|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2021 5:15:19 GMT
The issue of abortion is irrelevant in this case. An abortion is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. ... and nothing to do with a baby being murdered in a criminal attack, as you proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2021 6:13:14 GMT
An abortion is a deliberate termination of pregnancy. ... and nothing to do with a baby being murdered in a criminal attack, as you proposed. I see. So it's not a deliberate termination of pregnancy if it isn't her choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2021 7:40:08 GMT
... and nothing to do with a baby being murdered in a criminal attack, as you proposed. I see. So it's not a deliberate termination of pregnancy if it isn't her choice? That would depend on the motivation of the attacker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2021 7:55:17 GMT
I see. So it's not a deliberate termination of pregnancy if it isn't her choice? That would depend on the motivation of the attacker. Fair point, but let's say the attacker's motivation is to terminate the pregnancy. Still not an abortion?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2021 10:09:47 GMT
That would depend on the motivation of the attacker. Fair point, but let's say the attacker's motivation is to terminate the pregnancy. Still not an abortion? Whilst this is a semantic conundrum, if you look at the definition of abortion ****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" and occurs in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies. 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.**** it is unlikely that it could be classified as such, as it is a criminal act of violence rather than a medical procedure or natural miscarriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2021 17:31:58 GMT
Fair point, but let's say the attacker's motivation is to terminate the pregnancy. Still not an abortion? Whilst this is a semantic conundrum, if you look at the definition of abortion ****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" and occurs in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies. 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.**** it is unlikely that it could be classified as such, as it is a criminal act of violence rather than a medical procedure or natural miscarriage. Stop playing semantics and it won't be a conundrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2021 3:54:27 GMT
Whilst this is a semantic conundrum, if you look at the definition of abortion ****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" and occurs in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies. 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.**** it is unlikely that it could be classified as such, as it is a criminal act of violence rather than a medical procedure or natural miscarriage. Stop playing semantics and it won't be a conundrum. An abortion is a medical procedure and not a crime in civilised countries. Your pathetic example was just stretching in an attempt make a non-existent point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2021 4:21:28 GMT
Stop playing semantics and it won't be a conundrum. An abortion is a medical procedure and not a crime in civilised countries. Your pathetic example was just stretching in an attempt make a non-existent point. If a pregnancy is deliberately terminated before its completion, it's an abortion. Full stop. But my point is that the mother gets to decide if it's a baby or a clump of cells by way of deciding whether or not it gets to keep living.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2021 4:29:16 GMT
An abortion is a medical procedure and not a crime in civilised countries. Your pathetic example was just stretching in an attempt make a non-existent point. If a pregnancy is deliberately terminated before its completion, it's an abortion. Full stop. But my point is that the mother gets to decide if it's a baby or a clump of cells by way of deciding whether or not it gets to keep living. No. Scientific definition is quite clear about the classification of an unborn potential human and this is determined by time...'a clump pf cells' is not one of those categories. The mother decides whether she wants a pregancy to progress, as it should be. I will say it only one more time. A criminal killing an unborn potential human is not an abortion, it is a criminal act and the example is irrelevent and stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2021 7:18:33 GMT
If a pregnancy is deliberately terminated before its completion, it's an abortion. Full stop. But my point is that the mother gets to decide if it's a baby or a clump of cells by way of deciding whether or not it gets to keep living. No. Scientific definition is quite clear about the classification of an unborn potential human and this is determined by time...'a clump pf cells' is not one of those categories. The mother decides whether she wants a pregancy to progress, as it should be. I will say it only one more time. A criminal killing an unborn potential human is not an abortion, it is a criminal act and the example is irrelevent and stupid. Unborn potential human. lol. Do you even realize all the semantic hoops you have to jump through to support the position that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is not a deliberate ending of a human life? It must be exhausting.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2021 9:34:33 GMT
