How many men have no clue

a reply to: VierEyes

What have I said that is hateful?

https://www.abovetopsecret.com...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: VierEyes

What have I said that is hateful?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TheRedneck

You linky no worky

a reply to: TheRedneck
Red, check your link. That is the new topics for today.

On a side note, don't you hate it when you lose an entire post that you think you did a job on?
Was on my phone and lost my response, to one of your post. Back to the drawing board.....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

First breath, the "cutting of the cord"....

A certificate of live birth. A birthday and an age.

So you agree.
Other than legalese.
It's the lawful killing of a human beng.

It's the lawful killing of a non-viable, potential human being.

"potential human being", only because you deny science.

a reply to: Quadrivium

It's like I said before. An apple blossom is not an apple, it's not an apple seed and it certainly isn't an apple tree. But, an apple blossom is 100% part of an apple tree's life cycle.

An acorn isn't an oak tree, but it is 100% oak.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Linky fixeyed. Thankey. ATSey linkey systemy buggy. My badey.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

don't you hate it when you lose an entire post that you think you did a job on?

If I had a nickel for every time that has happened to me, I wouldn't be able to move because of all the nickels.

Progress! I don't think I ever had a case where I was actually talking to someone and suddenly everything I said was erased from existence. Sacrifices have to be made, I guess.

Hang in there; you'll get it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a quantitative growth element involved and the results may be positive (your life begins, you grow, experience life, etc) or negative (aging, bad health, body shutting down, etc).

Yes, there is a quantitative element to development. However, the term itself connotates a qualitative element as well. The very term indicates that the quantitative aspect it refers to is not algebraic but positive.

When a family member is dying in the hospital, after all attempts to help them have failed, I hope you do not decide to tell their loved ones they are "only developing." That would not only be inaccurate, but a horrific insult as well. Not even a medical researcher would choose to describe the situation that way; they might refer to the patient as "regressing," but certainly not as "developing."

Humans follow their life cycle, from conception through death. Humans develop from conception through maturity, which is a positive progression toward their optimal condition. After maturity, humans begin to regress away from that optimal condition until the human body can no longer support its own life functions. Again, definitions are important.

TheRedneck

I take get your point, if people are not aware of the stages of the life cycle and that it continually develops from the moment of conception, until it ends. It could/will, and did cause confusion (more progress).

I will change that to "We continually change, from the time our life cycle starts (conception), until it ends (death).
I believe I said something like this in the beginning, but changed it after reading a paper on human growth and development.

Thank you and apologies to X.

ETA:

I hope you do not decide to tell their loved ones they are "only developing."

Nope, would never dream of doing such.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I will change that to "We continually change, from the time our life cycle starts (conception), until it ends (death).

I accept that change as accurate.

Thank you and apologies to X.

No problem. I have spent my entire life immersed in science (it and God are the only two things that have never let me down, including myself). The words are important.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, every one of her posts, as well as mine, I suppose, are full of hate.

Mr. Misogyny says what?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Linky fixeyed. Thankey. ATSey linkey systemy buggy. My badey.

TheRedneck

Which post is hateful. I see no hate. If something were hateful you'd have removed it.

a reply to: VierEyes

Those who hate rarely can see their own hate.

Sad. May you someday see.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: VierEyes

Those who hate rarely can see their own hate.

Sad. May you someday see.

TheRedneck

The elements of irony flash like a sign in the window of a 7/11.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Which time? You seem to be using AugustusMasonicus' portable goal posts some... here's what you said about the legal aspect earlier in this thread:

Which time?
The post you were replying to. I posted and you posted a different wording, of the same point, as a rebuttal.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not going to debate a moving target. I won't play that game with AM, and I won't play that game with you.

I am not moving the goal post.
I am not playing games.
I am stating facts, unless you ask my opinion.

Pick a point and stick to it

I have, it never changed.
Abortion is the legal, premeditated killing of another human being.

you are either arguing the legal aspect of the issue or you are not.

I am not, and I will not argue the legal aspect of what ever law you are talking about (I have asked several times for the particular law(s) you are referring to), as I can not change them. I can, however, state the facts that I know.

ALL laws must apply to ALL

I think this is where the confusion is coming in.
"All Laws must apply to All"
They don't, not to all human beings at least (I am not arguing law, this is just a simple fact).
So, why don't I argue the law? I can not change it.
In order to change law, you must first change hearts and minds. This can be seen throughout history.
In order to change hearts and minds you have to state facts. It will take a loooong time (as we can see with slavery) but people will eventually catch on and laws (which ever ones we are discussing, do you mean the 14th Amendment?) will change.

I did not look up any numbers; I have known and heard of, often in my area, problem pregnancies for decades. The majority of attempts at pregnancy never even make it to the point where anyone knows the woman was pregnant. More often, the fertilized egg cell does not implant or has such a serious defect that it simply dies within hours or days. That's what the menstrual cycle is for: to flush any residual "waste" from failed attempts. Dead fetal matter in the uterus tends to set up infections, which can easily be fatal unless treated. That is a very sensitive and vulnerable area for infections.

In these cases, a human being died a natural death.

