Just say it. Let the truth be heard. The fact that abortion exists is offensive.

If it is taboo then I am in trouble with Miss Manners.

When Terri Schiavo was dying, I mentioned her during a dinner. It revealed much more about another person than was comfortable (maybe it was the absolute look of horror on our faces at the response?) And yes, it stopped the dinner cold.

Since then, I've learned it's not the topic, but how it should be handled.

I've seen atheists fly off the handle at the mere mention of spiritual matters (not even specifically God). Alcohol does not help.

My advice - if the other person asks, provide an answer that invites gentle and positive inquiry without seeming evasive, or instantly confrontational.

For instance Jill - you write and speak about "bioethical issues". When pressed - "irreversible choices involving life and death". (Read Steve Wagner's book on Common Ground) Remember, at any point, you can ask a question that guides the conversation.

Yet, evaluating conversation doesn't always work - I thought I was okay in mentioning Terri. Turned out I was very wrong. People aren't consistent in their beliefs, and even current news items may trigger some people.

Gently & frequently test the waters, always with the conversation flow - it won't make a big splash, and you may find everyone agreeable.

More importantly than knowing the other guests' views is knowing them.... and knowing yourself. If you are self-righteous and think your belefs are the absolute truth (or if one of the other guests are this way) than I would say, no don't get into these topics. You will kill the party.

Wisdom is about learning when a topic is appropriate or best discussed. There are topics which are prone to bring arguments and disagreement. I do not believe this has to do with self-righteousness though, for I believe in God's absolute righteousness. God has spoken clearly on life, homosexuality, etc. That does not mean I need to speak on them at every opportunity.

lambofhisflock, then you know yourself and wisely know not to get into such discussions.

I can see how someone may mitake my first comment to be offensive. Let's change that AND to an OR...

"If you are self-righteous or think your beliefs are the absolute truths".....

Asitis, are you saying that 100% of your comments are not meant to be offensive? Could have fooled me.

After all, "self-righteous" is often used as a synonym for "Christian", "pro-life", "conservative", or anything else people like you don't like.

I guess this is how a Christian should have a "polite" conversation about his beliefs:

Christian: Jesus died for our sins.
Atheist: How dare you say that! That's offensive!!
Christian: Oh, sorry. Uh, maybe I don't believe in Jesus then.
Atheist: Great! Now we can be friends!
Christian: But abortion kills children.
Atheist: FASCIST!!!
Christian: Sorry again. I guess I'll become pro-choice now.
Atheist: That's better.

Here's how I see it. If it's my dinner party, I can talk about whatever I want and I generally do (good-naturedly) needle a liberal if there happens to be one there. If it's your party, I'll keep quiet until some idiot says something offensive or just plain stupid. Then I engage. Most dinner parties I go to though are with like-minded people. I don't like torturing myself by socializing with infantacidal nuts.

You can't establish the relationships you need to witness to people if you start off offending them first thing. And yeah, your friends will still love you but you won't get invited to any parties to meet new people.

John, I'm a Christian, and I'd walk away from anybody who started a conversation with "Jesus died for our sins." Ditto for anybody that just threw "Abortion kills children" into a conversation.

A little discretion goes a long way. "Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

Now, if a conversation takes a turn like, "I'm so glad Ms. X will be able to go to England and get her abortion!" you can say, "Why is that?" Show some interest in the other person and why he or she professes an opinion. I've had people speak out in favor of "choice" only to, upon questioning, learn that they only wanted abortion available for compelling medical reasons. This led to the opportunity to explain how rare those situations actually are, how women are duped or frightened into unwanted abortions when there are perfectly safe and reasonable alternatives, and how the vast majority of abortions are self-referred for social reasons. The person came away with new information and a reason to mistrust the abortion lobby. If I'd have just said, "So, dead babies are fine with you! Nice to know you think babies should just be pulled to pieces for any little reason!" I'd have driven the person more firmly into the "prochoice" camp, which they didn't really belong to in the first place.

It's more like the typical conversation goes like this:

ATHEIST: I can't understand why people are so opposed to stem cell research!
CHRISTIAN: (Missing chance to speak about adult stem cell research and give the atheist something he might actually think about) I can't understand why people like you think it's okay to go around killing helpless little babies and sending their bodies to the science lab!
ATHEIST: (Reinforced in his belief that we're anti-science bigots who make unfounded assumptions about other people) Are you always such a jerk?

