Abortions? not with my taxes

[Jerry]

The fact that you think there's an absolute right and a wrong on this issue proves you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

Hmm, see I didn't support absolutes in anything I said here, so you must have a reading comprehension issue.

Notice how you never asked what my position on abortion was? You have no idea if you already agree with me or not. You proly think I'm some uber-right-wing hyper anti-abortionist. You have no idea, and you don't care to perform even the simplest research by asking easy questions.

It may interest you to learn that I support abortion in the first trimester; PlanB kept in stock at every military PX, and other items of interest on the pro-choice agenda.

See, as someone who carrys concealed, I realize that it can be a full legal "person" and I can kill it. There's no point in denying the humanity of the unborn.

 

[jamesrage]

Republicans see taxes as being more important than woman's lives, even though it means frightened woman, with no place to go, are forced to use coat hangers or find back alley butchers, like it was 30 years ago.

If I understand your logic correctly you want people who are actually against abortion (people who believe that killing an unborn baby is no different that killing someone outside the womb) to support abortion so that the mother can safely kill her own child? Are you aware of how idiotic that argument for abortion is? What next do you want to hand out free tax payer funded bullet proof vests to violent criminals so that they can safely carry out their crimes?

Just like I hope a violent criminal is killed while in the commission of their crime I hope an attempted abortionist is killed while in the process of trying to kill her baby. I do not want abortion to be safe and legal. If several doctors have confirmed that a Caesarean section or vaginal birth will kill the mother at any point during viability then sure abortion should be legal and should be done at that hospital.

 

[Jerry]

If I understand your logic correctly you want people who are actually against abortion (people who believe that killing an unborn baby is no different that killing someone outside the womb) to support abortion so that the mother can safely kill her own child? Are you aware of how idiotic that argument for abortion is? What next do you want to hand out free tax payer funded bullet proof vests to violent criminals so that they can safely carry out their crimes?

Just like I hope a violent criminal is killed while in the commission of their crime I hope an attempted abortionist is killed while in the process of trying to kill her baby. I do not want abortion to be safe and legal. If several doctors have confirmed that a Caesarean section or vaginal birth will kill the mother at any point during viability then sure abortion should be legal and should be done at that hospital.

Yet these same women will complain about honor killings.

In those cultures, under those laws, the wife/doughtier is property...she's just a clump a cells and human tissue, a flesh doll...killing her for honor is more reasonable than killing your own child for convenience. If abortion is acceptable, even more so is honor killing.

 

[ricksfolly]

Isn't it sad when someone wants people to feel empathy for a women who wants to abort a child

It isn't a live child until it's out and takes its first breath, as most doctors will tell you, and they know more about it than philosophers, scientists, or politicians...

ricksfolly

 

[Jerry]

It isn't a live child until it's out and takes its first breath, as most doctors will tell you, and they know more about it than philosophers, scientists, or politicians...

ricksfolly

See, this is one demonstration of how I'm right, you're not, and therefore my opinion is more valid than yours; that I actually do know better than you and should thus have ore control over your personal life until you grow up and can take care of yourself:

***
"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.


"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

***

To further help clarify, your error was in confusing technical medical terminology with the from-the-hip common vernacular. "Child" is not a technical medical term. Zygote, Fetus, Embryo, infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric....these are stages of the organism's life cycle. "Child" is not. "Child" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

So, now you you can see a specific example demonstrating how you're wrong. You won't accept that you're wrong because the facts don't govern your position on this topic, and that's ok. I invite you to show your true colors and make your arguments using your real reasons.

 

[Kal'Stang]

See, this is one demonstration of how I'm right, you're not, and therefore my opinion is more valid than yours; that I actually do know better than you and should thus have ore control over your personal life until you grow up and can take care of yourself:

***
"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.


"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

***

To further help clarify, your error was in confusing technical medical terminology with the from-the-hip common vernacular. "Child" is not a technical medical term. Zygote, Fetus, Embryo, infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric....these are stages of the organism's life cycle. "Child" is not. "Child" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

So, now you you can see a specific example demonstrating how you're wrong. You won't accept that you're wrong because the facts don't govern your position on this topic, and that's ok. I invite you to show your true colors and make your arguments using your real reasons.

