Chew Toy Apologetic*

radvermin

Active member
Sure. With no equivocation from me, the sanitization of language does happen in the abortion debate. It's justified to the extent that the language is medically-correct, but it's easy to dehumanize the fetus, too.

The only thing I will say is that the reverse also happens in this debate. People call a 1 day old fetus a baby or a child, to over-humanize a stage of development in which fully 25% of fetuses never survive to grow a heart or a brain, or eyes or limbs. Both sides use language strategically.


As I've said, I value your input here in the forums because it's almost always thoughtful. This thread just seemed atypical - but I wont belabor the point; its water under the bridge. I hope I answered your OP productively. Let me know if you think there still is something that wasn't addressed.
First, I think that my point for this thread still stands. As I've engaged with individuals here people focus on the mother. Fine. However there is seemingly a complete disregard for the human life growing in the womb. All the arguments used, out of necessity do not take into consideration the fetus. Even saying "it's a clump of cells" is used to take the view off of the life and onto the mother.
Hence why my opening paragraph talked about someone who doesn't exist.
This is different than the pro-life arguments because they take into account the mother needs to be protected/cared for as well. For example, Jeff Durban from Apologia Church is the most extreme in terms of being pro-life, however he and his church care for the mothers who decide not to get an abortion.

It also made me think of something else. I'm willing to say that there are instances where an abortion is 100% justifiable. Where the mom will die and the baby will die either way unless an abortion happens. So I'm willing to move in a reasonable direction, and my worldview allows for that.
Can that be said of those who are pro-choice. Are there instances where a mother does not have the right to choose to have an abortion? Is there even a willingness to consider that? Does a pro-choice position have a worldview that excludes that as an option? I'm not asking for an answer, just something to think about.

Second, yes both sides can use language strategically, which means that my point is correct. It does matter what we call the human life* growing in the womb. (*Scientifically it's got human DNA and it's living, hence "human life".)

Third, regarding what you said first, "both sides use language"... but strategically or correctly (or both)? How do we know which one is correct? It's easy to say we can go to the doctors. That's an option. However it's also an option to ask the mothers. A mom who looses a child, however developed it may be, does feel a loss and tends to treat it as though they've lost a child rather than a lump of cells.
So, I've asked a lot of questions, but here's a key one. Is the definition of what is growing in the mother purely a scientific one or also a metaphysical one? I would say that trying to figure out what is a "baby" is a little more metaphysical than just purely scientific, which means we cannot 100% rely on what doctors say (though they're a good guide).
I would also argue that our society is not equipped to define what a baby is, as we cannot even define what a man or woman is, as evidenced by the documentary "What Is A Woman?"

Just my thoughts.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
First, I think that my point for this thread still stands. As I've engaged with individuals here people focus on the mother. Fine. However there is seemingly a complete disregard for the human life growing in the womb. All the arguments used, out of necessity do not take into consideration the fetus. Even saying "it's a clump of cells" is used to take the view off of the life and onto the mother.
Hence why my opening paragraph talked about someone who doesn't exist.
This is different than the pro-life arguments because they take into account the mother needs to be protected/cared for as well. For example, Jeff Durban from Apologia Church is the most extreme in terms of being pro-life, however he and his church care for the mothers who decide not to get an abortion.

It also made me think of something else. I'm willing to say that there are instances where an abortion is 100% justifiable. Where the mom will die and the baby will die either way unless an abortion happens. So I'm willing to move in a reasonable direction, and my worldview allows for that.
Can that be said of those who are pro-choice. Are there instances where a mother does not have the right to choose to have an abortion? Is there even a willingness to consider that? Does a pro-choice position have a worldview that excludes that as an option? I'm not asking for an answer, just something to think about.
Yes. When the reason behind the abortion is sex selection. This is illegal where I live, and rightly so. The ultimate rationale behind legal abortion is that it is good for a society. The ability to select sex is not good for society as a whole, hence the reason that it is illegal to abort pregnancies for this purpose, except in certain circumstances such as avoiding inherited disease.
Second, yes both sides can use language strategically, which means that my point is correct. It does matter what we call the human life* growing in the womb. (*Scientifically it's got human DNA and it's living, hence "human life".)
I agree. A label is not the object being labelled. Some labels carry baggage, others less so. A label with as little baggage is possible should be used where possible. It doesn't alter the state of the unborn, but it does defuse some of the unnecessary emotion. That is why I personally favour the simple scientific label of "foetus". I am content with unborn child, however, and fully recognise that we are talking about a human life, albeit one with no rights.
Third, regarding what you said first, "both sides use language"... but strategically or correctly (or both)? How do we know which one is correct? It's easy to say we can go to the doctors. That's an option. However it's also an option to ask the mothers. A mom who looses a child, however developed it may be, does feel a loss and tends to treat it as though they've lost a child rather than a lump of cells.
So, I've asked a lot of questions, but here's a key one. Is the definition of what is growing in the mother purely a scientific one or also a metaphysical one? I would say that trying to figure out what is a "baby" is a little more metaphysical than just purely scientific, which means we cannot 100% rely on what doctors say (though they're a good guide).
I would also argue that our society is not equipped to define what a baby is, as we cannot even define what a man or woman is, as evidenced by the documentary "What Is A Woman?"