I have converstations with a liberal atheist at work quite often. But I've know him for years though, we can argue heatedly about politics and abortion and always get along afterwards...

Although every thanksgiving I get into arguments with my liberal sister-inlaw, that usually doesn't go that well. She's one of those Catholics who votes pro-abortion.

Christina, in reality, I don't talk politics or religion with people "in real life". Ever. It's a complete waste. If they ask me for my opinion, I'll give it to them. Otherwise, nope.

In my experience, pro-abortion people are either extremist lunatics who I wouldn't want to have anything to do with, or complete idiots who could never understand the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research no matter how many thousands of times its explained to them. Everyone's better off if I don't know what they think.

But then, I'm also of the opinion that 99.9% of "conversions" to either the pro-life side or Christianity are total BS, so maybe I'm just too cynical for my own good.

christina good point! We can all learn something from each other. Just as someone who refuses to associate with or be friends with fundamentalist misses the opportunity to expose them to , maybe even introduce them to, friends or family they have who are in loving, committed homosexual partnerships

I would agree that we need to know how to engage the public on these issues. I would not back away from the conversation. I am a pro life/educator/volunteer and as such welcome the opportunity to discuss with the uneducated masses. I have personally found that if you do this you may have an open door to helping them understand what the issue really is.
But knowing how to do this is the trick. We do not want to come across as mean spirited but we need to know the Art of Pro Life Persuasion ala Scott Klusendorf.

John, funny, I think some prochoicers would say exactly the same thing about all prolifers. It's a pity.

I wanted to be sarcastic and flippant as usual, but I will forsake silliness for seriousness.

The kingdom of God is described as rightousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. That is not a exhaustive definition. The kingdom of God is the administration of God's government in the earth as demonstrated through the body of Christ. Where it is functioning properly there will be rightousness, peace and joy.

It is not 'political'.

Unity of the Spirit is NOT that we all agree with one another. Unity of the Spirit is agreeing with God on an individual level. We can be doing and saying different things, some of them seemingly contradictory, and still be in the unity of the Spirit. God loves diversity. All of His creation reflects this love.

The respsonsibility of any good government is protecting the freedom of it's citizens to fullfill their purpose in life as demonstrated by the full exercize and unique expression of the gifts that God has given each of them.

The body of Christ is not 'church'. It is not a building, not institutional, not a doctrine. The body of Christ is ogranic. It is relational. God is assembling the body as HE sees fit.

The thing we call 'church' is an aberation, a perversion, a counterfeit, a substitute for what God has and is intending. The body of Christ is in the 'church', but it is not of the 'church'.
'church' has influened and effected the body of Christ, but it is not of the body of Christ.

The English word church is translated from the Greek word 'ekklesia' and appears 114 times in the original Greek texts of what we now know as the bible.'

The literal meaning of ekklesia is ‘called out ones’ and refers to a deliberative body in a com-munity. FATHER GOD, through the finished work of HIS SON JESUS, has called us out of darkness to be HIS holy nation of kings and priests in the earth, (1 Peter 2:9-10) that the body of Christ might make known the manifold wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places as we fellowship together in the love of the Lamb of God.

Holy Spirit calls out the ekklesia.

The word 'ekklesia' predated the birth of Christ. It was a word chosen by the [some believe Holy Spirit inspired] authors of the gospels and the letters of the new testament to best describe what God intends the body of Christ to be. The apostle Paul wrote in four places that the body of Christ and the 'ekklesia' are the same. The four places where the apostle Paul equates the ekklesia with the body of Christ are: Eph 1:22-23, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18, and Col 1:24.

If the body of Christ is relational, then anything or anyone who damages the relationships devides the body. Is my social or political opinion more important than the health and the function of the body of Christ of whom I am a member.

We should weigh our words, not calculate them. Is our being right, more important than our God established relationship with our fellow member of the body of Christ.

It is Holy Spirit's job to teach, instruct, lead, us into all truth. HE convicts of sin and HE does not condemn.

