Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

No, not coward, woman.

Btw i have given you a description and examples so you have a problem there pal.
not a pal of mine. None of my pals are intellectual cowards. Claims of description and examples, which have neither been asked for no given, are irrelevant. Can you define the word or not?
Your definition of woke is....
My definition of woman will be by return of post.

This is the fourth or fifth time you have run away from this trivial exercise. Who do you think is losing face?
 
For you, and anyone equally bewildered, the three elements of a person are: human, born, alive.

The cabbage is not human
The corpse is not alive
The unborn is not born.

Next up, the Three Times Table.
The question you are avoiding is this:

What does being born have to do with personhood? Your basic argument seems to be that location has to do with what makes someone a person. Becasue a fetus is located inside the womb, for some unexplained, mysterious reason, in your mind this entails that the fetus is not a person.

So---what does location have to do with anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
not a pal of mine. None of my pals are intellectual cowards. Claims of description and examples, which have neither been asked for no given, are irrelevant. Can you define the word or not?
Your definition of woke is....
My definition of woman will be by return of post.

This is the fourth or fifth time you have run away from this trivial exercise. Who do you think is losing face?
Already been given, plus examples, but I will humour you. Woke ideology includes concepts such as critical race theory, gender identity and equality of outcome. Its basis is cultural marxism, in short where the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is replaced by a struggle between made up people groups and their supposed privileged persecutors.

Lets hear your definition of woman along with any questions you have about woke?
 
The question you are avoiding is this:

What does being born have to do with personhood? Your basic argument seems to be that location has to do with what makes someone a person. Becasue a fetus is located inside the womb, for some unexplained, mysterious reason, in your mind this entails that the fetus is not a person.

So---what does location have to do with anything?
No, it isn't location that's important. It's being a distinct separate and independent being that isn't tied to a placenta belonging to someone else. This is not mysterious nor unexplained. It's a common view, frequently expressed here, by myself and others, that mirrors millennia of acceptance and understanding by societies throughout the world. If you think it is mysterious and unexplained, you must be living in a very deep dark hole, or be willfully blind and deaf.
 
No, it isn't location that's important. It's being a distinct separate and independent being that isn't tied to a placenta belonging to someone else. This is not mysterious nor unexplained. It's a common view, frequently expressed here, by myself and others, that mirrors millennia of acceptance and understanding by societies throughout the world. If you think it is mysterious and unexplained, you must be living in a very deep dark hole, or be willfully blind and deaf.
Good insults to my Christian brother there, for someone who complains about insults that is ;):rolleyes:

Its not mysterious or unexplained, juts plain logically wrong. Its a common view but not the only view throughout the world or history
 
Already been given, plus examples, but I will humour you. Woke ideology includes concepts such as critical race theory, gender identity and equality of outcome. Its basis is cultural marxism, in short where the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is replaced by a struggle between made up people groups and their supposed privileged persecutors.

Lets hear your definition of woman along with any questions you have about woke?
Thank you. At last.

Total rubbish of course. I don't accept your definition in the slightest as it bears no resemblance to any dictionary definition of the word. You should choose a different and more accurate expression. But at least I know what you are trying to say, even if it is at odds with more accepted definitions.

I am content to stick with an accepted dictionary definition of woman. If you have problems with it, please contact Cambridge University.
 
No, it isn't location that's important. It's being a distinct separate and independent being that isn't tied to a placenta belonging to someone else. This is not mysterious nor unexplained. It's a common view, frequently expressed here, by myself and others, that mirrors millennia of acceptance and understanding by societies throughout the world. If you think it is mysterious and unexplained, you must be living in a very deep dark hole, or be willfully blind and deaf.
This answers my question how?

All you have done is stated a bunch of irrelevant scientific facts that are not and were never in dispute by pro-lifers.

I am not asking you to describe the scientific differences between a child that is born and a child that is unborn. I am asking to to explain WHY these facts have ANYTHING to do with what makes a born child a person, vs. an unborn child a non-person.

Put another way: what does an unborn child's dependence inside his or her mother's body, the fact that it is inside his or her mother's body, tied to a placenta belonging to someone else have to do with personhood?

Why should the marker of personhood be tied to "Okay, now the child is born and is no longer attached to a placenta, is breathing on its own, and is no longer inside the mother's body?" What does that have to do with personhood. That is the question I am asking and the question you seem to be avoiding.

Throwing a bunch of scientific facts at me without explaining what those facts have to do with anything---does not answer the question.

You state:

1) An unborn child is inside a placenta and attached to their mother. A born child is neither inside nor attached to their mother. Fine. What does this have to do with personhood?

2) An unborn child is inside their mother's body and totally dependent on their mother's body to live. A born child is not. Fine. What does this have to do with personhood?

You just state these facts as though I am supposed to go "Oh, I see. I get it. A born child is not inside their mother, nor dependent on their mother's body. That is why they aren't a person. Yeah. that makes perfect sense."

What you are not explaining, and what I would like you to explain--is why these facts have anything to do with personhood.
 
