Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Abortion isnt 'reproductive' choice though. Reproductive choice is conception.
Abortion is, indeed, a reproductive choice. A woman deciding whether or not to abort is making a reproductive choice.
Abortion is the choice to murder the offspring.
Still wrong.

No its not. But dont drive then if you cant understand the world around you.
Of course it is. If having sex is consent to get pregnant, then driving is consent to crash. Both (getting pregnant and crashing) are rare events that can be a consequence of the activity (having sex and driving) despite all precautions against them.

lets undestand definitions have already been changed to accomodate the lie of gender identity before you try and use definitions.
No, they have not. Definitions change via popular usage. Much as conservatives wish it were the case, there is no massive conspiracy of the world's dictionary makers to change the meanings of words to inconvenience said conservatives.

Lets just sort out how you cant apply the definition of murder to illegal abortion before we evaluate definitions.
Already been sorted. Repeatedly - you just ignore it every time. I'll set it out yet again.

Murder is defined as the illegal killing of a human being/person.

For something to be murder it needs to be:
- an illegal act and
- the killing of a human being/person

Where abortion is legal, therefore, it cannot be murder.

Where abortion is illegal, it can be murder iff (I assume you know what that means) the fetus is a human being/person. That it is such is not demonstrated and cannot be demonstrated. If, in a particular legal jurisdiction, the fetus is legally defined as being a human being/person, then abortion would be murder if it is illegal.

Dont try and run before you can walk
Good advice. You should try taking it.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Sir, if I see a racist beating up on a minority, and I claim to be "neutral" and do nothing to help the minority, since it does not involve me, I have chosen the side of the racist.
No, you have not. Again, you need to learn what the word 'neutral' means. The effect of you remaining neutral might be the same as you having chosen the side of the racist; that does not mean you have chosen the side of the racist.

Neutrality is not, by definition or otherwise, supporting evil, as you claimed. That is absurd.

Stop playing semantics. Save that for lawyers.
I'm not. I'm pointing out your complete falsehood in your attempt to demonise pro-choicers.

Yes--you just proved my point with your euphemisms. And I get it. You MUST speak this way. Pro-abortion people can't just say they are pro-abortion! Who would support it then?
No, I just corrected your claim with facts. And no, you don't get it. Nobody is pro-abortion. The majority of people are pro-choice.

You can speak in all the euphemisms you want--but pro-lifers are not going to let you get away with it. We will be there and force abortion supporters to talk about abortion. The media refuses to think critically and ask serious questions. Well--the media is not here on this site to bail you people out. We will keep you on point and not let you change the subject.
Euphemisms are not at issue. Pro-choicers (there are, of course no 'abortion supporters') are happy to talk about abortion. Many of them are doing so on this thread. Your imaginings about the media 'bailing us out' notwithstanding, pro-choicers have no problem talking about abortion at all.

The issue, sir, is, and always has been ABORTION.
Abortion is a means whereby women's health and reproductive choices are safeguarded.

If you drive you are consenting to the POSSIBILITY of a crash, yes. In other words--the activity of driving does involve the possibility, however small, or a crash. So I am assuming the risk.
Great. So if you do anything, you are consenting to the possibility of all possible outcomes. If you drive, you are consenting to the possibility that you will crash.

However, all things being equal, a crash is NOT the natural result of driving. A crash happens when something goes wrong. It is not supposed to happen. The purpose of driving is NOT to crash.
Which, it has been repeatedly explained, is completely irrelevant. You have yet to point out how your statement changes anything about the analogy.

Sex is different. The whole purpose of sex is reproduction. When a pregnancy results from sex, nothing went wrong. Everything went right. That is what is supposed to happen. When a woman consents to sex, she consents to pregnancy. And even IF this was in anyway like your crash analaogy, fine. When a woman has sex, she chooses to assume the risk of a pregnancy.
Great. So what? When you drive to the store, you choose to assume the risk of a crash. So what? If you do have the crash, are you not allowed to take steps to remedy that crash? Get medical care? Get your car fixed? Of course you are. Just as a woman who has assumed the risk of a pregnancy is entitled to remedy that pregnancy by aborting it.

But that ISN'T the wrong thing to focus on!
Yes, it's completely the wrong thing to focus on.

How about this: why not abort the woman? How about that? How would the woman like it if her unborn child could choose to abort her?
What an astoundingly ....well, if I were to use the correct word I would violate the forum rules. Suffice to say that your questions do not merit an answer.

