[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Not really. But you need to think that you have won an internet argument (LOL!) in order to feel complete.

Yes really.....and if you believe you have the ability to read others minds, clearly you need to re-visit your pay scale.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Yes really.....and if you believe you have the ability to read others minds, clearly you need to re-visit your pay scale.

I don't need to "read" minds. All I need to do is to count how many times you have said "you lose" in this thread.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I don't need to "read" minds. All I need to do is to count how many times you have said "you lose" in this thread.

#1) You 'can't' read minds. #2) you 'are' losing the arguments because of your fallacious claims you can't support with any facts.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

$1) you 'can't read minds. #2) you 'are' losing the arguments because of your fallacious claims you can't support with any facts.

You need to be more entertaining.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You need to be more entertaining.

You need to support your claims with facts, not feelings and emotions. Otherwise you will continue to lose arguments. your call...

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

*Yawn*

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You didn't answer my question about the doctor's opinion concerning the etiology of an illness.

Explain why it's relevant and I might.

And you seem to think all opinions are right, which is absurd.

No. I'm saying your morality is your opinion.

And in your crack addict case, the call is the mother's to make. She's the moral agent in that scenario. Not you, not me.

You said that if she aborts she is doing something immoral - in your judgement. Back in your 101 OP.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Explain why it's relevant and I might.

No. I'm saying your morality is your opinion.

You said that if she aborts she is doing something immoral - in your judgement. Back in your 101 OP.

You require an explanation of the relevance of a question about "opinion"? Read your second line.
I said nothing about your crack addict back in my 101 OP -- she didn't even exist then.

 

[year2late]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Doing our best is the best we can do, but mistaking legal fictions as moral truth is not what I call the best we can do, and in the promotion of abortion culture (which is real and not the strawman you'd prefer to think of it as) that mistake is made consistently. We see it in the posts of the pro-abortion members in our forum; it is a widespread error in thought.

Who are the "pro-abortion" members?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

...

If you want to say or illustrate something with your doctor thing, please go ahead. I don't understand why it's relevant.

I said nothing about your crack addict back in my 101 OP -- she didn't even exist then.

She's a pregnant woman. The "unborn child" she hosts is no thread to her. Read the 101 OP. Or does that not apply?

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Who are the "pro-abortion" members?

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

If you want to say or illustrate something with your doctor thing, please go ahead. I don't understand why it's relevant.

If it's irrelevant, then perhaps you'll quit dismissing arguments as mere opinions, yes?

She's a pregnant woman. The "unborn child" she hosts is no thread to her. Read the 101 OP. Or does that not apply?

I wrote the OP, I don't have to read it. Perhaps you do. Abortion is there characterized as immoral except in cases where the mother's life is at stake.
If your crackhead's unborn child poses no threat to her life, then your crackhead scenario is irrelevant. More clearly irrelevant than my question about professional opinions, it seems.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

If it's irrelevant, then perhaps you'll quit dismissing arguments as mere opinions, yes?

I wrote the OP, I don't have to read it. Perhaps you do. Abortion is there characterized as immoral except in cases where the mother's life is at stake.
If your crackhead's unborn child poses no threat to her life, then your crackhead scenario is irrelevant. More clearly irrelevant than my question about professional opinions, it seems.

So you are offering opinions on the morality/immorality of abortion here as a professional? Do tell. How do we know you aren't a quack - or more likely - a faith healer???

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

I would offer that 'your' posted personal testimony that /// abortion must remain legal /// just as easily puts you in what you refer to as ' that inestimable company' (aka 'pro-abortion' ) as the definition you put forth above....btw, still waiting for you to answer if your stance 'abortion must remain legal' is compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Scrabaholic]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

Saying that it's not a human being is not saying it's not human. Why do you lie about this?

It is FACT that it's not a human being. You've been schooled in this.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

It's called proper debating.

Sez who?

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Saying that it's not a human being is not saying it's not human.

So what the unborn is not a "human being" yet? It is still a live human. Do you dispute this?

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

That there is a falsehood in itself, there are very few pro-abortion members, there are plenty of pro-choice members.

