Abortion Discussion

[tiglathpileser]

The people who perform abortions are doctors and would be most likely to use proper medical terms when appropriate. Though of course, we all use colloquial language at times.

The discussion at the time was whether the aborted person was a fetus or a baby. You are a classic example of PapaZoom's comment that pro-death people slip and slide when an argument of theirs goes down like a lead balloon to bolster their views.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As luck would have it, two of the most well known abortionists in the USA are on record as saying that every abortion kills a baby. And your comment about calling a baby a cheeseburger is rather infantile.

I'm sure there's been at least one doctor that's said a fetus is a baby, despite what the dictionary says. But your statement "According to the people performing the abortions it does." is patently false, since there are doctors that (correctly) don't say such a thing.

And my (obvious) point about language is that you can use words incorrectly if you want, but you won't be able to communicate effectively.

 

[tiglathpileser]

A fetus at any stage is not a baby. You just performed an equivocation fallacy.

If you want to make that claim about fetuses the burden of proof is upon you. You are not going to get any changes in the laws until someone does so from your side.

According to prominent abortionists, every abortion kills a baby. You just performed a "don't bother me with the facts. I am content with unproven theories to defend the indefensible."

As far as the burden of proof is concerned, we are way past that as the ethersphere is full of it so take a look.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The discussion at the time was whether the aborted person was a fetus or a baby. You are a classic example of PapaZoom's comment that pro-death people slip and slide when an argument of theirs goes down like a lead balloon to bolster their views.

And your a classic example of the pro life side's purposeful misuse of emotional rhetoric in order to sway opinion. I think your side is actually incapable of refraining from dishonest discussion.

 

[PapaZoom]

Oh, I read it through. I don't see any sources for the claim that people tell Rebecca that she "should" have been aborted.

 

[PapaZoom]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
You need to show that this is a full "human being" if you want to stop others from killing it. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that are telling others what they have to do with their body.



"Subduction" is NOT talking about "fully human."

What "full 'human being'" means is an actual human being, an actual animal being of the human species, in other words a baby born. No one should ever kill a real baby, of course.

wrong, wrong wrong. You don't have a clue. Get an embryology text book and read.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I'm sure there's been at least one doctor that's said a fetus is a baby, despite what the dictionary says. But your statement "According to the people performing the abortions it does." is patently false, since there are doctors that (correctly) don't say such a thing.

And my (obvious) point about language is that you can use words incorrectly if you want, but you won't be able to communicate effectively.

Some people are determined to promote thier erroneous views I realise that. Despite that fact it doesn't alter the fact that two of America's most prominent abortionists said that every abortion kills a baby. I heard one say it on TV and read the other's comment in a magazine and until you can prove I didn't, it is not false.

As far as your comment about doctors correctly don't say such things, that is a subjective comment as there are those that have a Christian worldview and there are those who have an atheist worldview so what is right is subjective. In my country there is an organisation of doctors who believe that every abortion kills a baby, so that means I am correct and you are wrong so you get nowhere making accusations like that.

 

[Cearbhall]

The discussion at the time was whether the aborted person was a fetus or a baby.

Technically, a fetus. But I've happily called a fetus a baby before. I don't agree with this supposed conflict between common usage and medical terms.

You are a classic example of PapaZoom's comment that pro-death

Pro-death? Wouldn't I have to encourage abortion in order for that to make any sense?

people slip and slide when an argument of theirs goes down like a lead balloon to bolster their views.

Er, what? The technical term for an unborn animal is "fetus." I'm sorry if you don't recognize that, but it's a fact. Jargon exists for a reason. There's no agenda behind it. There would be great confusion in a ward where a medical professional refuses to use the terms zygote/embryo/fetus under any circumstances. And there would be great confusion in this thread if no one could tell whether I was talking about an unborn or born human being.

What argument of mine has gone down?

 

[PapaZoom]

Ok, but you made it sound like there were pro-choice people saying this. Saying that a child is demon spawn and should have been aborted (implying a moral obligation) isn't exactly respecting the woman's choice.

they are pro-choice. Although that is their claim. They are more pro abortion. There's more. Had you really read the article and followed the links, you'd have seen that there are prominent (and not so prominent) people that think it's wrong to bring a baby to term if they were conceived in rape. To them, choice is abortion only.

Why the PChoice crowd even brings up rape I'll never know. other than it plays to emotion. If abortion is not immoral, then it doesn't matter how conception took place. If abortion is immoral, then even rape is no justification to kill the unborn child. And yes I know people don't like the use of the word child, but you can't go on any site about pregnancy without them referring to the fetus as a child or baby. It's convenient to use the term (though I think it also accurate) so don't anyone get their undies all tightened up. You could go sterile.

 

[tiglathpileser]

And your a classic example of the pro life side's purposeful misuse of emotional rhetoric in order to sway opinion. I think your side is actually incapable of refraining from dishonest discussion.

Once again you are slipping and sliding to bolster your position and try and make it right. The two abortionists that said every abortion kills a baby is not emotional rhetoric. It is a statement of fact used by atheist abortionists. They were the originators of it, not me and as I am autistic, emotion is something I am incapable of. So if that is the best you can do, you will need to find something more convincing before anyone is going to believe you.

When it comes to emotional rhetoric, those who fight for abortion are classics as I have noticed one of the first things they bring up to try and win the argument is rape which is about 1% of all abortions. If you want to base your claim to abortion on 1% of abortions go ahead, but the fact is , it is no basis for making an argument. The real issue surrounds the 99% of abortions that are not the result of rape. When you have dealt with that, then and only then can you discuss the subject of rape.

 

[Cearbhall]

they are pro-choice. Although that is their claim.

True, I'm sure there are pro-abortion people who identify as pro-choice.

They are more pro abortion.

That's what I would call them.

Had you really read the article and followed the links, you'd have seen that there are prominent (and not so prominent) people that think it's wrong to bring a baby to term if they were conceived in rape. To them, choice is abortion only.

Which, obviously, is not pro-choice. So I don't see why their opinions should cause me to reexamine my own.

Why the PChoice crowd even brings up rape I'll never know.

Really? I thought everyone knew that it's because many pro-lifers like to say "You shouldn't have had sex, then. You already made your decision."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Some people are determined to promote thier erroneous views I realise that. Despite that fact it doesn't alter the fact that two of America's most prominent abortionists said that every abortion kills a baby. I heard one say it on TV and read the other's commitment in a magazine and until you can prove I didn't, it is not false.

My previous post specifically said there must be doctors that say that. They can also call a fetus a lamp. Anyone can use language incorrectly.

The dictionary calls a baby something that's been born.

As far as your comment about doctors correctly don't say such things, that is a subjective comment as there are those that have a Christian worldview and there are those who have an atheist worldview so what is right is subjective.

Unless you're saying that there's a Christian dictionary that defines thing differently, what a word means isn't "subjective" it's "intersubjective". If you truly believe that words are just subjective, you won't mind me substituting "child molester" for "Christian" and I'd be correct. I mean, I've got a degree in Philosophy with an emphasis in comparative religions, so I must know what I'm talking about, right?

In my country there is an organisation of doctors who believe that every abortion kills a baby, so that means I am correct and you are wrong so you get nowhere making accusations like that.

Noooooo, you're still incorrect because you implied that all abortion doctors believe they're killing babies. Which is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Technically, a fetus.

Pro-death? Wouldn't I have to encourage abortion in order for that to make any sense?

Er, what? The technical term for an unborn animal is "fetus." I'm sorry if you don't recognize that, but it's a fact. Jargon exists for a reason. There's no agenda behind it. There would be great confusion in a ward where a medical professional refuses to use the terms zygote/embryo/fetus under any circumstances. And there would be great confusion in this thread if no one could tell whether I was talking about an unborn or born human being.

What argument of mine has gone down?

Reality, a baby. I live in reality, not in technicalities. Having studied the subject in depth for 10 years, I know a baby when I see one.

No you would not as Edmund Burke said "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." One can support by silence.

We are not talking about animals. We are talking about living breathing human beings. And there is no confusion. One calls the baby a baby the other calls it a fetus which by the way is latin for baby so in both cases it is called a baby.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Once again you are slipping and sliding to bolster your position and try and make it right. The two abortionists that said every abortion kills a baby is not emotional rhetoric.