Friends and family having conversation around the dinner table is not the same arena as citizens debating the issues of the day in the public market place. Wisdom wants us to know and recognize the difference and speak and act accordingly.

yor bro ken

A friend who is dishonest is no friend at all. Liberals hate that because their support for baby-killing is so offensive. They can either be honest and open and quit hiding behind their "medical privacy" BS etc.. Why would I want to entertain guests in my house and expose my children to dishonest "friends" who live closet lives?

Liberals hate that because their support for baby-killing is so offensive.

TS, that's silly. Nobody "hates that," rather you are just spinning things one way and then projecting onto the other side in the debate.

"Baby" itself is up for argument, though there's really no point in worrying over terminology.

Somebody else could say that you "hate the fact that it's not necessarily a baby.."

If you want to go that route, then the obvious thing to say is that if you know of a baby being killed, then call the cops. See how far that goes? Being honest and open isn't pretending that your way is the only way.

It's not your business, it's the business of the woman who is pregnant, so yes, her privacy is part of this.

good doug. I would say the same thing.

But TS doug and I can still understand and respect Bethany's grief for Blessing and Carla's remorse and your religious opposition to abortion.

Asitis, it is an extreme pity, but I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Unfortunately we seem to be destined to be enemies and nothing is going to change that. We are immovable forces and unstoppable objects clashing until the end of time.

yes, i think i agree that extremists on both sides are destined to be enemies. I don't see a way around that. And it is a pity. But those of us who are more moderate and able to see the good in others and respect for them as individuals, can learn from each other.

Yes, of course, Asitis. Every pro-abortion person is a moderate. Obama's a moderate, too.

no, not all john. Not at all. But perhaps a greater percentage, given that in there you also have those that oppose abortion but don't won't to impose their beliefs on others . Hey I suppose those must br extreme moderates!

Doug says: ""Baby" itself is up for argument, though there's really no point in worrying over terminology."

No, "baby" is not up for any honest argument. Anyone who wishes to know the honest definition that word can look it up in honest dictionaries. One honest definition of "baby" is: (2.) unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby Another is: 2. An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby And yet another is: 5. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html

Now, the usual retort from a proabort is to say "Well look they are not listed as the number one definition, so they aren't legitimate". Do I really need to point out the idiocy of that argument, or can you figure it out yourself?

****
Somebody else could say that you "hate the fact that it's not necessarily a baby.."

Doug, I have no problem with somebody saying that
******

If you want to go that route, then the obvious thing to say is that if you know of a baby being killed, then call the cops. See how far that goes? Being honest and open isn't pretending that your way is the only way.

Doug, the honesty is that abortion has always been a baby is being killed and that for the last 35 years it has been legal in the USA.
**************

It's not your business, it's the business of the woman who is pregnant, so yes, her privacy is part of this.

Yeah sure Doug, and it's the business of a child nmolester since they are the one molesting.

Why do the liberals and the pro-aborts want to avoid discussing their "medical procedure" so much. Where are all the older repeat-abortive mothers who are secure enough in their choice that engage in hionest open dialogue about it? I'll say it again for you,

A friend who is dishonest is no friend at all. Liberals hate that because their support for baby-killing is so offensive. They can't be honest and open and they need to hide behind their "medical privacy" BS etc. Why would anybody want to entertain guests in their house and expose my children to dishonest "friends" who live closet lives?

Thats the same reason Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry fight for right to mutilate minor girls without parental notification. They hope that the conversation hasn't come up before so that they can corrupt them. The dirty rotten SOB's

Well, I think there's always a time and place for conversations.

My ex-sister in law just sold about $300.00 worth of Mary Kay to my mother in law and then turned around and said "I hate George Bush" even though she knew my MIL is conservative.

I doubt Ms. Manners would approve.

However, if things naturally come up in conversation, well I think that's ok.

"Somebody else could say that you "hate the fact that it's not necessarily a baby.."

Doug, I have no problem with somebody saying that

TS, I'm assuming that was you - but don't you see where that ends up? Person A is saying "not a baby" and person B is saying "baby" and it never ends and never gets anywhere.
******

"If you want to go that route, then the obvious thing to say is that if you know of a baby being killed, then call the cops. See how far that goes? Being honest and open isn't pretending that your way is the only way."

Doug, the honesty is that abortion has always been a baby is being killed and that for the last 35 years it has been legal in the USA.