And when they deny the ZEF during the first part of the pregnancy is not a human being than they are absolutely right. The linking this opinion is all kinds of ridiculous. And it once again places you, based on that view alone, firmly in the anti-choice/pro-life camp. They come up with skewed and complete fake comparisons like that all of the time.

Also, this is not a morality issue, it is a legal issue, what people think is morally right is as subjective as hell. To claim that being of the opinion that a zygote is not a human being is stating a falsehood purely based on your opinion is ridiculous enough, but to on top of that claim this is being embraced to what something you feel clearly immoral to appear moral is utter and total :bs

You are not the determining body of what makes legal things immoral. What you feel is immoral is irrelevant to the next person. Also abortion is not a moral or an immoral choice for society, we have no right to business in telling people that what they are doing is a moral or immoral choice. Because it is none of our frigging business.

 

[year2late]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

So you cannot list the members who are proabortion .

Noted.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Sez who?

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.


So what the unborn is not a "human being" yet? It is still a live human. Do you dispute this?

No, it is not a live human, it will gestate into a live human if nature or the owner of the womb permit it to do so but no, at the early stages especially it is not a live human.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

No, it is not a live human, it will gestate into a live human if nature or the owner of the womb permit it to do so but no, at the early stages especially it is not a live human.

*Sigh*

I don't know how many times I need to say this.

The unborn is an organism that 1. contains human DNA, and 2. is alive. An organism that satisfies both of these conditions, is a live human.

You are probably confusing "live human" with "human being".

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

*Sigh*

I don't know how many times I need to say this.

The unborn is an organism that 1. contains human DNA, and 2. is alive. An organism that satisfies both of these conditions, is a live human.

You are probably confusing "live human" with "human being".

You can stop with your stupid "sigh"thing, it is meaningless and says nothing but your inability to have a modicum of respect for your fellow posters. Other people do not use it with you when they are explaining things several times after another.

And you may say things often, it does not mean you are right in any way shape or form.

A tumor has human dna and is alive. My skin has human dna and is alive. It does not make either a live human.

A human is an organism with specific properties, a state that a fetus only arrives at during gestation, it is not present at the start of gestation. You are confusing religious and personal opinion for a fact, and your opinion is not a fact.

And no, I am not confusing anything.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You can stop with your stupid "sigh"thing, it is meaningless and says nothing but your inability to have a modicum of respect for your fellow posters. Other people do not use it with you when they are explaining things several times after another.

First of all, sighing is not having no respect for others. Secondly, the smallest thing seems to upset you. All I did was show mild frustration. Don't tell me you can't even handle this.

A tumor has human dna and is alive. My skin has human dna and is alive. It does not make either a live human.

These things are not organisms, whereas the unborn is. Read my post again.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

First of all, sighing is not having no respect for others. Secondly, the smallest thing seems to upset you. All I did was show mild frustration. Don't tell me you can't even handle this.

Mild frustration because you are not being believed? If everybody did that half the posts directed to you would start with "sigh" or worse. Others do not have that need to start doing that, no matter how many times they have to explain something, but you seem to need that.

And the smallest thing seems to upset me? Another impolite opinion based on absolutely nothing.

These things are not organisms, whereas the unborn is. Read my post again.

I did read it, and I still disagree with it. A zygote is not a live human, it is a zygote and it in and of itself has no ability to sustain life.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Mild frustration because you are not being believed? If everybody did that half the posts directed to you would start with "sigh" or worse. Others do not have that need to start doing that, no matter how many times they have to explain something, but you seem to need that.

Look, I regret to hear that you find my use of "sigh" offensive. But I can tell you I am not going to start censoring myself just for your benefit. Either you get used to it or put me on ignore.

And the smallest thing seems to upset me? Another impolite opinion based on absolutely nothing.

People are allowed to post their opinions on this board. If someones opinion bothers you that much, put them on ignore.

I did read it, and I still disagree with it. A zygote is not a live human, it is a zygote and it in and of itself has no ability to sustain life.

Why do you disagree with it? What is your definition of what a live human is?

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

So you are offering opinions on the morality/immorality of abortion here as a professional? Do tell. How do we know you aren't a quack - or more likely - a faith healer???

So you refuse to answer the question about professional opinion on the one hand, on the grounds of irrelevancy, and on the other fall directly to using the concept as relevant criticism. Does this seem like good faith to you?