Just my thoughts.
Again I agree, up to a point. What makes the unborn child more than a biological object is the attitude of the mother. If, as is usually the case, she feels that this is a baby, treats it as a baby and refers to it as a baby, then clearly she should should be supported in that view. If on the other hand there is no maternal feeling, but rather dread and anxiety. If she is desperate to rid herself of the encumbrance growing inside her, then that too should be respected. The actual biological entity is the same. What alters is the attitude of the mother. It is, after all, her choice.
 

DaGeo

Active member
First, I think that my point for this thread still stands. As I've engaged with individuals here people focus on the mother. Fine. However there is seemingly a complete disregard for the human life growing in the womb. All the arguments used, out of necessity do not take into consideration the fetus. Even saying "it's a clump of cells" is used to take the view off of the life and onto the mother.
Hence why my opening paragraph talked about someone who doesn't exist.
This is different than the pro-life arguments because they take into account the mother needs to be protected/cared for as well. For example, Jeff Durban from Apologia Church is the most extreme in terms of being pro-life, however he and his church care for the mothers who decide not to get an abortion.

It also made me think of something else. I'm willing to say that there are instances where an abortion is 100% justifiable. Where the mom will die and the baby will die either way unless an abortion happens. So I'm willing to move in a reasonable direction, and my worldview allows for that.
Can that be said of those who are pro-choice. Are there instances where a mother does not have the right to choose to have an abortion? Is there even a willingness to consider that? Does a pro-choice position have a worldview that excludes that as an option? I'm not asking for an answer, just something to think about.

Second, yes both sides can use language strategically, which means that my point is correct. It does matter what we call the human life* growing in the womb. (*Scientifically it's got human DNA and it's living, hence "human life".)

Third, regarding what you said first, "both sides use language"... but strategically or correctly (or both)? How do we know which one is correct? It's easy to say we can go to the doctors. That's an option. However it's also an option to ask the mothers. A mom who looses a child, however developed it may be, does feel a loss and tends to treat it as though they've lost a child rather than a lump of cells.
So, I've asked a lot of questions, but here's a key one. Is the definition of what is growing in the mother purely a scientific one or also a metaphysical one? I would say that trying to figure out what is a "baby" is a little more metaphysical than just purely scientific, which means we cannot 100% rely on what doctors say (though they're a good guide).
I would also argue that our society is not equipped to define what a baby is, as we cannot even define what a man or woman is, as evidenced by the documentary "What Is A Woman?"

Just my thoughts.
Am I correct to conclude that you are attempting to define a baby without reference to the One who made the baby ?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Am I correct to conclude that you are attempting to define a baby without reference to the One who made the baby ?
Someone should have explained to you by now. In mammalian biology, of which we are a part, in takes two to "make a baby".
 

BMS

Well-known member
Yes. When the reason behind the abortion is sex selection. This is illegal where I live, and rightly so. The ultimate rationale behind legal abortion is that it is good for a society. The ability to select sex is not good for society as a whole, hence the reason that it is illegal to abort pregnancies for this purpose, except in certain circumstances such as avoiding inherited disease.

I agree. A label is not the object being labelled. Some labels carry baggage, others less so. A label with as little baggage is possible should be used where possible. It doesn't alter the state of the unborn, but it does defuse some of the unnecessary emotion. That is why I personally favour the simple scientific label of "foetus". I am content with unborn child, however, and fully recognise that we are talking about a human life, albeit one with no rights.