No. Scientific definition is quite clear about the classification of an unborn potential human and this is determined by time...'a clump pf cells' is not one of those categories. The mother decides whether she wants a pregancy to progress, as it should be. I will say it only one more time. A criminal killing an unborn potential human is not an abortion, it is a criminal act and the example is irrelevent and stupid. Unborn potential human. lol. Do you even realize all the semantic hoops you have to jump through to support the position that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is not a deliberate ending of a human life? It must be exhausting. ... and yet I never claimed that. I even gave the definition of abortion which supports this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2021 22:12:53 GMT
Unborn potential human. lol. Do you even realize all the semantic hoops you have to jump through to support the position that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is not a deliberate ending of a human life? It must be exhausting. ... and yet I never claimed that. I even gave the definition of abortion which supports this. “Unborn potential human” is a direct quote. Verbatim. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 3, 2021 1:58:52 GMT
... and yet I never claimed that. I even gave the definition of abortion which supports this. “Unborn potential human” is a direct quote. Verbatim. I don't understand the connection you are making between me giving definitions of what abortion is (which includes that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is a deliberate ending of a human life) and another definition of what a foetus is ie “Unborn potential human” . You have lost the plot. We agree unless you think that a foetus is more than a potential human Since it can't survive ex utero and it is dependant on the mother for growth and sustenance to become a functioning human, it can only be a potential human until viablity. (even then under medical sciencse's control until term or near term) Many things have to go right for a fertilised egg to become a funtioning human and millions of things can go wrong. Yes, when a mother decides to abort this is a deliberate termination of that process. (red herrings of criminals killing her unborn illegally notwithstanding) So? Stop reaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 3, 2021 4:34:24 GMT
“Unborn potential human” is a direct quote. Verbatim. I don't understand the connection you are making between me giving definitions of what abortion is (which includes that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is a deliberate ending of a human life) and another definition of what a foetus is ie “Unborn potential human” . You have lost the plot. We agree unless you think that a foetus is more than a potential human Since it can't survive ex utero and it is dependant on the mother for growth and sustenance to become a functioning human, it can only be a potential human until viablity. (even then under medical sciencse's control until term or near term) Many things have to go right for a fertilised egg to become a funtioning human and millions of things can go wrong. Yes, when a mother decides to abort this is a deliberate termination of that process. (red herrings of criminals killing her unborn illegally notwithstanding) So? Stop reaching. No, you missed the twist. Only a psycho would deliberately kill a baby. Not a baby, you say? Tell that to the bus lady. After all, one could argue that aside from being stabbed, her attacker saved her some money. Furthermore, you keep bringing up the criminal aspect of it as if it's somehow relevant to the plot. All I said was that she got stabbed; it doesn't matter if it was illegal. Just a friendly word of caution: You might want to think it through before you let the law be the jury. Under normal circumstances, that so-called clump of cells will be a newborn, then a toddler, then in what probably seems like a blink of an eye, an old fart advocating deliberate termination of "unborn potential humans" as if she forgot where she came from. So I'm gonna say a fetus is a potential newborn in the same way a newborn is a potential old fart. But at no point is it not a human.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 3, 2021 6:53:07 GMT
I don't understand the connection you are making between me giving definitions of what abortion is (which includes that an abortion (even as a 'medical procedure') is a deliberate ending of a human life) and another definition of what a foetus is ie “Unborn potential human” . You have lost the plot. We agree unless you think that a foetus is more than a potential human Since it can't survive ex utero and it is dependant on the mother for growth and sustenance to become a functioning human, it can only be a potential human until viablity. (even then under medical sciencse's control until term or near term) Many things have to go right for a fertilised egg to become a funtioning human and millions of things can go wrong. Yes, when a mother decides to abort this is a deliberate termination of that process. (red