New abortion ban law in S.Carolina, thoughts?

[dogtowner]

Nope. That is your own concoction, not a definition provided by any source. The definition includes the words "human being" and omits any reference to innocence. Your agenda is showing. Now go get a link to a real definition.

We have not been talking about cats and dogs, humans were a given.

So it's murder if your attacker dies trying to kill you ? If your car brakes fail and someone dies as a result of this failure ?
Intentional and innocent are highly significant.

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't hear you. You need to put it in PRINT in a POST.

Or when you said:
"No, no, no to your question.
I don't expect it will ever be the law of the land."
did you mean you don't expect "no" to abortion for rape, incest, and/or health of the mother will ever be the law of the land.

If so, a little proofreading might have helped with clarity.

Your query, I assumed you knew what you asked. Silly mem

 

[Senter]

We have not been talking about cats and dogs, humans were a given.

So it's murder if your attacker dies trying to kill you ? If your car brakes fail and someone dies as a result of this failure ?
Intentional and innocent are highly significant.

You're playing games with words. Not interested. Now go ahead and spin what I said here.

 

[Senter]

Your query, I assumed you knew what you asked. Silly mem

Yes. What I asked is whether you approve of abortion in the case of rape, incest, and/or health of the mother. You replied "I don't expect it will ever be the law of the land."

But abortion in those cases ARE ALREADY the law of the land.

How can anyone rationally discuss anything when one person distorts and twists what was said and the facts of the case as you do???? It's the way of the right in my experience because they have nothing to stand on in defending their extreme and irrational views. Maybe that's the problem here.

 

[dogtowner]

You're playing games with words. Not interested. Now go ahead and spin what I said here.

Just saw you were cornered and said nothing.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No, all I have ever seen from you is your personal opinion. No links. No reference to evidentiary documentation. . . . just strange personal opinions.

Then you weren't paying attention. However, since you are unable to look it up yourself, here is is again:


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.) the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes. What I asked is whether you approve of abortion in the case of rape, incest, and/or health of the mother. You replied "I don't expect it will ever be the law of the land."

But abortion in those cases ARE ALREADY the law of the land.

How can anyone rationally discuss anything when one person distorts and twists what was said and the facts of the case as you do???? It's the way of the right in my experience because they have nothing to stand on in defending their extreme and irrational views. Maybe that's the problem here.

I answered no, no and no. Three criteria, three responses. Too concise for you ? I can be wordier if you think that would help.

 

[Senter]

Just saw you were cornered and said nothing.

Cornered? Are you kidding? I guess that is "an assumptive close". Truth is you were the one cornered by definitions you tried to reinvent.

 

[Senter]

Then you weren't paying attention. However, since you are unable to look it up yourself, here is is again:


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.) the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

I have no argument with that, but then my question is what this means to you in terms of abortion.

 

[Senter]

I answered no, no and no. Three criteria, three responses. Too concise for you ? I can be wordier if you think that would help.

It's a question of clear communication. There is a tendency among some on forums to rely on a word, a phrase, an incomplete sentence, as though typing is an arduous task. I don't care to assume the meaning of someone's unclear post because the next thing is a gripe and an insult about "what's wrong with you that you can't understand English?"

So just be clear please.

 

[dogtowner]

It's a question of clear communication. There is a tendency among some on forums to rely on a word, a phrase, an incomplete sentence, as though typing is an arduous task. I don't care to assume the meaning of someone's unclear post because the next thing is a gripe and an insult about "what's wrong with you that you can't understand English?"

So just be clear please.

Cornered? Are you kidding? I guess that is "an assumptive close". Truth is you were the one cornered by definitions you tried to reinvent.

No, I am not kidding.
As it happens, this definition is ancient. And it can be as the motion of murder being wrong is not new.
It's always been recognized by societies that there are unavoidable deaths (ergo the intentional qualification) and deaths needed to protect one's self, family or society (ergo the innocent qualification). These are necessary for societies that could be seen as ok with murder like muslims. As they see everyone as being inherently muslim, that person becomes apostate by thinking themselves not muslim and that renders you not innocent so not murder to kill you.
But those babies are innocent. They did nothing to warren that fate besides being inconvenient.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

If you really believe I "want to kill as many babies as possible", you are in serious need of mental health. And if you don't really mean it, you're trolling.

Seriously? You have posted no reason for one not aborting their baby, and find all kinds of excuses to justify doing so. Your own words convict you.

As to what the use of the term "fetus" in the place of baby, it is yet another way for the immoral to dehumanize the babe in the womb. The same attempt is made by using terms like "parasite" to describe the babe.

 

[Senter]

No, I am not kidding.
As it happens, this definition is ancient. And it can be as the motion of murder being wrong is not new.
It's always been recognized by societies that there are unavoidable deaths (ergo the intentional qualification) and deaths needed to protect one's self, family or society (ergo the innocent qualification). These are necessary for societies that could be seen as ok with murder like muslims. As they see everyone as being inherently muslim, that person becomes apostate by thinking themselves not muslim and that renders you not innocent so not murder to kill you.
But those babies are innocent. They did nothing to warren that fate besides being inconvenient.

Holy crap!! ("As it happens, this definition is ancient.") Now you're going to drag out what for "definitions"?....-the bible???? Go ahead. Tell me where you get this "ancient definition" that doesn't apply today. Tell me it's the bible so I can quote reams from the bible that are known as BS today. I'll wait . . . . . . . . . . .

It's simple: abortion is legal; abortion should be legal; over 80% of the public wants it legal; abortion is not going to be banned.

I guess your argument is driven by an ancient mythical zealotry.

 

[Senter]

Seriously? You have posted no reason for one not aborting their baby, and find all kinds of excuses to justify doing so. Your own words convict you.

Go ahead. Assume anything you like, assign it to me, and attack me on the basis of your own fantasies. It's so much easier than asking questions, and fun! Right? LOL!!!!

As to what the use of the term "fetus" in the place of baby, it is yet another way for the immoral to dehumanize the babe in the womb. The same attempt is made by using terms like "parasite" to describe the babe.

Well, I'll ignore the BS "parasite" remark since it doesn't apply. But for the first 3 months or so it is referred to properly, clinically, and by definition as an "embryo". After that it is referred to properly, clinically, and by definition as a "fetus". And only after birth is it properly, clinically, and by definition as a "baby", the right-to-lifer nutjobs notwithstanding. It is commonly known that desperate people who are struggling to win an argument that they know they lost before beginning, typically resort to redefining words to help them, like "baby" and "murder" and "human being". But I don't fall for the trick, so good luck.

 

[Senter]

Due to the direction this debate has taken, I have begun to believe that my opposition in this thread is coming from a Christian fundamentalist/evangelical/born-again perspective. Am I correct?