We are talking about ALL pregnancies

No, no "we" are not.
I have consistently said from the very beginning, "In 99% of abortion cases". Never once have I or would I mention all pregnancies.

hat is the "faulty generalization" going on here: you are taking a statement which may be true for late-term pregnancies and trying to generalize it to apply to all pregnancies.

When I say, "In 99% of abortions", what do you think I am referring to?
+/-1% of abortions are due to the mother's life being in danger and rape. There may be some other fringe examples and we may be able to move that up to 2.5%, but mostly, abortion is being used for convenience and that falls right in line with Slaver and Nazi mentality. These people are using the very few to justify the many, a Faulty Generalization.
ANYONE who believes it is OK, to kill another living human being, at any time of their life, for convenience, falls into the same spectrum, they have the same skewed mindset as the Nazis and Slavers.

You are now denying reality; a real shame since you made such a good argument before.

I am not denying reality and my argument has not changed (I have changed some of the wording, to cause less confusion in future debates/discussions, thanks to you and others).

Just as now, in the future I will say, "In 99% of abortion cases, abortion is the legal, premeditated killing of another human being".
See, progress. This is a good thread.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You play games. I'm not interested in what you consider hate if you can't even point it out.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, every one of her posts, as well as mine, I suppose, are full of hate.

I don't think they are all full of hate, some are, the others are just selfish anger for being born a biological woman.
That mixed with a little of Gus's "scumbaggery"- The idea that human beings were once killed because they were thought of as being less human and were only property.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Abortion is the legal, premeditated killing of another human being.

Yes, it is. But then you say

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am stuck on abortion on demand.
It is MURDER in every way, except legally.
It is the premeditated killing of another human being.

My point is that the law decides what is legal and is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, and does not have to be premeditated. First Degree Murder is premeditated. Second and third degree (manslaughter) do not require premeditation. Why? In all murder cases, someone has killed another human. What makes one killing worse than another?

The answer is that nothing makes one killing worse than another. The difference is the circumstances the killing occurred under. The same applies to abortion. I, like you, believe that a late term abortion should be murder unless the mother's life is in danger. But I cannot say the same about an early pregnancy. The number of different circumstances that can and do surround an early term pregnancy are much too varied for such a generalized answer.

"All Laws must apply to All"
They don't, not to all human beings at least (I am not arguing law, this is just a simple fact).

Then the law that does not apply to all is not a just law, and should be resisted.

So, why don't I argue the law? I can not change it.

Defeatist attitude. Laws are made by legislators, who are in turn elected by the people. If enough people make their wishes known, the legislators will vote the will of the people to keep their jobs. If not, if people just decide "well, that's the law and I can't do anything about it," they will not. Especially at the state level, laws can be changed.

In order to change law, you must first change hearts and minds. This can be seen throughout history.

I completely agree! And that is why abortion will never become as widespread again as it has been in the last 50 years. Those who want it so common are turning away those hearts and minds, as we see in this very thread.

But you are doing the same when you want the rights of a zygote to overrule the rights of a woman before she even knows it exists. There is a balance to be struck here.

mostly, abortion is being used for convenience

I agree and that is the problem. And a common tactic of those who promote abortion is to say the child is not living, not human, or one of the woman's organs. That is why I agreed with you on the terminology.

That, however, is established. Now the question becomes, when does the woman's right to determine when she will have a child over-ride the right of the unborn child to live. Sookiechacha says right up until the head is about to exit the birth canal; Xtrozero says fairly late in the process; I say much earlier but with exceptions; you say never unless there is imminent death for the mother or in the case of minor rape. We disagree, but as long as we are all speaking the same language, we can find a solution. I simply cannot move far enough to agree on that point with you or Sookiechacha.

And for that you insult me?

Yeah, hearts and minds indeed... maybe I am weird this way, but I don't tend to try to agree with those who insult me.

Just as now, in the future I will say, "In 99% of abortion cases, abortion is the legal, premeditated killing of another human being".
See, progress. This is a good thread.

I agree and that is progress. I think it drives home the point without any errors in definition. There's not even any need to use the "99%" reference: ALL abortions, without exception, are the legal, premeditated killing of another human being. Now, when is that acceptable?

TheRedneck

a reply to: VierEyes

You play games.

No, this is no game. This is life and death, and to be honest, your words, spoken to the wrong person on the street, could place you in great danger. I have seen many people left lying in a puddle of their own blood over such a statement about someone in their family. On the Internet, that cannot happen; you are physically safe. But the offense and the hatred is still there, like it or not.

You do not get to tell me what I should consider as an insult and what I should not. Maybe in your mind you are the Queen of All Things Social, but outside your head that is not true. I already told you earlier that your posts were insulting and offensive to me, and you doubled down. Now you want me to waste more time telling you what you should double down on to offend me?

LOL, that's not gonna happen. Suck it up and live with it.

I don't know what made you so hateful. Maybe you just heard too much propaganda; maybe you had a bad pregnancy; maybe someone in your family had a bad pregnancy; maybe you had man problems and this is your way of "getting even" with all men; maybe you just hate children; maybe you are just that self-centered. I don't know and to be honest I don't care. I just hope that you somehow someday realize how hateful you really sound.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're a legend in your own mind. Congratulations on sounding tough and all-knowing.

I asked a simple question, which you refuse to answer. What do you consider hateful about my posts? You can't even answer the question.

You are playing games.