Again I agree, up to a point. What makes the unborn child more than a biological object is the attitude of the mother. If, as is usually the case, she feels that this is a baby, treats it as a baby and refers to it as a baby, then clearly she should should be supported in that view. If on the other hand there is no maternal feeling, but rather dread and anxiety. If she is desperate to rid herself of the encumbrance growing inside her, then that too should be respected. The actual biological entity is the same. What alters is the attitude of the mother. It is, after all, her choice.
Then it isnt my body my choice. If the woman has the right to abort then she doesnt have to mention the sex of the offspring.
If she can abort then she can abort, people in different countries are just kidding themselves with limits of weeks to terminate and banning it on the grounds of sex.
Besides in the next breath they will be saying sex assigned at birth to support the imaginary gender identity lie.
People just make stuff up to make themselves feel better and suit their selfishness.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Someone should have explained to you by now. In mammalian biology, of which we are a part, in takes two to "make a baby".
Oh dear no. I took the One to mean God, that is why the uppercase O. When it comes to biology you cant the difference between the man and woman who created the offspring.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Oh dear no. I took the One to mean God, that is why the uppercase O.
God is reputed to have engendered a child once. Since then, and in the real world it takes two. Or if you want to delve into IVF, several people.
When it comes to biology you cant the difference between the man and woman who created the offspring.
Two posts in a row, airing your irrelevant obsession with gender identity. Either get over yourself or do a course and learn some facts. Either way, please try to keep your replies relevant to the post you are moaning at, even if you cannot manage to stay on track with the thread as a whole. If you want to talk on this subject, and it's obvious that you do, since you talk about nothing else, please do so in an appropriate thread on an appropriate board. Then you might receive appropriate responses.
 

BMS

Well-known member
God is reputed to have engendered a child once.
Sorry, what do you mean? If you mean Jesus, no. In the beginning God said let us make mankind in our image

Since then, and in the real world it takes two.
Not necessarily, it specifically takes a man and a woman. Indeed, God's image is a man with a woman.
Or if you want to delve into IVF, several people.
but still the sperm from a man and the ovum from a woman, if you want to be specific and precise.

Two posts in a row, airing your irrelevant obsession with gender identity.
No, one post demonstrating how the gender identity ideology is a lie, the other merely referring to the reality of biological sex which you obviously took as an attack on the imaginary gender identity lie.
Either get over yourself or do a course and learn some facts.
So what is a woman? Defined by biological sex or by what you and a few others imagine and feel it is? YOU are the one who needs to acknowledge some facts.

Either way, please try to keep your replies relevant to the post you are moaning at, even if you cannot manage to stay on track with the thread as a whole.
So bad luck
If you want to talk on this subject, and it's obvious that you do, since you talk about nothing else, please do so in an appropriate thread on an appropriate board. Then you might receive appropriate responses.
As I have told you many times before, we cant discuss two different things assuming they are the same, we need to establish what it is we are talking about first. That you keep objecting to it is you is your intransigence.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Sorry, what do you mean? If you mean Jesus, no. In the beginning God said let us make mankind in our image

Not necessarily, it specifically takes a man and a woman. Indeed, God's image is a man with a woman.
but still the sperm from a man and the ovum from a woman, if you want to be specific and precise.

No, one post demonstrating how the gender identity ideology is a lie, the other merely referring to the reality of biological sex which you obviously took as an attack on the imaginary gender identity lie.
So what is a woman? Defined by biological sex or by what you and a few others imagine and feel it is? YOU are the one who needs to acknowledge some facts.

So bad luck
As I have told you many times before, we cant discuss two different things assuming they are the same, we need to establish what it is we are talking about first. That you keep objecting to it is you is your intransigence.
Anyone who describes three quarters of the known world as "you and a few others" reveals just how deranged their thinking is and how little they need to be taken seriously.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Anyone who describes three quarters of the known world as "you and a few others" reveals just how deranged their thinking is and how little they need to be taken seriously.
Anyone who thinks you and a few others represents three quarters of the known world is misinformed
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Anyone who thinks you and a few others represents three quarters of the known world is misinformed
Nevertheless everyone knows what gender of entity is, and that everyone has one. Everyone knows the difference between a trans woman and a man. And everyone knows that thee gender identity issue has nothing whatever to do with abortion. No more than anorexia has for that matter.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Nevertheless everyone knows what gender of entity is, and that everyone has one. Everyone knows the difference between a trans woman and a man. And everyone knows that thee gender identity issue has nothing whatever to do with abortion. No more than anorexia has for that matter.
No they don't, several posters here have been asking you what you think it means. Do you know what is going on chap?
What do you understand by 'everyone'? Not the medical profession, scientists, clinical psychologists and biologist signatories of the Nettie Project, but may you a couple of others here and the expertise of the Drag Queen Fiffy McLabia with a polytechnic certificate in 16th Century Dutch Tapestry
 