Last edited:
Good insults to my Christian brother there, for someone who complains about insults that is ;):rolleyes:

Its not mysterious or unexplained, juts plain logically wrong. Its a common view but not the only view throughout the world or history
He just throws a bunch of biological scientific facts at me--and thinks this somehow answers the question. He never explains what they have to do with what makes someone a person vs. a non-person.
 
Thank you. At last.

Total rubbish of course. I don't accept your definition in the slightest as it bears no resemblance to any dictionary definition of the word. You should choose a different and more accurate expression. But at least I know what you are trying to say, even if it is at odds with more accepted definitions.
Well the dictionary definition is out of date. Whether you accept the description is irrelevant, you were given the description plus examples before but you didnt accept it.
WHY? What is it you disagree with?

I am content to stick with an accepted dictionary definition of woman. If you have problems with it, please contact Cambridge University.
Ah, no I want your definition just like you wanted mine. Your definition please

BTW. Female
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

So someone who identifies as female who cant produce ova that can be fertilised by male gamates, ie a man, isnt a woman .
 
Its the mentally retarded world of woke
On these boards---one of the few places where they do not have the upper hand or a sympathetic media that refuses to ask tough questions or otherwise force them to have to think critically about beliefs they have for far too long been allowed to peddle without challenge.
 
On these boards---one of the few places where they do not have the upper hand or a sympathetic media that refuses to ask tough questions or otherwise force them to have to think critically about beliefs they have for far too long been allowed to peddle without challenge.
Ultimately its spiritual. The world is opposed to the Kingdom of God, and we are told we will be persecuted. The secular tells us we have rights and then silences us. This is the secular part of the forum.
Bless you romishpopishorganist for your stand for the truth.
 
Well the dictionary definition is out of date. Whether you accept the description is irrelevant, you were given the description plus examples before but you didnt accept it.
WHY? What is it you disagree with?


Ah, no I want your definition just like you wanted mine. Your definition please

BTW. Female
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

So someone who identifies as female who cant produce ova that can be fertilised by male gamates, ie a man, isnt a woman .
I said, I am content with the dictionary definition I gave you. I use one of the four definitions in the link I gave you, depending on context. It seems that you are incapable of such, and can only manage one meaning and apply it out of context.. No surprise there.
 
I said, I am content with the dictionary definition I gave you. I use one of the four definitions in the link I gave you, depending on context. It seems that you are incapable of such, and can only manage one meaning and apply it out of context.. No surprise there.
And like you asked I am asking you for your explanation. You called me a coward for not giving mine.
So lets have it.
 
And like you asked I am asking you for your explanation. You called me a coward for not giving mine.
So lets have it.
I just have. It's quite simple. When talking in a biological context, such as here when discussing pregnancy and abortion, a woman is an adult female human producing eggs and possessing a uterus.

When talking in a social context about issues such as gender identity , a woman is an adult who lives as and identifies as female, though they may have been said to have a different gender at birth.

There are some contexts where these two definitions are both relevant, such as discussion over so-called female only spaces. When clarification is required the prefix cis is used to indicate an adult living as and identifying as female, who has always been identified as female. The prefix trans is used to indicate a woman who was said to be male at birth but now lives as and identifies as female.

Further clarification can be gained be reference to an individuals birth certificate or passport, though personally I can't see any reason for this in normal interaction .

Other definitions of woman include its use as a suffix as in craftswoman, though this is decreasing in use. Also as a representation of women in general, e.g. "As a woman I consider that..."

I suspect that you do not fully agree with these definitions, but tough. Words are used to convey ideas and concepts, both real and imaginary . Whether one agrees doesn't matter, the word remains useful. I have no problem using the word God, for example, even though I don't believe that the concept or idea conveyed by God. Refusing to accept the existence of the word would be ridiculous. Even more ridiculous would be refusing to accept the word Christian, on the grounds that they are living a life fe based on a non-existent concept. Christians exist, whatever I might feel about whether or not they should exist.

The same applies to transwomen. You might not believe that changing gender is possible or desirable, but the concept and idea exist and has a word to describe it. Similarly there are people who live that concept. Adults who live as and identify as women, and who are officially recognised as women, who were said to be male at birth, do exist. Not using the readily available word to describe them would be ridiculous, whatever your views on whether they should exist.
 
I said, I am content with the dictionary definition I gave you. I use one of the four definitions in the link I gave you, depending on context. It seems that you are incapable of such, and can only manage one meaning and apply it out of context.. No surprise there.
Here is another explanation of woke. This is by an atheist, so this separates you from traditional atheism into the woke camp
 
I just have. It's quite simple. When talking in a biological context,
Woman is a biological term. I have asked you what a woman is. Yes its a biological term.

When talking in a social context
no woman is a biological term. You are now suggesting it is something else. What is that?
such as gender identity
no such thing.
a woman is an adult who lives as and identifies as female,
Impossible. If it is a woman its a woman since a woman is the adult female. If its a man or someone intersex, it isn't a woman
So what you are proposing is a lie. I dont like lies
 
Back
Top