• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Choices [W:1315]

Learis said:
Well you're not going to be happy with my answer lol.
Click to expand...
WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE HAPPY WITH AN IRRATIONAL ANSWER? You are in-essence saying that "potential" should be treated like "actual". And you can't even guarantee that that potential, when fulfilled, won't be detrimental to civilization. Tsk, tsk!

Learis said:
and it's the same reason why I believe a newly born human should be allowed to survive.
Click to expand...
YET FOR ME, THE LAW IS ONLY ONE REASON. I listed 3 others in that Item #103 which I previously linked. (None of those 3 reasons apply to unborn humans, by the way.)

Learis said:
As I said previously, we're in no position to nullify potential
Click to expand...
NOT WHAT I SAID. I specified "null answer", which is an answer that has no Debate-value. Every claim about a positive outcome for potential can be matched with an equivalent claim about a negative outcome for potential. There is no way either side can win, in a Debate about the goodness or badness of potential. You are making the totally unwarranted assumption that goodness will outweigh badness, and therefore potential has net positive value, but what evidence can you offer to support that?

Learis said:
because we might get a bad egg over a good egg.
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. I'm not saying that there will be more badness than goodness. I'm saying they will be equal, and thus the net value of potential is Zero.

Learis said:
Saying that the two cancel each other out is a rather silly way of disregarding the future.
Click to expand...
IT IS A BIT SIMPLISTIC, BUT NOT INVALID. Nor does it "disregard" the future, because it reiterates that you cannot predict with certainty what the future might hold. We CAN make predictions of an "if this, then that" nature. For example, if global human population continues to grow, then we most certainly will eventually experience a Malthusian Catastrophe.
foodquestion2.png


Learis said:
I've said before I care little in debates as to what the law says since it has been heinously immoral in the past.
Click to expand...
THAT IS USUALLY A CONSEQUENCE OF BASING LAW ON SUBJECTIVE OPINION INSTEAD OF OBJECTIVE FACT. I've mentioned two reasons in this Thread why I like the current law about newborns and personhood. First is that folks are used to it, and second is that if the Law was made consistent with the scientific data, then because different humans develop at different rates, we would need a big bureaucracy to constantly test young humans, to find out when each one starts to qualify as a person. The current Law is vastly simpler!
 
Learis said:
As to overpopulation, a reason to justify the killing of unborn humans for the sake of population control is no different than justifying the killing of newly born humans for the same reason.
Click to expand...
BUT NOW YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 3 OTHER FACTORS I PREVIOUSLY GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT --in that Item #103.

ALSO, I do not "push" abortion for population control. Overpopulation is merely one reason to allow abortion. Let folks decide for themselves if they want to use abortion to help reduce the population explosion.

[snip stuff repeated in previous post from you]

Learis said:
Except for the cuticle cell argument. I imagine it goes something like the biological makeup of a cuticle cell is practically the same as an unborn fertilized egg or whatever, and a cuticle cell can genetically be turned into a human therefore killing a cuticle cell is no different than killing an unborn. I could be completely wrong about that, it's just my guess.
Click to expand...
THE CUTICLE CELL ARGUMENT POINTS OUT THE IGNORANCE AND IDIOCY OF ABORTION OPPONENTS, REGARDING "HUMAN LIFE". It is not just about cuticle cells. For example, if human life is so valuable that Active External Help must always be provided, and potential must be fulfilled, then shouldn't we intercept every blastocyst and make sure it is divided into at least 4 parts, so that quadruplets or more would always get born? Shouldn't abortion opponents each be dissected into 30-odd trillion cells, every one of which can be reprogrammed to act like a zygote? And, yes, what you said about that essay is also accurate. We, including abortion opponents, routinely kill lots of human life without in the least being concerned about it. And so abortion opponents, blathering about the value of human life, are just a bunch of hypocrites.
 
nota bene said:
The term "person" refers exclusively to humans, not ever to dolphins.
Click to expand...
THAT'S A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE NOT SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. Humans have been imagining non-human persons for thousands of years, including angels and elves and (in the modern era) all sorts of extraterrestrial aliens. Here is a Star Trek Next Generation episode focusing on True Artificial Intelligence. Here is Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan (who called himself an orangutan person and called other orangutans "orange dogs").

ALSO, keep in mind that the text you quoted referred to a probability, not to a certainty. While India has taken a particular lead, I've not heard much news about other nations following that lead.
 
RamFel said:
If I were to really defeat you fair and square,
Click to expand...
YOU WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IRREFUTABLE SUPPORT FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. So far, you haven't even bothered to support your argument with refutable data. (And if you did, you would probably **think** that that data was actually irrefutable. Tsk, tsk!)