The woman is a victim of the abortion? So the woman dies? Her unborn child does not die, it is the woman who dies in an abortion?
I misspoke. The woman is the object of the abortion; she is the victim where abortion is denied.

This is what I love about liberals. The woman is the victim. You see the person who does not die from the procedure as the victim.
Wow, what you love about liberals is that they sometimes misspeak? Flattering...I guess.

Liberals more and more are loosing touch with reality.
Coming from a conservative, such a claim is meaningless.

I was listening to a leftist the other day state that if a man refuses to date a transgender man--that is--a man who "became" a woman through surgery, that man is transphobic. No, the man is not transphobic. It is just that--the man is not gay.
I was listening to a conservative the other day state that we should kill all Jews. so what?[/QUOTE]

Why? What is wrong with it? You can't have your cake and eat it, sir. If a child does not die when a woman "terminates" her pregnancy, then who would care about it? Why not be for it?
For the same reason that nobody is 'for' amputation or chemotherapy. Virtually everybody is 'for' the right of people to choose whether or not to have amputation or chemotherapy.

Sir, let's be clear: a great many people who CLAIM to be Christian support abortion. No true Christian supports abortion, sir.
You are not the judge of who is and who isn't a 'true Christian'. Millions (billions?) of Christians support women's right to abortion; many of them would say that you are no true Christian. You cannot prove your claim any more than they can prove theirs.

No one has a problem with any of that. It is ABORTION that we pro-lifers have a problem with.
Oh, please. Conservatives have huge problems with all of it. The reason they are opposed to abortion has a lot more to do with their neuroses about sex than anything else.

Oh? Sir, I am not the one trying to redefine terms and change the parameters of the debate. YOU ARE. People who win debates do not need to change the parameters of the debate, redefine terms and speak in euphemisms.
Great. Since pro-choicers aren't doing that, who carews?

Exactly! You are catching on!

Yes it is. The subject is murder and infanticide. THAT is what abortion IS.
To use a term you like (although you don't know what it means) abortion is neither murder nor infanticide, by definition. But you complain about the left trying to redefine terms.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It is a possibility but one takes precautions. If one doesn't take contraceptives one might get pregnant. If conception occurs a new life has been created, cant change that, and one cant change a car crash so that it hasnt happened.
So what?

But the primary purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is reproduction, so you cant object, its what happens. You can object to car crashes because the main purpose of the car is transport.
We've been over this a thousand times. Overwhelmingly, the primary purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is pleasure. Pregnancy is a very rare possible outcome. Of course you can object to that outcome, just like you can object to a car crash.

Not sure why you object to reality
Do you actually think statements like this add anything? Do they make your point? Or do you come across as a child adding "nyaah, nyaah" to your claims?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Abortion supporters for reasons that defy logic, seem unable to make the connection between sex and pregnancy.

Quite frankly, I find people on the left to be intelligent----that is to say----book smart, but lacking in common sense. That, I would say is the biggest problem with people on the left----they have absolutely no common sense.

Those on the left object to reality---because it tends to get in the way of their passions and appetites. Those on the left think one's passions and appetites are what define reality, rather than reality defining their passions and appetites.

Thus-----because the left wants sex to be nothing more than a pleasurable act between one or more consenting adults, and NOT for reproduction, they just refuse to see the connection between sex and pregnancy--and act--as though reproduction is incidental to sex at best, and at worst--bears no connection to sex.
Every single statement in the above (except for the ones about what 'find' and "would say") is demonstrably false.
 

BMS

Well-known member
As soon as you can demonstrate that that 'kill' in that commandment includes the killing of fetus, you'll have something.
As soon as you can demonstrate what you are imagining as this fetus type creature of yours we can address your problem. On the other thread I tried to help you by laying out the observable reality of the labels used to describe different developmental stages of the human being in the mother's womb, namely zygote, embryo and foetal, and you asked me to prove it. Not sure how one can prove to another who isnt colour blind that the grass is green.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Abortion is, indeed, a reproductive choice. A woman deciding whether or not to abort is making a reproductive choice.
No abortion is stopping the reproduction. The reproductive choice is, using your words, carrying the offspring to term. Abortion is a murder choice.