No, for many people "baby" is between birth and toddler stage, etc.
*****

"It's not your business, it's the business of the woman who is pregnant, so yes, her privacy is part of this."

Yeah sure Doug, and it's the business of a child molester since they are the one molesting.

But you know that society isn't going to agree to that. Molested children are born citizens, have had rights attributed to them, are not inside the body of a person, cerrtainly can suffer, etc., etc. and what is the counter-argument you'd put forth for the molester? I don't think it's a serious comparison there.

My ex-sister in law just sold about $300.00 worth of Mary Kay to my mother in law and then turned around and said "I hate George Bush" even though she knew my MIL is conservative.

Lauren, that's a real eye-roller there.

"It's not your business, it's the business of the woman who is pregnant, so yes, her privacy is part of this."

Yeah sure Doug, and it's the business of a child molester since they are the one molesting.

But you know that society isn't going to agree to that. Molested children are born citizens, have had rights attributed to them, are not inside the body of a person, cerrtainly can suffer, etc., etc. and what is the counter-argument you'd put forth for the molester? I don't think it's a serious comparison there.

Posted by: Doug at December 13, 2008 1:18 PM

Doug,
I couldn't put forth a legimate counter-argument argument for child molesters. But I also can't put up a legitimate counter-argument for commiting abortion. I already told you that the law the way it is today has determined the one is legal and the other isn't. But your so called counter-arguments about being inside another person or not having yet had rights attributed to them are a farce. Neither of those argunments changes the inherent dignity or value of those persons in the womb by saying that socity has not yet given them their rights.

Doug, yeah she was a strange person.

She also left my brother in law by waking up one day and saying "I just signed a 12 month lease and I'm moving out, bye!"

They had just bought a house like 2 months before.

We were all a little baffled at that one, but it turned out she was having an affair.

Lauren and Doug, it goes to show the danger of befriending people who live "closet" lifestyles and are less than willing to be open and honest about what they do :

When the 0'bama (pbuh)says that he does not want his teenaged daughters to be 'punished with a baby' and resists efforts to provide medical treatment to premature infants born alive as the result of an unsucessful attempt on the human fetuses life by an abortionist, is this what the 0'bama (pbuh)understands as 'no child left behind'?

Reverend Martin Luther King Junior said we should be a color blind when it comes to judging the fitness of a person to serve, not character blind!

yor bro ken

'He who willfully separates and estranges himself from God and man seeks his own desire and pretext to break out all wise and sound judgement.'

'A self-confident fool, he has no understanding, but only in revealing his personal opinions [as contrasted with fact based conclusions] and bringing notoriety to himself.'

'When he comes into the full measure of his folly, he becomes a contemptuous despiser of all that is pure and good, with his concealed crudeness comes his manifested disgrace.'

yor bro ken

Truthseeker: I couldn't put forth a legimate counter-argument argument for child molesters. But I also can't put up a legitimate counter-argument for commiting abortion.

Pretty silly with the "committing," there, TS. You're still trying to spin things. Well, okay, but even aside from that - lots and lots and lots of people see the legitimate argument for abortion being legal, especially to a point in gestation.
.....

I already told you that the law the way it is today has determined the one is legal and the other isn't. But your so called counter-arguments about being inside another person or not having yet had rights attributed to them are a farce.

Not at all. It makes a huge difference to many if not most people. You want to deny the fact that women have certain rights? Hey man, it ain't flyin.'

On the rights deal - even when abortion was illegal in the US, that didn't mean that rights were attributed to the unborn. All it took was two doctors to give the go-ahead, and abortion was just fine. Nothing about personhood nor rights for the unborn.
.....

Neither of those argunments changes the inherent dignity or value of those persons in the womb by saying that socity has not yet given them their rights.

You're missing the point, that personhood hasn't been attributed. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and who better to have the say than the one who is pregnant? "Inherent dignity" - well, that's a thought within your mind. Do you have any proof of it?

Lauren and Doug, it goes to show the danger of befriending people who live "closet" lifestyles and are less than willing to be open and honest about what they do.

Truthseeker, I'd often agree. I would also refer you to what Ken said:

'A self-confident fool, he has no understanding, but only in revealing his personal opinions [as contrasted with fact based conclusions] and bringing notoriety to himself.'