Very good. Now, time to introduce a another word...

Definition of PARASITE
1: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Can be looked up at Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

This can be applied to a fetus also. And we have no problem getting rid of them.

 

[Jerry]

Very good. Now, time to introduce a another word...



Can be looked up at Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

This can be applied to a fetus also. And we have no problem getting rid of them.

It can be applied to newborns, also, so you have no problem getting rid of them either.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It can be applied to newborns, also, so you have no problem getting rid of them either.

Ah now see, you're moving the goal posts here. Are we not talking about abortions? Abortions do not happen after the baby is already born. An abortion must happen while the fetus is inside the womb. Otherwise it is no longer an abortion.

defination of abortion

: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage

b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

Gotten from mirriam-webster dictionary.

Since we are talking about abortions, and abortions can only happen before the birth of a child then the term parasite can only be used with in the same context. If you take it out of this context then you are introducing things beyond areas where abortion can occur. In which case we might as well start talking about the death penalty, wars etc etc. So instead of expanding the debate to beyond abortion lets keep it with in the proper context.

 

[Bodi]

Did Chuz Life hack your account?

ummm..... no?

 

[Bodi]

Ah now see, you're moving the goal posts here. Are we not talking about abortions? Abortions do not happen after the baby is already born. An abortion must happen while the fetus is inside the womb. Otherwise it is no longer an abortion.



Gotten from mirriam-webster dictionary.

Since we are talking about abortions, and abortions can only happen before the birth of a child then the term parasite can only be used with in the same context. If you take it out of this context then you are introducing things beyond areas where abortion can occur. In which case we might as well start talking about the death penalty, wars etc etc. So instead of expanding the debate to beyond abortion lets keep it with in the proper context.

Nope, he nailed you. #'s 2 and 3 apply to a newborn infant.

 

[Jerry]

Ah now see, you're moving the goal posts here. Are we not talking about abortions? Abortions do not happen after the baby is already born. An abortion must happen while the fetus is inside the womb. Otherwise it is no longer an abortion.



Gotten from mirriam-webster dictionary.

Since we are talking about abortions, and abortions can only happen before the birth of a child then the term parasite can only be used with in the same context. If you take it out of this context then you are introducing things beyond areas where abortion can occur. In which case we might as well start talking about the death penalty, wars etc etc. So instead of expanding the debate to beyond abortion lets keep it with in the proper context.

Oh 'cuz see you were talking about parasites, of which a child still is while breastfeeding, so if you want this conversation to stick to pre-birth parameters then you had better stick to exclusively pre-birth descriptors.

See how you shot yourself in the foot there? Just one more example of how I'm better than you.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Nope, he nailed you. #'s 2 and 3 apply to a newborn infant.

A newborn infant is no longer inside the womb, IE you are not talking about abortion. If you were refering to #'s 2 and 3 coming from the defination I supplied for abortion...reading comprehension problem on your part? If you are refering to the parasite defination I provided then fine...however I would just refer you to post #33. Now if you truely want to go outside of abortion that is fine. I can play that part just as well....what else shall we introduce? How about wars? Do you know what collateral damage is?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh 'cuz see you were talking about parasites, of which a child still is while breastfeeding, so if you want this conversation to stick to pre-birth parameters then you had better stick to exclusively pre-birth descriptors.

See how you shot yourself in the foot there? Just one more example of how I'm better than you.

Incorrect. I was using the term parasites with in the context of this thread...which is about abortion. And since, again, abortion cannot happen once the baby is already born we would be going outside the context of this thread if you introduced infants that were already born.

As far as parasite being a "pre-birth descriptor" you do realize that a parasite is often inside its host correct? Just like a fetus? Hence it is perfectly acceptable to use "parasite" as a pre-birth descriptor.