Temujin

Well-known member
No they don't, several posters here have been asking you what you think it means. Do you know what is going on chap?
Really? Then you will have no problem linking to one of these "several posters", who aren't you posting in your customary plural.
What do you understand by 'everyone'?
Every government, public and private organisation. Every emergency service. Every school, university, business, political party and religious group. You know, everybody.
Not the medical profession, scientists, clinical psychologists and biologist signatories of the Nettie Project,
Please count the signatories of the Nuttie Project (Project? Ha! It's just a list of wannabees trying to get in the public eye by being edgy) who actually are scientists, medics or psychologists. You will find they are outnumbered by taxi drivers, "activists" and maths teachers. The Nuttie Project was formed in a mistaken belief that it could emulate Project Steve. It has failed abysmally. The only place it ever gets mentioned is here, by you.
but may you a couple of others here and the expertise of the Drag Queen Fiffy McLabia with a polytechnic certificate in 16th Century Dutch Tapestry
Gosh, how clever of you, to make up grossly insulting names to cover up the complete absence of evidence, logic or even common humanity in your singular and very isolated stance.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
It is in her body, so she should have the choice as to whether or not it remains there.
But HOW did it get in her body? Did it just magically show up one day? Did a stork put it there? HOW did it get there?

You seem to want to continue to pretend there is no connection between a woman's choice to have unprotected sex and a pregnancy. But there IS a connection. It is as if you think sex and pregnancy are entirely and completely unrelated. That when a woman has unprotected sex and a pregnancy happens--you are truly surprised. "How did that happen" you wonder.

Well, sir, you see, when two people love each other very much....

Didn't you parents ever explain this to you?

What do you THINK happens when people do not make responsible choices for themselves, sir? What do you think happens when people engage in unprotected sex, sir?

Oh, well, just kill the child--that will solve the problem. It never seems to occur to the abortion supporter that the child isn't the problem. The problem was not having sex responsibly. The child is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. But you know how it is with liberals--they are always conflating symptoms with actual problems. They think treating the symptom will cure the problem. They do not seem to understand that--doing so is like taking aspirin for a headache and thinking that because the pain went away, the problem is solved. The pain isn't the problem. The problem--is why is their pain in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
But HOW did it get in her body? Did it just magically show up one day? Did a stork put it there? HOW did it get there?
She had unprotected sex.
You seem to want to continue to pretend there is no connection between a woman's choice to have unprotected sex and a pregnancy. But there IS a connection. It is as if you think sex and pregnancy are entirely and completely unrelated. That when a woman has unprotected sex and a pregnancy happens--you are truly surprised. "How did that happen" you wonder.
You are utterly wrong - I acknowledge the connection.

What I do not acknowledge is that pregnancy must necessarily result in carriage to term.
What do you THINK happens when people do not make responsible choices for themselves, sir? What do you think happens when people engage in unprotected sex, sir?

Oh, well, just kill the child--that will solve the problem.
As long as it hasn't been born, yes - that does solve the problem.

See? You do understand.
It never seems to occur to the abortion supporter that the child isn't the problem. The problem was not having sex responsibly.
The key word being was.
That is no longer the problem; the problem now is the unwanted pregnancy.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Really? Then you will have no problem linking to one of these "several posters", who aren't you posting in your customary plural.
Do I need to? Ever heard of Nedsk?

Every government, public and private organisation.
No not every. for example the Dept of Education issued guidelines that gender identity should not be mentioned with children and material from organisations promoting it should not be used. Many schools have ignored this, which is bad news for them now the tide is turning and the mass sanctioned child abuse is being exposed. So no, not everyone. Sure the cancer of gender identity has infiltrated to a great extent, but the tide is turning as people can see from the evidence I and others here post.

Please count the signatories of the Nuttie Project (Project?
Well they are qualified in their field unlike you.

Gosh, how clever of you, to make up grossly insulting names to cover up the complete absence of evidence, logic or even common humanity in your singular and very isolated stance.
Unlike 'Nuttie' which isnt an insult, right ;):) These people are experts in their fields of medicine, clinical psychology and biology etc, unlike you.
 

radvermin

Active member
Am I correct to conclude that you are attempting to define a baby without reference to the One who made the baby ?
Nope.
Hence why I said "I would say that trying to figure out what is a "baby" is a little more metaphysical than just purely scientific..." ;)
 
Top