Value is in the eye of the beholder, and who better to have the say than the one who is pregnant? "Inherent dignity" - well, that's a thought within your mind. Do you have any proof of it?
Posted by: Doug at December 13, 2008 5:01 PM

And that is exactly why the fact that you and others are willing to kill early gestation human beings does NOT change the fact that are not a part of the woman's body to be removed like a wisdom tooth. It does not change the fact that they are a life individual and of their own. And it certainly does not change the fact that I would give my seat in a life raft to a pregnant woman before I would give it to you Doug. I suppose pro-aborts and liberals would toss babies overboard cause they would take up resources and make your survival more difficult.

Doug,
You would like proof of the dignity of another human being. Tell me, how do you prove your dignity?

Doug said:
You want to deny the fact that women have certain rights? Hey man, it ain't flyin.'

Doug,
You want to claim that the baby is no more than a part of the woman's body to be disposed of as she pleases? Hey man, that ain't flyin' either; morally or scientifically.

TS, we don't "prove" it. It's status in the eyes of others, of society, etc.
.....

"Value is in the eye of the beholder, and who better to have the say than the one who is pregnant? "Inherent dignity" - well, that's a thought within your mind. Do you have any proof of it?"

And that is exactly why the fact that you and others are willing to kill early gestation human beings does NOT change the fact that are not a part of the woman's body to be removed like a wisdom tooth.

You're just stating an opinion there, not anything factual. It's also not "me and others" - many people who support abortion being legal would not choose it for themselves and many people wouldn't ever be in a place to do it anyway.
.....

It does not change the fact that they are a life individual and of their own.

Well, that's one thing that is arguable - when is there really a "they" there as far as having a "their own." Again, a matter of opinion.

I grant you that there is a living human organism there, but when personality is present, etc., is a different matter.
.....

And it certainly does not change the fact that I would give my seat in a life raft to a pregnant woman before I would give it to you Doug. I suppose pro-aborts and liberals would toss babies overboard cause they would take up resources and make your survival more difficult.

You're getting silly again. You want to generalize incorrectly and make presumptions which aren't proven nor even logical.

Using that line of thinking, one would say that you'd throw the women overboard and want them to do your bidding - swim toward land and tow the boat. You'd want the rules to mirror your desire, not the desires of the women.

"You want to deny the fact that women have certain rights? Hey man, it ain't flyin.'"

Doug, You want to claim that the baby is no more than a part of the woman's body to be disposed of as she pleases? Hey man, that ain't flyin' either; morally or scientifically.

TS, two different things. There's no real argument about the women, like it or not.

Yet "science" has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. The physical reality of the unborn is not at issue.

And many people do see the rights of the woman as being in place, and rightfully so.

Doug,
science has a lot to do with what we are talking about.
Science is why you cannot deny that from the point of conception that life form is human and individual seperate and apart from the mother.

And why can't you answer why you think you have dignity?

Doug,
As dignity is akin to worthiness. What makes you think a person is worthy of life? Is it their intelligence? Is it their ability to care for themselves?

Myself, I believe it is inherent in all human life?

Using that line of thinking, one would say that you'd throw the women overboard and want them to do your bidding - swim toward land and tow the boat. You'd want the rules to mirror your desire, not the desires of the women.
Posted by: Doug at December 13, 2008 7:13 PM

How the hell did you come up with that? I just told you I would a pregnant woman my seat in a lifeboat.

Doug, you seem to think that I want the rules to mirror MY desires. I guess that is fair; but understand that I want rules where people have the right to self-determinatiion as long as they don't determine that their wishes trump anybody elses or cause harm to others or refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I don;t see how you could get from there to me having a pregnant woman swim my lifeboat home. lol

Those of us who hold the pro-life view MUST want the laws to change. In general, our country agrees that a newborn is a living human being, and so we have rules to protect that child. Even if the baby is not wanted, the mother can not kill her child.

The child in the womb is as alive as the child outside the womb. The baby has a heartbeat, separate blood supply, brain waves. The baby has its own unique fingerprints and from conception, it has its own unique DNA sequence determining who the baby is and will become. It does not matter if the mother wants the child or not. Those of us who are pro-life can not tolerate abortion any more than we can tolerate infanticide.