 

[Bodi]

A newborn infant is no longer inside the womb, IE you are not talking about abortion. If you were refering to #'s 2 and 3 coming from the defination I supplied for abortion...reading comprehension problem on your part? If you are refering to the parasite defination I provided then fine...however I would just refer you to post #33. Now if you truely want to go outside of abortion that is fine. I can play that part just as well....what else shall we introduce? How about wars? Do you know what collateral damage is?

YOU altered the nature of the debate when you brought up a term that can be applied to said issue prior to and AFTER birth. That issue is aborting a fetus/baby. Since YOU made the comparison to a parasite and since a newborn infant acts as a parasite to its mother for survival, you moved the goal posts.

You should really not try and be cute and clever when you are so very wrong. Doesn't bode well. And yes, I was talking about parasite... since it obviously has no relation to abortion, and since I post well and all that, how in the world could you even think that I was referring to abortion and not parasite? And then to attempt to smack me about it? Makes me wonder what your mental abilities are, to be honest. You better start thnking things out a bit better...

 

[Jerry]

Incorrect.

Denial.

Admitting you're wrong is the first step.

I was using the term parasites with in the context of this thread...which is about abortion. And since, again, abortion cannot happen once the baby is already born we would be going outside the context of this thread if you introduced infants that were already born.

As far as parasite being a "pre-birth descriptor" you do realize that a parasite is often inside its host correct? Just like a fetus? Hence it is perfectly acceptable to use "parasite" as a pre-birth descriptor.

Oh you want to talk about "context"...very good, let's talk about context.

This can be applied to a fetus also. And we have no problem getting rid of them.

Meaning....

"[Parasite"] can be applied to a fetus also. And we have no problem getting rid of [Parasites].

Your argument has been that since we have no problem getting rid of parasites per-se, and the unborn are parasites, we should therefore have no problem getting rid of the unborn either.

You independent variable is the value of a parasite. We can take your independent variable and observe how it affect various other dependent variables, such as newborns, Siamese twins, even those who need blood transfusions.

Oh, but you don't like what an integrity check looks like. No, and so you deny your error to the grave. I understand, it's arrogance.

***
I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with the ZEF having a parasitic relationship with the mother, so I'm left wondering what you were trying to accomplish with such a statement in the first place. It's as though you believe that all parasites are the same.

 

[Jerry]

YOU altered the nature of the debate when you brought up a term that can be applied to said issue prior to and AFTER birth. That issue is aborting a fetus/baby. Since YOU made the comparison to a parasite and since a newborn infant acts as a parasite to its mother for survival, you moved the goal posts.

You should really not try and be cute and clever when you are so very wrong. Doesn't bode well. And yes, I was talking about parasite... since it obviously has no relation to abortion, and since I post well and all that, how in the world could you even think that I was referring to abortion and not parasite? And then to attempt to smack me about it? Makes me wonder what your mental abilities are, to be honest. You better start thnking things out a bit better...

He thinks we're new to this topic like he is, that we've not had this exact same debate with dozens of other people over the last few years. He thinks he's bringing something new to the table. I say let him, I'll just keep copy-paste'ing from my list of standard responses.

Maybe someday someone will meet the challenge of offering a fresh way of seeing this issue.

 

[Bodi]

He thinks we're new to this topic like he is, that we've not had this exact same debate with dozens of other people over the last few years. He thinks he's bringing something new to the table. I say let him, I'll just keep copy-paste'ing from my list of standard responses.

Maybe someday someone will meet the challenge of offering a fresh way of seeing this issue.

The debate is really simple... all one has to do is use a couple of easy terms to see that abortion is the killing of a developing human and that any attemot to say otherwise is an attempt at justifying the act of killing. I, too, am waiting for non-regurgitated responses that we are always getting from the Grannies out there...

