what is a spontaneous abortion? Is it where a doctor suddendly rips a baby out of a woman's womb?
Last edited:
If X = the mother and Y = the unborn child:
- Thread starter stiggy wiggy
- Start date
There you go again. What do you mean by a woman? You seem to be suggesting ain your imaginatiom that a woman changes?
Is transgender male or female or intersex?
No, seriously, we have no idea how you imagine what you do.
No, also means as well as. So you also accept they are babies. You keep contradicting yourself.
Ok so you are talking to yourself again. To the killing of the unborn baby you responded about free speech, so that implied you equate the two. When asked about that you respond with something abstract and with a 'no' infront of it.
No trangender rights there. So what do you mean by rights? You dont support women's rights, so what do you understand by the UN Declaration if Human Rights?
You
How does a baby only become a person when it is born. How come it isnt s person when its an unborn baby? And dont cite the law because if the law changes to say the unborn baby is a person it still does not tell us what is the reason for the decision.
Also how is dismembering an unborn baby not slaughter? What do you understand by slaughter?
You havent responded to the questions stiggy put to you. A bit like the inability to know what the definition of a woman is.
How does a baby only become a person when it is born. How come it isnt s person when its an unborn baby? And dont cite the law because if the law changes to say the unborn baby is a person it still does not tell us what is the reason for the decision.
Also how is dismembering an unborn baby not slaughter? What do you understand by slaughter?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
So you think it is morally wrong to protect the lives of unborn boys and girls from having their bodies violently ripped apart.
Bull! Find me one quote from one single Englishman prior to the late twentieth century who defined a person in terms of taking a breath. And does this mean that you support the right to kill a baby AFTER birth before he or he has taken his or her first breath?
What goalposts? Identify where they were originally and to where they were moved. You ought to have known that if you're going to use trite phrases of which you don't know the meaning that II'm going to call you on it. Now get busy identifying those allegedly mobile goal posts.
The European Commission of Human Rights has insisted on single sex spaces be observed but transactivists refuse to comply. Sex is a protected characteristic of the Equality law. Many NHS staff who are transactivists say they will not comply. Do you think they should?
puddleglum
Well-known member
The primary purpose of this life is to determine how we will spend eternity.
Temujin
Well-known member
Yes, providing that they are incapable of surviving ex utero, and preferably less than 20 weeks gestation, and all legal boundaries have been observed.
Sir William Stanford (1509 – 1558) first codified English criminal law. Following him, Sir Edward Coke 1552-1634 wrote:
"If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe, or if a man beat her, whereby the child dyeth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is great misprision, and no murder; but if he childe be born alive and dyeth of the potion, battery, or other cause, this is murder; for in law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura, when it is born alive."
This is further explained in this extract from a legal essay on English Common Law:
" Legal subjectivity begins at birth if the birth is successful. It is of importance to take notice of what is required by law to acquire legal subjectivity; requirements determined by Common Law are as follows: The body of the nasciturus or foetus must be separated from the body of the mother; it is not required that the umbilical cord be cut; the child must live after being born, even for a short period of time; a child that is stillborn is not regarded as a legal person. In cases of the murder of a new born child, the child would be deemed as being born alive if it had breathed. It is also not required that the child was breathing on its own nor if the child’s body was completely separated from the mother."
There is also this quote:
“I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."
But this was said in 1973, by Wallie Amos ‘W. A.’ Criswell, President of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1968 to 1970, so I imagine it doesn't count for anything except that the outrage about abortion is a recent, political thing, nothing to do with Christian values at all.
Specifically, your dishonest use of the ambiguous term "baby". You have completely ignored what I said about labels, and have taken a label usually applied to born children, switched it to unborn children, then spluttered in faux outrage as if I was in favour of killing born children. This is dishonest. If you don't like accurate medical terminology, tough. We are discussing a legal medical procedure.
Ah ok. Worth remembering.
On the contrary, in the real world outside your imaginary woke one, the use of the word baby to describe the unborn is much more common than the use of the word fetus when wanting to kill it in abortion. You have been provided with many examples. Trying to smear the opponent is a sure sign of when one's arguments are exposed as faulty, as your are.
Temujin
Well-known member
I have said what I mean by woman in the context of this board. The person doesnt change, the context does.
Please explain why I should be motivated to reply to someone who cannot be bothered to spell check their posts? How am I expected to tell whether your garbage is intentional or merely a typo?
"ain your imaginatiom ", indeed!
Baseless response. Its relevant, with the reason given.
So since the person doesnt change, is transgender male or female?
So if the person doesnt change then its the person in the womb.
No Temujin, I was asking you the question.
Its a miscarriage. 'Spontaneous abortion' is a nonsense term used to pretend its the same as the human intervention of killing a baby
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
I see. So if the unborn boy or girl is too weak to survive it should be OK to kill them. Survival of the fittest. And to lessen any guilt you might feel about such a monstrously immoral advocacy, you arbitrarily designate them as non-persons.
Woah!! I thought you said they weren't people. Did you change your mind? Surely you're not claiming some children are not people.
Definition: "the deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony.'
So now you're saying abortion should be a felony.
You're screwing up badly here. Or maybe you're just slowly learning.
Temujin
Well-known member
It's the accepted medical term. Since your high and mighty opinion and your degree in geology allows you to declare a great deal of medical science to be "nonsense" I expect nothing else from you.
The real point is that you knew what it is, just as I knew that you knew, but you still wasted everyone's time, polluting the thread with platitudes, to the point that no one is prepared to read it anymore. Thread after thread has been killed off by this kind of silliness from you. Point-scoring is not debate. Failed point-scoring is just ennui-inducing trivia.