Laws tell individuals what to do with their bodies all the time. We must wear our seat belts. We can not drink and drive. We can not rape, steal, or murder. And I will not rest until our laws protect the unborn children as well.

science has a lot to do with what we are talking about. Science is why you cannot deny that from the point of conception that life form is human and individual seperate and apart from the mother.

TS, no argument there - it's not the issue. It's not "science" that has to do with morality. It's our feelings of all the good/bad/right/wrong, all the "shoulds" and "should nots" we think of.
.....

And why can't you answer why you think you have dignity?

Because you are asking for an absolute or "inherent" thing, and that's not the case here. There are my own feelings about myself and others' feelings about me, that's it. One thing that really matters to me is keeping promises. If I say I'm going to do something, then I'm going to do it or fail only after some hard trying. It has value to me to keep my word, and it has value to others. There's no "downside" to it as I see things. Given that I want it and that others want it, then for me to adhere to it can be said to be a dignifying thing, a thing of value. My opinion.
.....

Doug, As dignity is akin to worthiness. What makes you think a person is worthy of life? Is it their intelligence? Is it their ability to care for themselves?

Very good question. It's what they do, what they feel, etc. It's not merely what they are. Again, my opinion.
.....

Myself, I believe it is inherent in all human life?

(Smile.) Well Sir, I certainly believe you feel that way.
.....

"Using that line of thinking, one would say that you'd throw the women overboard and want them to do your bidding - swim toward land and tow the boat. You'd want the rules to mirror your desire, not the desires of the women."

How the hell did you come up with that? I just told you I would a pregnant woman my seat in a lifeboat. Doug, you seem to think that I want the rules to mirror MY desires. I guess that is fair; but understand that I want rules where people have the right to self-determinatiion as long as they don't determine that their wishes trump anybody elses or cause harm to others or refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I don;t see how you could get from there to me having a pregnant woman swim my lifeboat home. lol

Well, you said I suppose pro-aborts and liberals would toss babies overboard because "liberals" in your opinion don't "absolutely" want every pregnancy continued.

My point there is that if you can extend being Pro-Choice to chucking babies off a life raft, then the same can be done for you wanting legal force against women who have abortions, extending it to wanting the law to be that the women have to tow the boat.

I hear you on self-determination, but that involves will on the part of the individual, and I don't see that being in effect for the unborn until a point in gestation. I don't see wishes there to be trumped (or not). In any case, the unborn are inside the body of a person and thus the wishes of the woman have to be a part of the consideration from the get-go.

Doug, you seem to think that I want the rules to mirror MY desires. I guess that is fair; but understand that I want rules where people have the right to self-determinatiion as long as they don't determine that their wishes trump anybody elses or cause harm to others or refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I don;t see how you could get from there to me having a pregnant woman swim my lifeboat home. lol

Posted by: truthseeker at December 13, 2008

I hear you on self-determination, but that involves will on the part of the individual, and I don't see that being in effect for the unborn until a point in gestation.
Posted by: Doug at December 13, 2008 9:21 PM

Doug, self-determination also means not being killed, and the unborn certainly do not will themselves to be killed.

I think if abortion were a dinner topic (particularly the mechanisms and the means to determine that abortions are complete) there would be a much reduced demand for them.

Posted by: KB at December 14, 2008 12:06 AM

'I think if abortion were a dinner topic (particularly the mechanisms and the means to determine that abortions are complete) there would be a much reduced demand for them.'

------------------------------------------------------

At the very least it would go a long way in solving the obesity problem.

yor bro ken

'He who willfully separates and estranges himself from God and man seeks his own desire and pretext to break out against all wise and sound judgement.'

'A self-confident fool, he has no understanding, but his only interest is in revealing his personal opinions [as contrasted with fact based conclusions] and bringing notoriety to himself.'

'When he comes into the full measure of his folly, he becomes a contemptuous despiser of all that is pure and good, with his concealed crudeness comes his manifested disgrace.'

yor bro ken

Doug,

You probably didn't see my first post, because it was held for about 8 hours due to the three links in it, and then posted where it would've appeared if it hadn't been delayed.

The problem with all your arguments about words like "baby" is that they are specious, wrong, and excessively semantic. You go to the extreme position of claiming that just because some people only use the term baby to refer to born infants, that makes unborn humans not technically babies. Even a staunch supporter of abortion ought to know better than that. Almost every word in our language has more than one meaning, and if a meaning appears in a respectable dictionary, it IS legitimate.