herrings of criminals killing her unborn illegally notwithstanding) So? Stop reaching. No, you missed the twist. a baby. Only a psycho would deliberately kill Not a baby, you say? Tell that to the bus lady. After all, one could argue that aside from being stabbed, her attacker saved her some money. Furthermore, you keep bringing up the criminal aspect of it as if it's somehow relevant to the plot. All I said was that she got stabbed; it doesn't matter if it was illegal. Just a friendly word of caution: You might want to think it through before you let the law be the jury.Under normal circumstances, that so-called clump of cells will be a newborn, then a toddler, then in what probably seems like a blink of an eye, an old fart advocating deliberate termination of "unborn potential humans" as if she forgot where she came from. So I'm gonna say a fetus is a potential newborn in the same way a newborn is a potential old fart. But at no point is it not a human. What twist? The irrelevant stupid hypothetical twist you manufactured for no reason whatsoever, when it has no connection with a woman having an abortion at her choice as it is her body and her clump of cells/potential human being. In your example it would definitely have been a psycho and a criminal to stab a woman whether she was pregant or not, and since you didn't specifiy 'intent' possibly an accident death of a foetus as well. ( see how silly your example of something(?) is) Here you sound as stupid as that other poster who thought it was ' a human' because it had human DNA. My fingernail has human DNA yet it is NOT a human. You seem concerned about the concept of 'potential human' which is precisely what a foetus is. Really? datayze.com/miscarriage-chartMany many things can happen from fertilisation of an ovum and apart from the miscarriage rates there is the more than half that never even make it to a clump of cells. Are they a human too? The Catholics and religious think so yet they never blame their God for casuing the death of so many 'humans'!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 3, 2021 7:27:42 GMT
No, you missed the twist. a baby. Only a psycho would deliberately kill Not a baby, you say? Tell that to the bus lady. After all, one could argue that aside from being stabbed, her attacker saved her some money. Furthermore, you keep bringing up the criminal aspect of it as if it's somehow relevant to the plot. All I said was that she got stabbed; it doesn't matter if it was illegal. Just a friendly word of caution: You might want to think it through before you let the law be the jury.Under normal circumstances, that so-called clump of cells will be a newborn, then a toddler, then in what probably seems like a blink of an eye, an old fart advocating deliberate termination of "unborn potential humans" as if she forgot where she came from. So I'm gonna say a fetus is a potential newborn in the same way a newborn is a potential old fart. But at no point is it not a human. What twist? The irrelevant stupid hypothetical twist you manufactured for no reason whatsoever, when it has no connection with a woman having an abortion at her choice as it is her body and her clump of cells/potential human being. In your example it would definitely have been a psycho and a criminal to stab a woman whether she was pregant or not, and since you didn't specifiy 'intent' possibly an accident death of a foetus as well. ( see how silly your example of something(?) is) Here you sound as stupid as that other poster who thought it was ' a human' because it had human DNA. My fingernail has human DNA yet it is NOT a human. You seem concerned about the concept of 'potential human' which is precisely what a foetus is. Really? datayze.com/miscarriage-chartMany many things can happen from fertilisation of an ovum and apart from the miscarriage rates there is the more than half that never even make it to a clump of cells. Are they a human too? The Catholics and religious think so yet they never blame their God for casuing the death of so many 'humans'! What you refer to as "the irrelevant stupid hypothetical twist" was relevant to whether or not the mother deems it worthy to continue living, and the plot was never your semantic scrambling and criminal coverup. "Stupid" isn't objective so it doesn't count, but it was hypothetical so you got one right. Click here to see where I specified intent. Sometimes the posts to which you respond deserve more attention than you give them. This appears to be one of those times. Your fingernail is not a fetus. In fact, your fingernail isn't even alive. Maybe you should have tried the tumor angle. We're talking about human fetuses here, are we not? A miscarriage is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. If it was, it would be an abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 3, 2021 12:12:48 GMT