Still wrong.
You are wrong

Of course it is. If having sex is consent to get pregnant,
No, having sex is without contraception is consenting to the possibility of conception and the consequent responsibility of another human being.
then driving is consent to crash.
Not at all, the purpose of sex is reproduction, the purpose of driving is travel to somewhere.

No, they have not. Definitions change via popular usage.
And most people stick with the evidence based reality, so you dont follow popular usage with your child abusing ideology.
Much as conservatives wish it were the case, there is no massive conspiracy of the world's dictionary makers to change the meanings of words to inconvenience said conservatives.
No, conspiracy theories is your imagination, we have laid out the evidence of what is happening.

Already been sorted. Repeatedly - you just ignore it every time. I'll set it out yet again.

Murder is defined as the illegal killing of a human being/person.

For something to be murder it needs to be:
- an illegal act and
- the killing of a human being/person

Where abortion is legal, therefore, it cannot be murder.
And where abortion is illegal it fits the definition of murder. You are trying to say the definition doesnt apply where you dont like it, which is feelings and imagination based woke of course.

Where abortion is illegal, it can be murder iff (I assume you know what that means)
I do, but do you?
the fetus is a human being/person.
The human being has three basic developmental stages, zygote, embyo and foetal. Murder of the human being in abortion takes place at embryo stage as well. The human being at foetal stage is obviously a human being. you just cant admit that the human being goes through these stages. Until you can acknowledge observable reality nobody is going to be able to communicate with you
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Sex is different. The whole purpose of sex is reproduction.
Then why does it fail so often?
When a pregnancy results from sex,
If.
nothing went wrong.
In your opinion.
Who are you to tell anybody else that?
That is what is supposed to happen.
Again, why does it so often fail to happen?
If pregnancy were the (intended by an all-powerful, all-knowing mind) purpose of sex, wouldn't 100% of unprotected encounters result in pregnancy?
When a woman consents to sex, she consents to pregnancy.
The possibility.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
So am I. I still consider them to be a necessary but not desirable outcome. The lesser of two evils. The least worst outcome. Just like abortion.
My ideal number of abortions is zero.

But then, my ideal number of amputations is zero, and I am not opposed to amputations.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No, they have not. Definitions change via popular usage. Much as conservatives wish it were the case, there is no massive conspiracy of the world's dictionary makers to change the meanings of words to inconvenience said conservatives.
Weirdly, they treat dictionaries like Bibles - commandments from on high regarding what words mean.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
There goes the death penalty, and self-defence, and participation in war.
So typical of abortion supporters. Place things like abortion on the exact same moral plane as war, self defense and the death penalty. :rolleyes:

And here is the thing: I have yet to meet an abortion supporter who actually supports the death penalty. This has always confounded me. On the one hand, abortion supporters want us to believe that an innocent unborn child is of no value, has no rights, and is not worth protecting and defending. Then, the exact same person turns around, and with a straight face, attempts to assert that those guilty of capital crimes----have rights, their lives have value and their rights are worth protecting and defending. :ROFLMAO: Yes, I am ROFL! You want me to believe that I should NOT care about the life of an innocent unborn child, but I SHOULD care about the life of a capital criminal? You want to explain that ridiculous logic to me?

Sir, if I am not supposed to care about the lives of innocent unborn children, it is difficult to understand why I should care about the life of a capital criminal, or, for that matter, anyone but my own life and that of those I love.

In short, sir, if you support abortion, you have absolutely no basis on which to tell anyone--that they should be against the death penalty, war, or self defense.

Finally, you should note that some Christians adopt a "consistent life ethic" whereby they are against the death penalty, war, abortion, etc. So--for those Christians--they would actually agree with your statement.
(And assisted dying, though I am 1000% certain that you are opposed to that...)
Yes--I am from a Christian moral perspective. Suicide is a grave moral evil.

Do I support assisted dying--that is---assisted suicide. No. At the same time, becasue it involves a consenting adult who presumably is of sound mind and with a competent medical professional, I feel there are bigger fish to fry. In other words--I do not support it, at the same time I am not going to expend energy fighting it.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Not by the legal definitions of the terms, which are the only ones that relate to legal sanctions, and thus, the only ones that matter.
Why do you keep bringing up the law? So the law does not recognize murder as murder when it takes the form of abortion. That doesn't mean abortion is not murder, it just means legally the law does not recognize abortion as murder.
 
Top