Your semantic claims would be humorous, were this not such a serious subject. You cannot redefine words to suit your political purposes and then expect society to conform to your views, but that is exactly what you are doing (and not very well, I might add).

Doug, self-determination also means not being killed, and the unborn certainly do not will themselves to be killed.

TS - right, there has to be some will there, in the first place.
.....

You probably didn't see my first post, because it was held for about 8 hours due to the three links in it, and then posted where it would've appeared if it hadn't been delayed.

Yeah, you're gonna have that.
.....

The problem with all your arguments about words like "baby" is that they are specious, wrong, and excessively semantic. You go to the extreme position of claiming that just because some people only use the term baby to refer to born infants, that makes unborn humans not technically babies. Even a staunch supporter of abortion ought to know better than that. Almost every word in our language has more than one meaning, and if a meaning appears in a respectable dictionary, it IS legitimate.

Baloney, TS. A perfectly valid definition is "between birth and..." which appears first in many dictionaries.
....

There is no "technically" a baby. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive.
.....

Your semantic claims would be humorous, were this not such a serious subject. You cannot redefine words to suit your political purposes and then expect society to conform to your views, but that is exactly what you are doing (and not very well, I might add).

Well, you're the one trying to change definitions...

Doug,
It was Doyle not me that addressed you about sematics. But for the record the Merriam Webster definition says nothing about birth.

Doug, self-determination also means not being killed, and the unborn certainly do not will themselves to be killed.

TS - right, there has to be some will there, in the first place.

Doug, and their is mucho scientific evidence that the baby has a will to live. Zero evidence that the baby doesn't have a will to live.

Why is an unborn baby not a "real baby"? Because he's not born? That's a pretty flimsy reason. Location determines life? If we put a 9 month old back in the womb, would he return to being a "fetus"?

Is it because little babies can't survive outside the womb? Medicine is constantly improving and changing. If we could cause an 8 week old child to survive outside the womb, would it be human then? There are so many people (the ones the law does protect) who can't survive without medical assistance. Pace-makers, man-made hearts, oxygen tanks, feeding tubes, catheters. Yet we consider them human and alive.

Maybe it's because the younger unborn babies don't "look" human, but I gurantee if you watch TLC for any length of time, you WILL change your mind about what "looks human". Tree-man with a freakish skin disease, mermaid girl who was born with one leg, guy with no face, woman with no legs or lower torso who had a baby, little people, man who's 8'4". Humanity is absolutely fascinating. There are so MANY different shapes and sizes of people. Being little or shaped differently doesn't make you not human.

Taking into account that location, viability, or appearance does not determine life or humanity in the situations I described, it seems you don't have a leg to stand on.

Doug, I'm going to try this one more time, so please open your eyes when you read this.

You said: " A perfectly valid definition is "between birth and..." which appears first in many dictionaries."

IF you had actually read my post, you would've seen that I agreed that the definition you mention is a perfectly valid one. But you would also have seen that it is not, can not, and never will be the "ONLY" valid definition. Why do you think they include the others, just to fill up their dictionaries? What is your obsession with trying to disallow some definitions that appear in legitimate dictionaries?

How can you, in good conscience, make such a specious claim? Why would those "other" definitions be there if they were not legitimate?

The fact that the two definitions differ slightly is of course the reason why there are two of them, rather than just one..... but BOTH of them ARE LEGITIMATE!

How on earth can you intentionally overlook this point and still claim to be "honest"?

Oh, and btw, Doug, the order in which definitions appear has absolutely NOTHING to do with their validity... most dictionaries put the oldest one first, others have different criteria. But NONE OF THEM use validity a a criteria, because ALL OF THEM are VALID!

Here are the "other definitions" I was referring to (links available on request)

MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

Doyle, thank you! Great posts.

YW, Bethany! :-)

To get around to the topic of this thread, I find it awkward to bring up the subject of abortion in some situations. Knowing that it is a highly controversial, very emotional subject for debate, I am reluctant to bring it up among people whose views (on abortion) I don't know....in a setting where polite, light conversation is expected. But if someone else does, then I am fully prepared to give them an earful.