What twist? The irrelevant stupid hypothetical twist you manufactured for no reason whatsoever, when it has no connection with a woman having an abortion at her choice as it is her body and her clump of cells/potential human being. In your example it would definitely have been a psycho and a criminal to stab a woman whether she was pregant or not, and since you didn't specifiy 'intent' possibly an accident death of a foetus as well. ( see how silly your example of something(?) is) Here you sound as stupid as that other poster who thought it was ' a human' because it had human DNA. My fingernail has human DNA yet it is NOT a human. You seem concerned about the concept of 'potential human' which is precisely what a foetus is. Really? datayze.com/miscarriage-chartMany many things can happen from fertilisation of an ovum and apart from the miscarriage rates there is the more than half that never even make it to a clump of cells. Are they a human too? The Catholics and religious think so yet they never blame their God for casuing the death of so many 'humans'! What you refer to as "the irrelevant stupid hypothetical twist" was relevant to whether or not the mother deems it worthy to continue living, and the plot was never your semantic scrambling and criminal coverup. "Stupid" isn't objective so it doesn't count, but it was hypothetical so you got one right. Click here to see where I specified intent. Sometimes the posts to which you respond deserve more attention than you give them. This appears to be one of those times. Your fingernail is not a fetus. In fact, your fingernail isn't even alive. Maybe you should have tried the tumor angle. We're talking about human fetuses here, are we not? A miscarriage is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. If it was, it would be an abortion. Your hypothical is irrelvant because the mother did not have a 'choice'. The operative word in this. DUH!!!...yet it has human DNA just as you and the other stupid poster pointed out, as though it were alive. Yes precisely. That is what they are, and not fully formed viable humans capable of life. If you are religious and believe in God's will and power, then it is God's abortion and deliberate. I don't believe that however it is worth a mention. It depends whether you think that God or a woman has autonomy over her body. I think women do, and not men, the State or religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 5, 2021 22:52:51 GMT
Your hypothical is irrelvant because the mother did not have a 'choice'. The operative word in this. She already made her choice, as evidenced by her being on her way to a clinic. You really should pay more attention. You're the one comparing fetuses to fingernails. They are human and they are alive. You don't believe it's worth a mention, yet you mentioned it anyway? Ok, I'll play... Why is it an abortion when God does it, but not when the stabby guy on the bus does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2021 11:20:34 GMT
Your hypothical is irrelvant because the mother did not have a 'choice'. The operative word in this. She already made her choice, as evidenced by her being on her way to a clinic. You really should pay more attention. You're the one comparing fetuses to fingernails. They are human and they are alive. You don't believe it's worth a mention, yet you mentioned it anyway? Ok, I'll play... Why is it an abortion when God does it, but not when the stabby guy on the bus does it? She made a choice to have an abortion not be stabbed on a bus by a criminal. A fingernail of a human has human DNA...that was a reason given by you and another poster to prove a foetus' humanity' Foetuses are human and alive yet not capable of being alive outside the uterus until more developed ie living...as I keep saying. They are potential living humans. Since religious people wish to govern the choices it is worth a mention to point out how it is none of their business. It is an abortion when God does it because according to religious people God has the power and intent. It is an abortion when a woman has it done because it has intent and it is not an abortion when a criminal stabs a woman on a bus and as a result her baby dies. I repeqat. A stupid meaningless proposal without point. This is getting tiresome as you are repeating illogical nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2021 23:41:37 GMT
She already made her choice, as evidenced by her being on her way to a clinic. You really should pay more attention. You're the one comparing fetuses to fingernails. They are human and they are alive. You don't believe it's worth a mention, yet you mentioned it anyway? Ok, I'll play... Why is it an abortion when God does it, but not when the stabby guy on the bus does it? She made a choice to have an abortion not be stabbed on a bus by a criminal. She made a choice to have the pregnancy deliberately terminated, and that's exactly what she got. The crime itself is not of prime importance to the abortion that took place on that bus. It's fine if you want to keep talking about it, just don't pretend its relevant, especially after you clearly said it isn't. The fingernail, the DNA, and now humanity are all things you brought into this chat. Not me. If they are human and alive, then they are living humans regardless of location. Make up your mind. You literally just said it was not worth a mention. You didn't answer the question. Just more empty words. Your smoke and mirrors are failing miserably. My advice for you would be to cause more chaos with your straw men and red herrings, then slip out the back door and hope no one notices. Then after a few weeks, maybe even days, spew the same shit again in another thread and pretend none of this ever happened. Or.. just start shooting straight.
|
|