RamFel said:
all you would do is dig deeper, and present what you find as evidence again,
Click to expand...
AS LONG AS YOUR CLAIMS AND SUPPORT ARE REFUTABLE, a Debate allows me to do exactly that "dig deeper and present the findings" thing. If your argument is truly irrefutable, however, then no amount of digging will yield a refutation.

RamFel said:
and would go on from there, over and over again.
Click to expand...
I HAVE LOTS OF PRACTICE AT IT. I still occasionally encounter something I cannot refute.

RamFel said:
Because you have too much pride to ever allow yourself to be defeated.
Click to expand...
FALSE. I'm a halfway-decent chess player, but I have most certainly been thoroughly defeated on numerous occasions.

RamFel said:
You are wrong,
Click to expand...
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED CLAIM IS STILL AS WORTHLESS AS EVER.

RamFel said:
and I have proven it,
Click to expand...
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. You refuse to support your claims with evidence, remember?

RamFel said:
but you'll never allow it to be known.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE --this is a public forum! If you actually defeat me here, others will clearly see it!

RamFel said:
So tell me, why should I ?
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE.

RamFel said:
Facts are not always facts.
Click to expand...
ONLY WHEN SOMETHING CLAIMED TO BE A FACT HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTIVELY VALIDATED. The rest of the time, Facts tend to be limited in scope. For example, on Earth a diamond has certain Factual characteristics. Inside an ordinary star like the Sun, however, a diamond cannot exist, much less possess those same characteristics. And so it is sometimes possible to replace one Fact (a planet orbits the Sun, and that orbit was originally believed to be perfectly circular) with a superior Fact (a planet actually follows an elliptical path as it orbits the Sun). So far, I don't see you doing anything like that in the Overall Abortion Debate --but I sometimes do that, when I "dig deeper".
 
year2late said:
This is not the medical community. Please focus. This is an internet bulletin board. Acronyms are widely used. They are not widely used until they are.

And in my opinion? What opinion. When they use ZEF, they mean to say zygote, embryo, and fetus. If there is an opinion out there about it, it is your opinion of some weird subtext that fits your personal belief system.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me to focus. YOU stated that "And ZEF is just a spelling shortcut to those scientific terms." If you can't remember what you said just a post or so ago, perhaps you are the one who needs to focus.

I didn't claim that this is a medical community, and I do know that it's a message board, thanks. Peter King claimed earlier that "ZEF" is used by the medical community. It's not. I provided links to all the major medical dictionaries, and you can look for yourself in them and also for a single use of it in a scholarly publication through Google Scholar, a link to which I also provided.

As for the use of this particular acronym, I do understand that acronyms aren't widely used until they're used. :roll: Wow.

I also provided a link to one of the discussions about this acronym from years ago now. "Interestingly," the medical community didn't use "ZEF" then and still doesn't today.

Perhaps the reason, as I've already suggested, is that "ZEF," while a term used by some who are pro-choice, is not appropriate simply because, and this is a duh, a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus, are different stages of development, not one "convenient" acronym. To be even more clear, a zygote is only a zygote (and this for only 3-4 days), an embryo is an embryo, and a fetus is a fetus. Lump of tissue it may be to some, but lumping three different stages of development into one isn't precise or helpful.

I hope this clarifies. Probably not since you reject the argument that the use of "ZEF," which is used exclusively by those who are pro-choice, is intended to dehumanize the unborn human.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, you've said this lie many times. It's still a lie.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it's a lie. But I would say that if you know that the use of a term causes offense, you won't use it. That's why I don't say "pro-abortion" and why I don't understand "anti-choice."
 
nota bene said:
I don't know that it's a lie.
Click to expand...

Her claim is that it is an innocuous and legitimate acronym.

This is not only demonstrably false, it has been demonstrated at length, frequently, to her, including in this thread. It is a slur used to dehumanize.


But I would say that if you know that the use of a term causes offense, you won't use it. That's why I don't say "pro-abortion" and why I don't understand "anti-choice."
Click to expand...

"Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" are specific and accurate. They do not mislead or suggest anything else other than directly what one's stance on this one issue is.


The equivalent of "anti-choice" - the opposite of the propaganda term "pro-choice" - would be "anti-life."
 
JayDubya said:
Her claim is that it is an innocuous and legitimate acronym.

This is not only demonstrably false, it has been demonstrated at length, frequently, to her, including in this thread. It is a slur used to dehumanize.

"Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" are specific and accurate. They do not mislead or suggest anything else other than directly what one's stance on this one issue is.

The equivalent of "anti-choice" - the opposite of the propaganda term "pro-choice" - would be "anti-life."
Click to expand...