 

[Kal'Stang]

YOU altered the nature of the debate when you brought up a term that can be applied to said issue prior to and AFTER birth. That issue is aborting a fetus/baby. Since YOU made the comparison to a parasite and since a newborn infant acts as a parasite to its mother for survival, you moved the goal posts.

You should really not try and be cute and clever when you are so very wrong. Doesn't bode well. And yes, I was talking about parasite... since it obviously has no relation to abortion, and since I post well and all that, how in the world could you even think that I was referring to abortion and not parasite? And then to attempt to smack me about it? Makes me wonder what your mental abilities are, to be honest. You better start thnking things out a bit better...

Just because the term "parasite" can be applied to after birth does not mean that it has to be included. The two can be mutually exclusive. Indeed when talking about abortions which can only happen pre-birth one would imagine that it would only be proper to use only the part of the defination that refers to it being "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism" leaving out the "with, or on" part of the defination.

And the term parasite does have a relation to the abortion debate as the whole debate is about weather or not a person should consider it as worthy of having the right to life. If one considers the fetus to be a parasite then it has no more right to life than any other parasite does. Which is nil.

My using the term isn't some way to be "cute". I was not the first one to apply the term to a fetus. It has actually been said for quite a few years. I've heard numerous people call a fetus a parasite before. And the term does fit according the the defination of a parasite.

Maybe you are the one that needs to think things out a bit better?

 

[Bodi]

Just because the term "parasite" can be applied to after birth does not mean that it has to be included. The two can be mutually exclusive. Indeed when talking about abortions which can only happen pre-birth one would imagine that it would only be proper to use only the part of the defination that refers to it being "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism" leaving out the "with, or on" part of the defination.

Ahhh... so you want what the definition actually means to just mean what you want it to, got it. Yeah... sorry, it doesn't work that way. If a parasite is something that you think can be terminated, and you use such a term (and rightly so) to describe a developing human in the womb... then, in order to show that you are logically incorrect, the extension of the term to outside of the womb can and should be applied. Again, it shows that you are wrong. You want to cherry pick (a term that I think that Jerry used against you already) so that you can box out terms and views that refute your stance... that's all.

And the term parasite does have a relation to the abortion debate as the whole debate is about weather or not a person should consider it as worthy of having the right to life. If one considers the fetus to be a parasite then it has no more right to life than any other parasite does. Which is nil.

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but definition doesn't have an "a" like you keep using and you "weather" describes the climate. I am not using this as any means other than to correct grammar.

I understand the reason for using the term parasite. Like Jerry said, we are not new to this debate and that term as a tactic has been used and defeated before. That is the reason for the extension to other things that are parasitic and deserve life. It defeats the attempt of using the term to devalue the developing human.

My using the term isn't some way to be "cute". I was not the first one to apply the term to a fetus. It has actually been said for quite a few years. I've heard numerous people call a fetus a parasite before. And the term does fit according the the defination of a parasite.

Your attempt to be cute is in insulting me. You were trying to be clever... but since you were wrong it simply stunk.

Maybe you are the one that needs to think things out a bit better?

Nope, that still falls to you buddy...

 

[Kal'Stang]

Denial.

Admitting you're wrong is the first step.

Those that think they are always right often do not see the hole in the ground in front of them.

Oh you want to talk about "context"...very good, let's talk about context.



Meaning....



Your argument has been that since we have no problem getting rid of parasites per-se, and the unborn are parasites, we should therefore have no problem getting rid of the unborn either.

You independent variable is the value of a parasite. We can take your independent variable and observe how it affect various other dependent variables, such as newborns, Siamese twins, even those who need blood transfusions.

Oh, but you don't like what an integrity check looks like. No, and so you deny your error to the grave. I understand, it's arrogance.

You could of course observe how it affects various other dependent variables. But if you are talking about abortion then you must keep it within the context of abortion. Abortion = pre-birth. So new borns would not fit the bill as they are not within the abortion parameters outlined. You could use Siamese twins...so long as it was before they were born. Not sure about blood transfusions...do fetus's ever need blood transfusions?

