Have you seen God do an abortion?

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Whereas I have worked as a safeguarding manager in a college and in the legal profession. And I know as a fact, that whatever one's views on the morality of abortion, legal abortion can never be classed as murder, by definition. Claiming otherwise just makes both you, and your argument, look silly. You damage your cause by insisting on this. Not that I care, since I think that anti-abortion views are amongst the most grotesque and corrosive moral aberrations in the western world, and the more damage you do to your argument the better.
Judging by what I read here, people can quite easily separate when the law is a fool, and abortion is murder.
 

DaGeo

Active member
I am not a formal philosopher or logician, but I am perfectly well aware of what the word "abort" means. It means to stop. It is frequently used in relation to pregnancy, but also to take off and landings, and occasionally conversations. I see no ambiguity in my post, so sorry, I still don't know what you are complaining about, nor can I be bothered to follow you down a rabbit hole of logic and linguistics. The point I was making is clear enough. If you have an objection to it, then say what it is. Dressing your objection in fancy words, then sitting back without actually doing anything else, is just acting like an intellectual snob, an impression reinforced by the sycophantic reaction to your post, which as I say, is virtually content free.
Yes, I agree, you’re not a philosopher or a logician and most people would agree with you.

Of course—you might know the definition for the word “abort” but you communicate a lack of confidence when it comes to discerning the words range of meaning in context. That’s called being contextually deficient.

Most words have several different meanings that are synonymous with the word they define or, if you prefer, most words have a range of meaning

When you assert the entire range of meaning of a word into the context of a conversation that is clearly centralized on a specific contextual meaning of that word, not on its entire range meaning—you become irrelevant and make yourself look foolish.

The fact you are unable to see any ambiguity or to understand how your own improper word application makes you appear confused indicates you don’t know how to discern word meaning in context.

Worse yet, you attack the person who is trying to help you become a better poster
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

DaGeo

Active member
Waffle. Generalised, non-specific waffle thinly disguising intellectual snobbery. Your post would be more effective if you were able to give a specific example, in context of course, of the failure of conceptualisation that you accuse me of.
Thanks for your sincere compliments concerning my intellectual prowess—but flattery will get your nowhere. Nevertheless, I’ll soldier on offering any assistance necessary.

There’s no need to lash out.

I’m only trying to help.

Suggestion: you would be well served by reviewing your own posts. Start by asking yourself questions like: what’s my real objective? What do I really want to communicate and what’s my basis for posting?
Start with these and we’ll chat more
 

BMS

Well-known member
Waffle. Generalised, non-specific waffle thinly disguising intellectual snobbery. Your post would be more effective if you were able to give a specific example, in context of course, of the failure of conceptualisation that you accuse me of.
Baseless waffle. As usual.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Whereas I have worked as a safeguarding manager in a college and in the legal profession. And I know as a fact, that whatever one's views on the morality of abortion, legal abortion can never be classed as murder, by definition. Claiming otherwise just makes both you, and your argument, look silly. You damage your cause by insisting on this. Not that I care, since I think that anti-abortion views are amongst the most grotesque and corrosive moral aberrations in the western world, and the more damage you do to your argument the better.
So much for safeguarding.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Thanks for your sincere compliments concerning my intellectual prowess—but flattery will get your nowhere. Nevertheless, I’ll soldier on offering any assistance necessary.

There’s no need to lash out.

I’m only trying to help.

Suggestion: you would be well served by reviewing your own posts. Start by asking yourself questions like: what’s my real objective? What do I really want to communicate and what’s my basis for posting?
Start with these and we’ll chat more
My dear chap, I don't need advice from a neophyte like yourself, however kindly meant. You will see that the mechanics of the board provides an objective measure of how other posters see you. So much more useful than the mere navel-gazing you advocate. If you click on a posters name, you will see the number of posts they have made and the reaction score, (essentially the number of "likes). The ratio of these two numbers is a crude indication of a poster's effectiveness over time. Please get back to me when you have over hundred posts and your ratio is better than mine.
 

BMS

Well-known member
My dear chap, I don't need advice from a neophyte like yourself, however kindly meant. You will see that the mechanics of the board provides an objective measure of how other posters see you. So much more useful than the mere navel-gazing you advocate. If you click on a posters name, you will see the number of posts they have made and the reaction score, (essentially the number of "likes). The ratio of these two numbers is a crude indication of a poster's effectiveness over time. Please get back to me when you have over hundred posts and your ratio is better than mine.
Doesnt address his points.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
My dear chap, I don't need advice from a neophyte like yourself, however kindly meant. You will see that the mechanics of the board provides an objective measure of how other posters see you. So much more useful than the mere navel-gazing you advocate. If you click on a posters name, you will see the number of posts they have made and the reaction score, (essentially the number of "likes). The ratio of these two numbers is a crude indication of a poster's effectiveness over time. Please get back to me when you have over hundred posts and your ratio is better than mine.
Unless it’s really important to you how many people like you, no one pays much attention to “likes.”
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Judging by what I read here, people can quite easily separate when the law is a fool, and abortion is murder.
Fool or not, the law is the law.
And the law says that abortion is legal and that murder is not.

