politics aside and do the right thing to protect innocent little babies, "Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) 2013 in a Philadelphian debate www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-gosnell-resolution-091136 The emotionalism in the abortion debate has been scholarly examined, as in here; www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917300958That depends on whether the legal killing is a punitive action in the first place rather than a health issue. See above for the biblical view of the guilt through sin of us all. Also one might argue that the mucoid might be 'guilty' of threatening a woman's health and welfare. As already noted several times, and now here for the last time, a miscarriage is a form of abortion since a miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." Write it down somewhere and keep it safe. "It was discovered that the presence of ferning or ring [salt] crystals in early pregnancy mucus was associated with a high incidence of abortion, while patients with normal non-crystalUsing smears were less likely to abort than the average..." core.ac.uk/download/pdf/287589836.pdf Where one can see abortion used in the miscarriage sense. I am really not sure why this simple medical fact exercises you so much. I am sure it is. So is the right to bear arms (notably those like assault rifles with no real practical use for hunting, for instance), those various states with "Stand Your Ground laws, capital punishment etc - let alone those states which allow abortion. So I guess that right is not black and white and depends on context. Glad to hear it. As you've needlessly explained several times now, miscarriages are not abortions. The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2023 23:35:42 GMT
As you've needlessly explained several times now, miscarriages are not abortions. *sigh" See above where I literally just said that "a miscarriage is a form of abortion" and actually quoted an example. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage". The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion. Google is your friend although pro-lifers don't usually notice such medical subtleties. To be fair, various views on this can be found, but whatever... With this latest strawman and the now, regular, need for me to repeat myself that's all from me on this thread. Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 0:13:57 GMT
As you've needlessly explained several times now, miscarriages are not abortions. *sigh" See above where I literally just said that "a miscarriage is a form of abortion" and actually quoted an example. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion". When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage". The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion. Google is your friend although pro-lifers don't usually notice such medical subtleties. You're still spinning the same silly semantics. When a woman says she had an abortion, do you really need clarification? You're the one who compared the right to life with the right to bear arms. If that's a straw man, then I just burned it down for you. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2023 0:30:34 GMT
When a woman says she had an abortion, do you really need clarification? No, since "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion" (less frequently "induced miscarriage") and that is what she would mean and both her medics and I would know this. See how I need to repeat myself? Good job it isn't then. The straw man was your "you've needlessly explained several times now, miscarriages are not abortions" - when I have been at pains always to explain how medicine is not so black and white. I can see my efforts are wasted. See you on the next thread.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 0:48:19 GMT
When a woman says she had an abortion, do you really need clarification? No, since "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion" (less frequently "induced miscarriage") and that is what she would mean and both her medics and I would know this. See how I need to repeat myself? See how you aren't repeating the definition of abortion that you unnecessarily provided? Here, I'll repeat it for you: "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy" Now would be a good time to explain how there can be a 50% risk of deliberate termination. This is about your assertion that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Maybe this will help: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What, again?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2023 1:28:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 1:56:42 GMT
Now would be a good time to explain how there can be a 50% risk of deliberate termination. If only I had ever used these exact words, now would be a good time to show it. But sadly, its just another straw man. "Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy." "50% risk of abortion." Ipso facto, a 50% risk of deliberate termination. I refuse to believe it was necessary to spell that out for you. The question stands: How can there be a 50% risk of deliberate termination? The right to self defense would fall under the heading of the right to life. Quoting some nutbag who says gun ownership is a "God-given right" doesn't help you. And need I remind you who brought guns into this? If you want to keep things in proportion, you should probably stop throwing so many red herrings into the mix. If it's intentional, it's not a miscarriage. If it isn't intentional, it's not an abortion. It's that simple, full stop. You said we should agree on terms, but you don't even agree with your own terms, hence this convoluted mess of a chat. Cool. Later dude.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2023 11:09:53 GMT
If it's intentional, it's not a miscarriage. If it isn't intentional, it's not an abortion. It's that simple, full stop. You said we should agree on terms, but you don't even agree with your own terms Since you seemed to have missed, or ignored the salient medical terms, I post them again in case others are misled: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or " spontaneous abortion". When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage". " Yes it is true that "The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion" but that is not the simple binary "full stop" definition you insist on above to support simplistic arguments and misrepresent what I have said. You're welcome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiscarriageThe types of spontaneous abortion include threatened, inevitable, incomplete, complete, septic, and missed abortion. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430747/#:~:text=The%20types%20of%20spontaneous%20abortion,and%20missed%20abortion%5B1%5D. That's six types you don't count then... It seems it is not my terms you have problem with. Yes later.. I think you need the rest. Oh and "Quoting some nutbag [an ad hominem] who says gun ownership is a "God-given right" doesn't help you." Disparaging the fact that alternate views exist from established sources and can be quickly found does not make you necessarily right, just on one side of an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 21:11:40 GMT
If it's intentional, it's not a miscarriage. If it isn't intentional, it's not an abortion. It's that simple, full stop. You said we should agree on terms, but you don't even agree with your own terms Since you seemed to have missed, or ignored the salient medical terms, I post them again in case others are misled: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or " spontaneous abortion". When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage". " Yes it is true that "The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion" but that is not the simple binary "full stop" definition you insist on above to support simplistic arguments and misrepresent what I have said. You're welcome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiscarriageThe types of spontaneous abortion include threatened, inevitable, incomplete, complete, septic, and missed abortion. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430747/#:~:text=The%20types%20of%20spontaneous%20abortion,and%20missed%20abortion%5B1%5D. That's six types you don't count then... It seems it is not my terms you have problem with. Yes later.. I think you need the rest. Oh and "Quoting some nutbag [an ad hominem] who says gun ownership is a "God-given right" doesn't help you." Disparaging the fact that alternate views exist from established sources and can be quickly found does not make you necessarily right, just on one side of an argument. If you don't want people to be misled, you probably shouldn't say "abortion" when you mean "miscarriage."
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
@jimmyboy
Posts: 162
Likes: 59
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jan 1, 2024 23:53:04 GMT
No, because that would cause harm to the child after it's born, just as physical/sexual abuse of a living child is unconscionable. Aborting a fetus before it's viable is not the same thing. And if a woman is a heavy drinker or drug addict and becomes pregnant, all the more reason for her to have an abortion rather than bring an affected fetus to term.
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
There are laws already on the books that ban not only hurting kids, but other people. As for the other two paragraphs, perhaps you would like to change places with a person who has been raped. Maybe it would change your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 2, 2024 20:00:35 GMT
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
There are laws already on the books that ban not only hurting kids, but other people. As for the other two paragraphs, perhaps you would like to change places with a person who has been raped. Maybe it would change your opinion.
On what? That women could EVER be mistaken about who raped them?
|
|