As for an integrity check...are you talking about integrity as in weather something is put together right? Or integrity as in weather it stands up to some moral code of conduct?

***
I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with the ZEF having a parasitic relationship with the mother, so I'm left wondering what you were trying to accomplish with such a statement in the first place. It's as though you believe that all parasites are the same.

I know that you have no problem equating a ZEF being parasitic to the mother. But we are also talking about the stages after ZEF"hood". (is that even a word? "ZEF"hood""? lol) Which includes the fetus stage.

 

[Kal'Stang]

He thinks we're new to this topic like he is, that we've not had this exact same debate with dozens of other people over the last few years. He thinks he's bringing something new to the table. I say let him, I'll just keep copy-paste'ing from my list of standard responses.

Maybe someday someone will meet the challenge of offering a fresh way of seeing this issue.

This isn't my first rodeo either boys.

 

[Bodi]

This isn't my first rodeo either boys.

Yeah, but you are in the stands...

I am the clown in the ring dodging the bull. Jerry is the good looking rider that just lasted 8 Seconds... point being, we are in the game.

 

[mac]

Yeah, but you are in the stands...

I am the clown in the ring dodging the bull. Jerry is the good looking rider that just lasted 8 Seconds... point being, we are in the game.

and I'm the Bull!




Sorry....couldn't resist.

 

[mac]

I know that you have no problem equating a ZEF being parasitic to the mother. But we are also talking about the stages after ZEF"hood". (is that even a word? "ZEF"hood""? lol) Which includes the fetus stage.

At worst you could say the relationship is symbiotic. A parasite is of a different species than the host. At least know your words....

 

[Kal'Stang]

Ahhh... so you want what the definition actually means to just mean what you want it to, got it. Yeah... sorry, it doesn't work that way. If a parasite is something that you think can be terminated, and you use such a term (and rightly so) to describe a developing human in the womb... then, in order to show that you are logically incorrect, the extension of the term to outside of the womb can and should be applied. Again, it shows that you are wrong. You want to cherry pick (a term that I think that Jerry used against you already) so that you can box out terms and views that refute your stance... that's all.

Ah but you are assuming that when one uses the definition of a word then the WHOLE defination MUST be used. This is not always so. There are times that it is perfectly acceptable to limit the definition of a word to conform to a specific subject. So long as the essential definition is not lost. This is one of those cases where it is acceptable. Because as I have said, if you introduce new borns and such into the discussion then you are no longer talking about abortion. However with the term parasite it can refer to just organisms that must live inside of its host body. As there are such parasites it is perfectly acceptable to not only limit the definition to fit within the definition of abortion but it is acceptable to limit the definition of parasites to strictly talk about just parasites within a certain catagory. In this case the catagory is that which must live inside its host.

Now you are correct that the term "parasite" can be applied to new borns and even as old as 12 years old. However by doing so you will no longer be talking about abortion. Because abortion can only occur pre-birth.

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but definition doesn't have an "a" like you keep using and you "weather" describes the climate. I am not using this as any means other than to correct grammar.

Noted. Though I'll try to remember it for "definition" can't say as I'll remember it for "weather"...not sure how to spell it the other way to mean what I mean.

I understand the reason for using the term parasite. Like Jerry said, we are not new to this debate and that term as a tactic has been used and defeated before. That is the reason for the extension to other things that are parasitic and deserve life. It defeats the attempt of using the term to devalue the developing human.

It was only "defeated" because it was used outside the context of abortion. When talking about abortion you must limit yourself with in the defination of abortion. Since parasite can be limited in such a way (due to the very nature of parasites) I am quite frankly surprised that you and Jerry have not been called out on it before.

Your attempt to be cute is in insulting me. You were trying to be clever... but since you were wrong it simply stunk.

I was only responding to you stating "Makes me wonder what your mental abilities are, to be honest." Or do you not consider that to be insulting?