I guess so. I just think that if we're to have a civil discourse, refraining from the use of terms that cause offense is worth the effort. I also think it's entirely possible that there are people who use the term "ZEF" simply because they're unaware that it's offensive as well as inaccurate. That wouldn't be the case here, though.
 
nota bene said:
I guess so. I just think that if we're to have a civil discourse, refraining from the use of terms that cause offense is worth the effort. I also think it's entirely possible that there are people who use the term "ZEF" simply because they're unaware that it's offensive as well as inaccurate. That wouldn't be the case here, though.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but there is nothing offensive about an acronym.

That people needlessly and subjectively take offense at a simple acronym is strange.

And if we start "having a civil discourse" a lot of words would have to be refrained from using. And most of those words are actually an affront to civil discourse (rather than the illogical offense at a simple acronym).

And let us be honest, there is not a lot civil on a forum about such a divisive issue, some try (not to kiss behinds, like you or Minnie) but most do not. Not nice but then again, this is an issue where both sides feel very passionately.
 
JayDubya said:
Her claim is that it is an innocuous and legitimate acronym.

This is not only demonstrably false, it has been demonstrated at length, frequently, to her, including in this thread. It is a slur used to dehumanize.




"Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" are specific and accurate. They do not mislead or suggest anything else other than directly what one's stance on this one issue is.


The equivalent of "anti-choice" - the opposite of the propaganda term "pro-choice" - would be "anti-life."
Click to expand...

Again, that is not true that it is not a legitimate acronym.

If you go to acronym finder and type in ZEF you do get zygote, embryo, fetus as the meaning of that acronym.

If you look at the Freedictionary acronym dictionary you can find that ZEF means (among others) zygote, embryo, fetus

At What does ZEF stand for? same result, one of the named acronyms is that ZEF stands for (again, among others) zygote, embryo, fetus.

At https://www.allacronyms.com/ZEF/Zygote,_Embryo,_Fetus the meaning does not change, among the options for the acronym ZEF is written zygote, embryo, fetus

At What does ZEF Mean again the meaning of ZEF (is among others) zygote, embryo, fetus.
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry, but there is nothing offensive about an acronym.

That people needlessly and subjectively take offense at a simple acronym is strange.

And if we start "having a civil discourse" a lot of words would have to be refrained from using. And most of those words are actually an affront to civil discourse (rather than the illogical offense at a simple acronym).

And let us be honest, there is not a lot civil on a forum about such a divisive issue, some try (not to kiss behinds, like you or Minnie) but most do not. Not nice but then again, this is an issue where both sides feel very passionately.
Click to expand...

Because this issue inspires such passion, it's even more important to make every effort to be respectful.

As for this acronym, or anything else, really, you don't get to tell me what I find offensive. If before this current discussion you had no idea that it's not neutral, now you know, and it's up to you to decide whether you will continue to use it.
 
nota bene said:
Don't tell me to focus. YOU stated that "And ZEF is just a spelling shortcut to those scientific terms." If you can't remember what you said just a post or so ago, perhaps you are the one who needs to focus.

I didn't claim that this is a medical community, and I do know that it's a message board, thanks. Peter King claimed earlier that "ZEF" is used by the medical community. It's not. I provided links to all the major medical dictionaries, and you can look for yourself in them and also for a single use of it in a scholarly publication through Google Scholar, a link to which I also provided.

As for the use of this particular acronym, I do understand that acronyms aren't widely used until they're used. :roll: Wow.

I also provided a link to one of the discussions about this acronym from years ago now. "Interestingly," the medical community didn't use "ZEF" then and still doesn't today.

Perhaps the reason, as I've already suggested, is that "ZEF," while a term used by some who are pro-choice, is not appropriate simply because, and this is a duh, a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus, are different stages of development, not one "convenient" acronym. To be even more clear, a zygote is only a zygote (and this for only 3-4 days), an embryo is an embryo, and a fetus is a fetus. Lump of tissue it may be to some, but lumping three different stages of development into one isn't precise or helpful.

I hope this clarifies. Probably not since you reject the argument that the use of "ZEF," which is used exclusively by those who are pro-choice, is intended to dehumanize the unborn human.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the acronym stands for?

Yes.

Then it served its purpose as an acronym.

Get a grip.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, you've said this lie many times. It's still a lie.



Are you for real? You just cited an example of exactly that.
Click to expand...

Do you know the words that the acronym stands for?

Yes, then it has served it's purpose as an acronym.


What you call financial benefit is a more like person trying not to be homeless.
 
nota bene said:
Because this issue inspires such passion, it's even more important to make every effort to be respectful.

As for this acronym, or anything else, really, you don't get to tell me what I find offensive. If before this current discussion you had no idea that it's not neutral, now you know, and it's up to you to decide whether you will continue to use it.
Click to expand...

I would agree 100 percent with you about using the word parasite on this forum , or the word murderer ,or the words aggressive violence regarding an abortion

But ,an acronym as a shortcut should not be regarded as disrespectful or a slur.
Perhaps you do not like the acronym but most of those who post here regularly are not using it as a slur or a way to be disrespectful and many have explained that to you and Jay...over and over and over.

