pro-life people, is abortion okay here?

[sangha]

Sangha is like a pitbull, just won't let go.

Listen dude, plenty of cultures consider murder to be wrong even without religion of any kind being involved.

And another wingnut whiffs on providing a non-religious justification for opposing abortions

 

[sangha]

No... we are talking about my opinion...

This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion

we were never discussing the legal definition.

I guess you don't care about the Constitution.[/QUOTE]


Then why did you question my definition of Child to start this whole thing you stupid fuck?

Constitution doesn't comment on the definition of child.. what is your point?[/QUOTE]

Our legal system, as defined by the Constitution, defines a person as someone who has been born. Under our Constitution, only "persons" have rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, THE definition is different than yours

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \ˈchī(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jaṭhara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \ˈchī(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

child
n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.

See also: minor

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online

Child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.

And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

 

[sangha]

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online

Child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.

And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

I guess you're another one who doesn't know how to use a dictionary. That's why you don't understand why one definition can contradict another

 

[Nonelitist]

I showed you definitions from multiple sources saying a "CHILD" can be defined as an unborn fetus.

What the hell are you trying to say? Make some sense little boy.

 

[xotoxi]

Most people would agree that rape, incest, and/or the life of the mother are compelling arguments for an abortion. This poor child suffered all three.

And while this story is disturbing and shocking, I am certain it happens a whole lot more than we know.

I'm sure it does happen a lot more than we know.

The combined population of KY and WVa is 6,133,890!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.

That's weird cuz I know some people who don't believe in God, but they are certainly against murder, and heck some of them DO consider abortion to be murder, even though God didn't tell them that.

The fact that you know lots of stupid people does not surprise anyone, I'm sure.

But I noticed that you couldn't justify the "abortion is murder" without bringing God into it.

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.

 

[Nonelitist]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

Lets see how the weasel squirms around this one.

 

[sangha]

Sangha,

You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said. If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.

I did not attribute any statements or beliefs to you besides the ones you have claimed for yourself.

This is just an excuse because there is no way to justify opposition to abortions without bringing God into it

 

[sangha]

Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wire…is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb>
— child·less \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child : pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online

Child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.

And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

No, you're just proving that you not only don't know how to read a dictionary, you don't know how to read a post.

Dictionaries contradict themselves regularly.

 

[Nonelitist]

Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary

And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online


And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

No, you're just proving that you not only don't know how to read a dictionary, you don't know how to read a post.

Dictionaries contradict themselves regularly.

So are you saying that these dictionary are not giving a correct definition of Child as including a fetus?

It is becoming more and more obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about.

 

[sangha]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father

Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

 

[Nonelitist]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father

Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.

 

[sangha]

That's weird cuz I know some people who don't believe in God, but they are certainly against murder, and heck some of them DO consider abortion to be murder, even though God didn't tell them that.

The fact that you know lots of stupid people does not surprise anyone, I'm sure.

But I noticed that you couldn't justify the "abortion is murder" without bringing God into it.

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.

LOL!!!

I don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see is another moron claiming there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

Try again

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it, so you are trying to divert with nonsense questions



Give it your best shot




I'm sure there are plenty of atheist morons in the anti-choice mob. I still don't see a justification for being opposed to abortion without bringing God into it




My expressing my opinion does not limit the ability of the anti-choice Talibornagains to express their opinion. You lied when you claimed the pro-choice movement was trying to limit the talibornagains right to express their opinion.

And now you're running away from what you actually said and trying to pretend you whined about the pro-choice criticisms of the anti-choice crowd.

It's you who is trying to limit the expressions of opinions by lying and mischaracterizing the pro-choicers criticism as censorship.

Where did I bring God into it?

So far I have not even expressed my personal views on abortion, which makes you a liar, and you even lie that I am defending my position by claiming that God said so.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms, the fact that you are unable to wrap your unschooled intellect around a concept does not prove that that concept does not exist. In other words, it does not matter if you believe it, because your belief does not affect reality.

I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation

The only one who is even approaching denying people their free speech here is you. You are the one claiming that these people cannot have an opinion that you find incomprehensible, all they have tried to do is point out that you are an idiot because you think they are saying something you are not.

You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it

Show me where I said anyone is trying to keep anyone from saying anything. The pro abortion side likes to lie, that does not equate to them trying to keep the other side from talking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. It all boils down to being pro Constitution or anti Constitution. Either you are a strict conservative and believe in limiting the power of government or you want a liberal interpretation to allow government more power.
A liberal interpretation of the Constitution gives the power to government to stop SOME women, and allow the wealthy ones, from having an abortion.
A strict conservative never wants to give power to government, which always abuses it, and take away the rights of the people.

Bullshit

Wingnuts think that taking the power to choose away from people, and giving it to the govt, is how to limit the govts power and get the govt out of people's lives

I just said his argument is bullshit. That has nothing to do with my position, which you might understand if you ever bothered to ask my position.

 

[sangha]

Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove I cannot read?

No, you're just proving that you not only don't know how to read a dictionary, you don't know how to read a post.

Dictionaries contradict themselves regularly.

So are you saying that these dictionary are not giving a correct definition of Child as including a fetus?

It is becoming more and more obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about.

No, I'm saying it's not the right definition for this discussion, just as the common use definition of the word "consideration" has no relevance to a legal discussion of contracts

 

[Nonelitist]

No, you're just proving that you not only don't know how to read a dictionary, you don't know how to read a post.

Dictionaries contradict themselves regularly.

So are you saying that these dictionary are not giving a correct definition of Child as including a fetus?

It is becoming more and more obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about.

No, I'm saying it's not the right definition for this discussion, just as the common use definition of the word "consideration" has no relevance to a legal discussion of contracts

You questioned my use of the word Child to describe a fetus. We were not discussing the legal definition.
Prove me wrong or shut your idiot mouth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.

Another example of blind faith, denying that facts exist because doing so would change your world view so much that you would be incapable of handling the cataclysm. This is exactly the mentality that led to creation science, maybe you should move to Texas and join them. They probably need more help in teaching people to ignore facts.

Once again, QU whiffs on justifying opposition to abortion without bringing God into it

Every time I have mentioned God in this discussion it is to point out that you are the one who keeps bringing Him up. Until you can point to some evidence that I am using God to defend my position you have no chance of convincing anyone that you can even read.