Nobody cares about your proprietary definition of murder because it has nothing to do with the legal consequences.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Whereas I have worked as a safeguarding manager in a college and in the legal profession.

Anti-safeguarding.
And I know as a fact, that whatever one's views on the morality of abortion, legal abortion can never be classed as murder, by definition.
So you pretend to control how people classify? lol.

Claiming otherwise just makes both you, and your argument, look silly. You damage your cause by insisting on this. Not that I care, since I think that anti-abortion views are amongst the most grotesque and corrosive moral aberrations in the western world, and the more damage you do to your argument the better.
Your "argument" is pure drama.
How is saving a baby from murder a grotesque and moral aberration?

Once again you are a discredited medical outsider.
I know all the American Catholic Hospitals and their Medical Staff do not listen to you hate based false claims.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Pro-Life Zealotry promotes forced pregnancy by law.
vs Pro-abortion zealotry
Because said zealots insist a woman must adhere to their values and therein abandon her personal right to reproductive privacy in order to adhere to the PL platform that pushes an intolerant conformist axiom.
Your zealots consider your zealotry supreme.
The extremists among the PL zealots go so far as to commit murder to mark their point. Mark,not make their point.

Pet reference to zealots.
One such domestic terror group published on their website the names, pictures, and address of abortion providers.
Now they are "terror groups"

57 million killed babies by the abortion chambers is a measure of terrorism.

They attempted to go so far as to attempt to obtain the names, image, and address of women who had obtained an abortion.

God has their names and their fornicator/adultry partner's name.

The implication being obvious when certain doctors on that terror target list were assassinated.
That form of murder is also sin.
While adults here are aware of the process of reproduction and what it entails, attempting to avoid what I actually say in order to reiterate your PLZ platform is not conducive to intellectually honest debate.

Which is why I stated I am not fond of engaging with you and others, that talk in circles in order to reiterate their implacable pov.
You don't have a POV based on medical ethics. Do no harm.

You're against abortion.
OK.
So is God the giver of life.

You're not entitled to put your politics on the neck or in the womb of any other woman.
Ditto for your politics.
Abortion is legal. By God's will, previously reviewed through scripture.
So what. What about legalizing cannibalism?

Adopt! That's proof of being Pro-Quality of life. Because that homeless newborn's mother was Pro-Choice.

PLZ's don't see that. They can't. They're blinded by their zeal to exercise control over women, using the unborn as a disguise for that fascist misogynistic zeal to put their values against the personal rights of others .

Military grade projection
It's the same zealotry that pushed and for awhile obtained prohibition against birth control.
You despise ladies who who were virgins when they got married to a male virgin?

Their argument being BC blocked the potential for life .

One stake in the PLZ's platform evaporates however.

Now you speak for GOD?


Their claim that God is Pro-Life too. The Bible eviscerates such fiction.

Jesus disagrees with you. He calls out Satan as the father of death and lies. Pro-deathers and lies go hand in hand.
I violated my earlier assertion that I was finished with this. I am now restating that and shall endeavor to commit to that promise
Side walk preaching.
All your slander and regurgitated talking points fail.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The SLED model is garbage. You trot it out here every six weeks or so, whereupon it is shown to be garbage. I personally have debunked the model at least four times, as have other posters. You never engage with or acknowledge the criticisms of the model, it sinks from view only to re-emerge, plucked from the interwebs unchanged and still garbage.
Your hand waving and tantrums do not rise to the level of debunk.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Unless it’s really important to you how many people like you, no one pays much attention to “likes.”
I quite agree. However, the person I was actually talking to may not agree. In any event, it is a more objective measure of one's effectiveness than self-absorbed self-righteousness, which he advocates.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Anti-safeguarding.

So you pretend to control how people classify? lol.


Your "argument" is pure drama.
How is saving a baby from murder a grotesque and moral aberration?

Once again you are a discredited medical outsider.
I know all the American Catholic Hospitals and their Medical Staff do not listen to you hate based false claims.
We are not talking about saving a baby from murder. We are talking about saving young women from abuse by God-bothering men.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I quite agree. However, the person I was actually talking to may not agree. In any event, it is a more objective measure of one's effectiveness than self-absorbed self-righteousness, which he advocates.
No. It really isn’t. It has about the same amount of credibility as your insults. All very subjective.
 
Top