I don't use it because I know that it upsets you.

But several pro life people on this forum will use the words murderer or aggressive violence referring to abortions just because they know it might upset some our pro choice people who post on this forum.
 
Peter King said:
Again, that is not true that it is not a legitimate acronym.
Click to expand...

Once again, you create a post so replete with lies and disinformation that literally nothing within it has truth or value.

If you go to acronym finder and type in ZEF you do get zygote, embryo, fetus as the meaning of that acronym.
Click to expand...

Acronymfinder specifically ranks the usage and legitimacy of its suggested crowdsourced acronyms. If you look up RN, Registered Nurse has 5 stars / 5. If you look up FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation has 5 / 5 stars. What does your hateful, stupid slur have on this crowdsourced website - i.e. some fellow pro-abort radicals suggested they add it? One star.

It has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Freedictionary
Click to expand...
Crowdsourced.
abbreviations.com
Click to expand...
Crowdsourced.
allacronyms.com
Click to expand...
NOT ONLY CROWDSOURCED, but lets any rando vote. Your nonsense has less favor than FBI = Female Body Inspector.

:lamo

Achem.

Zero legitimacy. Bigoted slur. Only used by you pro-abort radicals on the internet.

Scrabaholic said:
People who use it know why they use it.
Click to expand...

We know why you use it.
 
minnie616 said:
or the words aggressive violence regarding an abortion
Click to expand...

What this post means is that "reality offends minnie."

:shrug:

Words means things. When you employ lethal force against a helpless innocent, there are words for that.

pro life people on this forum will use the words... aggressive violence referring to abortions just because they know it might upset some our pro choice people who post on this forum.
Click to expand...

I don't speak properly using English words to offend pro-aborts who are disoriented from reality. If they refuse to speak English and describe events on planet Earth, yet insist on discussing this topic, then nonsense should be corrected by sense.

How can there be a political discussion at all when your side routinely denies basic undeniable facts? In this thread we have denial of the humanity of abortion victims. We have denial of their lives. We have a statement that they are comparable to parasites or invaders. We have a statement that despite being helpless and innocent, despite the fact that they are killed in cold blood by someone who has a parental obligation to take care of them, that they are not even victims at all.

All of these statements by your peer group are not subjective; not a matter for divergent opinion. They are not "opinions" at all. They are errors demonstrating a lack of knowledge of science or a lack of accepting reality because it's inconvenient or messy for their political ends.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
What this post means is that "reality offends minnie."

:shrug:

Words means things. When you employ lethal force against a helpless innocent, there are words for that.



I don't speak properly using English words to offend pro-aborts who are disoriented from reality. If they refuse to speak English and describe events on planet Earth, yet insist on discussing this topic, then nonsense should be corrected by sense.
Click to expand...

Acronyms mean something.

Do you know what words the letters ZEF stand for?
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, I've already told you what your "acronym's" meaning is.
Click to expand...

What do the initials stand for?

What does the z stand for?

What does the e stand for?

What does the f stand for?
 
year2late said:
What do the initials stand for?
Click to expand...

As previously noted, your slur conveys a meaning that you hate, irrationally, those human beings who despite being created have yet to reach an age where they are physiologically able to do certain things, and you wish to dehumanize them to promote your ideology of it being okay to kill them at whim.
 
JayDubya said:
As previously noted, your slur conveys a meaning that you hate, irrationally, those human beings who despite being created have yet to reach an age where they are physiologically able to do certain things, and you wish to dehumanize them to promote your ideology of it being okay to kill them at whim.
Click to expand...

So you are unable to answer a simple question. Duly noted.
 
year2late said:
So you are unable to answer a simple question. Duly noted.
Click to expand...

I am unwilling to further address elements within your doggedly persistent lie about your intentions in using that string of characters. I am unwilling because it is nonsense and I have no intention of taking what is known to be a lie seriously.

I will of course, if you desire or make it neccessary, continue to point out what you do mean when you use it.
 
minnie616 said:
I would agree 100 percent with you about using the word parasite on this forum , or the word murderer ,or the words aggressive violence regarding an abortion

But ,an acronym as a shortcut should not be regarded as disrespectful or a slur.
Perhaps you do not like the acronym but most of those who post here regularly are not using it as a slur or a way to be disrespectful and many have explained that to you and Jay...over and over and over.

I don't use it because I know that it upsets you.

But several pro life people on this forum will use the words murderer or aggressive violence referring to abortions just because they know it might upset some our pro choice people who post on this forum.
Click to expand...

Sensitive time is over for me. Out of respect to disrespectful pro-fetus advocates I've used "YET TO BE BORN" for quite sometime now.

Screw'em. ZEF is now officially back on for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom