Food for Thought

[Oompa Loompa]

That is one context, but depending on what you mean by "transgenders" we could also be referring to them. Some "transgenders" do have abortions.

I don't know what you are on about. Who is not allowing whom to say what?

That a woman is a biological female of the human species. Seeing how they are the only ones who actually can get pregnant. Is that the context of "woman" we are using right now?

 

[DaisyDay]

That a woman is a biological female of the human species. Seeing how they are the only ones who actually can get pregnant. Is that the context of "woman" we are using right now?

Evidently, this is the context and definition you are using at this moment.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Evidently, this is the context and definition you are using at this moment.

And what context are you using?

 

[DaisyDay]

And what context are you using?

I am not using any particular context in my discussion of how context affects definitions. I would have thought that obvious.
I am not playing your gotcha game.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I am not using any particular context in my discussion of how context affects definitions. I would have thought that obvious.
I am not playing your gotcha game.

How then is it even possible for you to contribute to the conversation if whatever we are talking about means whatever context you decide or nothing at all? Come back to me when you can actually tell me what you are talking about.

 

[ottawak]

How then is it even possible for you to contribute to the conversation if whatever we are talking about means whatever context you decide or nothing at all? Come back to me when you can actually tell me what you are talking about.

We're talking about the game where it is insinuated that everybody on "The Left" is pushing the country to accept, or even become trans even though they don't know what it is. Such that, when someone on "The Left" refers conversationally to a person biologically capable of bearing children as a "woman" conservatives can sneer at them for illogic and hypocrisy.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

We're talking about the game where it is insinuated that everybody on "The Left" is pushing the country to accept, or even become trans even though they don't know what it is. Such that, when someone on "The Left" refers conversationally to a person biologically capable of bearing children as a "woman" conservatives can sneer at them for illogic and hypocrisy.

So bearing children is what makes someone a woman? You know there are a lot of women who cannot have children.

 

[DaisyDay]

How then is it even possible for you to contribute to the conversation if whatever we are talking about means whatever context you decide or nothing at all? Come back to me when you can actually tell me what you are talking about.

No, it is you who wants to trip up “leftists” over insistence on definitions unrelated to context. I am not playing your game.

 

[DaisyDay]

So bearing children is what makes someone a woman? You know there are a lot of women who cannot have children.

Case in point. And So’s Law - you know that isn’t what he said, this is just you playing your game.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, it is you who wants to trip up “leftists” over insistence on definitions unrelated to context. I am not playing your game.

I am not trying to trip you up. However, by suggesting that to be my motive, demonstrates a logical contradiction you are unwilling to recognize.

 

[DaisyDay]

I am not trying to trip you up. However, by suggesting that to be my motive, demonstrates a logical contradiction you are unwilling to recognize.

I'm not playing your game of argument by definitions.

This thread was interrupted by your irrelevant insistence that the posters provide you with some definition, which definition you want to argue about in lieu of the actual topic. No.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm not playing your game of argument by definitions.

That is impossible because the topic of your argument has no definition.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is impossible because the topic of your argument has no definition.

What is impossible? What do you think my argument is?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What is impossible? What do you think my argument is?

I have no idea what your argument is because you cannot give me a contextual definition on what you are talking about. We may as well be talking about "skrilling the drangst". What does that mean you ask? Whatever I feel like.

 

[DaisyDay]

I have no idea what your argument is because you cannot give me a contextual definition on what you are talking about.

If you don't understand what my argument is, then then either go back and read it or ask me what it is. Telling me that it is impossible when you don't know what it is, by your own admission, is spurious at best.

We may as well be talking about "skrilling the drangst". What does that mean you ask? Whatever I feel like.

Yes, your participation in this has reminded me more than once of Humpty Dumpty and the Jabberwocky.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” ​

Impenetrability! That’s what I say!

 

[ottawak]

So bearing children is what makes someone a woman? You know there are a lot of women who cannot have children.

So bearing children is what makes someone a woman? You know there are a lot of women who cannot have children.

For purposes of this discussion, yes, since the topic of this thread is largely about abortion and other issues related to child bearing.

 

[Pommer]

If one thinks a zygote is a person, then perhaps this “what determines what a ‘woman’ is?” is a bit further down the rabbit hole than it needs to be?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If one thinks a zygote is a person, then perhaps this “what determines what a ‘woman’ is?” is a bit further down the rabbit hole than it needs to be?

You think you know what a "zygote" is now...but in a few years, the term may be different. So what is a woman? Surely if you cannot tell me what a woman is, you have no business telling me what a zygote is.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm thinking Christians should organize and step up. There would be no need for government help if we would unite to address the consequences of abandoning the precedent of Roe.

The reality is, our disunity and lack of concern for those in dire circumstances (too young to care for a child, victims of incest or rape, women who are stuck in abusive relationships and don't want another child that ties them to abuse) is appalling. Christians have been clamoring for decades to have Roe overturned. How did it never occur to anyone that overturning would bring responsibility?

Maybe this is unexpected, even among pro-life Christians. I can understand that. I didn't think it would ever be overturned. But if it is vacated, then the responsibility immediately falls not on the government but on all those who used their voting power to enable the change.

I would think Christians would be overjoyed to step up and help. I think abandoning Roe without federal legislation in place is a mistake. Whatever, I'm all for Christians working together to address the fallout. I'm not getting that impression from these threads. I guess we'll see. But the quip that pro-life proponents aren't really concerned about all life, only unborn life, is looking like it was accurate.

You're making a few general statements about harm being done by Roe being overturned. Could you be specific about what harm you are referring to? The harm done by abortion is fairly obvious i.e. a living being is exterminated and in many cases in a very gruesome manner. What is the harm done by a present Supreme Court decision which concludes that a past Supreme Court ruling was so flawed that it must be abandoned?

I do 100% agree with you that where help is needed Christians ought to step up and provide it. Unfortunately, I think too many Christians are convinced that this means Christians are justified in forcing other people to comply with their own religious stance. Even Christians who don't agree that help is needed or those who aren't Christians at all. Unlike you, I think Roe was the mistake and that the Supreme Court ought to restrict its actions to adjudicating and not legislating while the federal government ought to restrict its actions to those issues they have responsibility for that are enumerated by the Constitution and not interfere in matters the Constitution reserves for the people and the individual states. Then again, I am not a person that believes that the ends justify the means. Those that do believe that the ends justify the means will come to different if not opposite conclusions about what an institution with vast power ought to do.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Weird that doctors would be the ones doing abortions, then. I wonder if reality is wrong or this post is.

I knew a doctor that stole medicine be to sell to addicts. I suppose that means it was health care.