Of course it is. If you're defining words beyond what a dictionary states in order to elicit a specific response in an argument, it's emotional rhetoric.

When it comes to emotional rhetoric, those who fight for abortion are classics as I have noticed one of the first things they bring up to try and win the argument is rape which is about 1% of all abortions. If you want to base your claim to abortion on 1% of abortions go ahead, but the fact is , it is no basis for making an argument. The real issue surrounds the 99% of abortions that are not the result of rape. When you have dealt with that, then and only then can you discuss the subject of rape.

I don't bring up rape when discussing abortion, because it's unnecessary to my argument.

 

[PapaZoom]

Who says that? I'm not aware of any "should" position.

Rebecca is regularly told she should’ve been aborted. Those feelings aren’t unusual; when Valerie Gatto discussed being “a child of rape,” the former Miss Pennsylvania USA was dubbed “the spawn of a criminal.”

Rape survivor Jennifer Christie has seen her son labeled as a “rapist’s DNA deposit” and something “from Satan.” She’s been attacked as well, with online commenters calling her “stupid,” “brain damaged,” “....... in the head” and “an ........” for not killing him. One woman’s email was particularly blunt: “I want to hurt you.”

Was conceived in rape

also conceived in rape

Some, as the article points out, think it's wrong they weren't killed in the womb. Others say it's perfectly legitimate for the mother to choose to kill the child in the womb. And yet here they are, two women would be dead had it not been for the fact they were allowed to grow in the womb.

Millions of girls were were conceived but never born - due to abortion. And yet people label abortion a woman's rights issue and say it with a straight face. In China, millions of men will never have the chance to be married let alone fathers. That country has killed off so many girls, both through abortion and infanticide, that there simply aren't that many women in the population.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Of course it is. If you're defining words beyond what a dictionary states in order to elicit a specific response in an argument, it's emotional rhetoric.

I don't bring up rape when discussing abortion, because it's unnecessary to my argument.

One. I did not define the words, the abortionists did. THEY SAID (not me) every abortion kills a baby and I am not trying to elicit a response. That was your choice to respond.

Two. I didn't say you brought up rape. I said "those who fight for abortion..." As there are thousands of them you are small fry in comparison. If the cap fits you wear it. if it doesn't then don't wear it.

 

[tiglathpileser]

The dictionary calls a baby something that's been born.

I mean, I've got a degree in Philosophy with an emphasis in comparative religions, so I must know what I'm talking about, right?

Noooooo, you're still incorrect because you implied that all abortion doctors believe they're killing babies. Which is demonstrably incorrect.

One. As I have said, I don't live according to as dictionary. I live according to reality. I know that annoys you intensely but them's the facts.

Two. A lot of people have a lot of degrees in everything but that does not necessarily make them intelligent. I have THREE university degrees and ONE theological degree so on your assessment I know more than you do.

Three. You are the one that is incorrect as it is YOU that is implying that I said all abortion doctors are killing babies. I have made it very clear in my original comment that what you beleive is determined by your worldview.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

One. I did not define the words, the abortionists did. THEY SAID (not me) every abortion kills a baby and I am not trying to elicit a response. That was your choice to respond.

You're the one who implied that all people who perform abortions define a fetus as a baby. Not me.

Two. I didn't say you brought up rape. I said "those who fight for abortion..." As there are thousands of them you are small fry in comparison. If the cap fits you wear it. if it doesn't then don't wear it.

Lol. Ok. So that entire paragraph had nothing to do with me. Got it. Even though you said "those who fight for abortion" like it pertained to everyone fighting for abortion. So what you meant to say was "Some people who fight for abortion", right?

 

[redleghunter]

You explained nothing, but to answer your question ...
Nothing. What fault did the woman who was raped do to warrent forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term?

We have two victims. Does one deserve death ?

 

[redleghunter]

I've already posted cites for two law review articles discussing it. The standard definition is "a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another under some form of coercion." Every definition I've seen exempts paid salary as coercion. I have never heard all pregnancies as such, nor would a wanted pregnancy meet that definition. Now, please, answer my question. Or do you not have an answer?

Carrying an innocent human life is not coercion. There's the answer.