IF you had actually read my post, you would've seen that I agreed that the definition you mention is a perfectly valid one. But you would also have seen that it is not, can not, and never will be the "ONLY" valid definition. Why do you think they include the others, just to fill up their dictionaries? What is your obsession with trying to disallow some definitions that appear in legitimate dictionaries?

Doyle, you're the one withi obsession - in this case it's trying to put words in my mouth.

The first definition is the primary one, and you're right - there can be others that are valid too.

I wasn't disallowing others, and I've said all along that it's a subjective thing - that it's in the eye of the beholder.

Doug, and their is mucho scientific evidence that the baby has a will to live. Zero evidence that the baby doesn't have a will to live.

TS, there really is not "will" there prior to consciousness. There is an organism, there is instinct and reflex (there too after enough development has taken place), but as far as "self-determination," don't you think that implies some mental awareness and desire?

No Doug, the first definition isn't the "primary one". Usually, as I said, it's the oldest one.

And yes, by your statements you were indeed trying to disallow the others... by saying that an unborn human isn't a baby, you are in fact doing just that. Even by saying "it's a matter of opinion", you are doing that also.

Dictionaries list valid, legitimate definitions of words, and that's not just a matter of opinion. So therefore since "baby" is a valid, legitimate definition of "human fetus", that usage is not just a matter of opinion, it is in fact a true definition of "baby".

Dictionaries do not list "multiple choices" so that you can accept the ones you like and disregard the others, every single definition is valid and legitimate. It's an academic fact, you can look it up.

So there is NOTHING SUBJECTIVE about the validity of that usage, it's totally objective. Therefore, a human fetus is, among other things, a "baby".... and that's not just an opinion.

No Doug, the first definition isn't the "primary one". Usually, as I said, it's the oldest one.

Doyle, that to me is just not the way it is, at all.

I'd say it's the most prevalent one. I don't have a physical dictionary here, but if you do, and if you look in the beginning, I bet it says that the first one listed is the primary meaning, the most prevalent, the most common, etc.

Being the oldest need not have anything to do with it.
.....

And yes, by your statements you were indeed trying to disallow the others... by saying that an unborn human isn't a baby, you are in fact doing just that. Even by saying "it's a matter of opinion", you are doing that also.

No, noting that it's a matter of opinion allows for either opinion. And I don't think I've ever said that the unborn cannot be called "baby."

I think there too you are trying to put words in my mouth.

My point all along is that it's not a meaningful argument to state "is a baby" any more than it is to state "is not a baby."
.....

Dictionaries list valid, legitimate definitions of words, and that's not just a matter of opinion. So therefore since "baby" is a valid, legitimate definition of "human fetus", that usage is not just a matter of opinion, it is in fact a true definition of "baby".

Wrong, it's as least as correct to say that "baby" applies between birth and a later stage of growth.
.....

Dictionaries do not list "multiple choices" so that you can accept the ones you like and disregard the others, every single definition is valid and legitimate. It's an academic fact, you can look it up.

This is you missing the point about being descriptive, not prescriptive. The unborn can be referred to as "babies," but in no way do they have to be.
.....

So there is NOTHING SUBJECTIVE about the validity of that usage, it's totally objective.

Again, yes, you can say "objective," there, as it's objectively true that "baby" can be applied. The point remains that it does not have to be applied to the unborn.
.....

Therefore, a human fetus is, among other things, a "baby".... and that's not just an opinion.

That's where you're wrong. It indeed is a matter of opinion. It's not strictly correct as are medically and biologically defined terms such as embryo and fetus.

Yes, you can say "unborn baby." But it's not necessarily so. It can also be, for example, what the Ameican Heritage dictionary says:

"1.  a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk"

Rather than argue with you, I invite your attention to this page on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary website:

"Order of Senses
The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first. This is not to be taken to mean, however, that each sense of a multisense word developed from the immediately preceding sense. It is altogether possible that sense 1 of a word has given rise to sense 2 and sense 2 to sense 3, but frequently sense 2 and sense 3 may have arisen independently of one another from sense 1."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm

Doug: "And I don't think I've ever said that the unborn cannot be called "baby."

You have constantly implied that.

Doug: "My point all along is that it's not a meaningful argument to state "is a baby" any more than it is to state "is not a baby.""

IF you don't think it's "meaningful", then why are you repeating it constantly?

Doug: "Wrong, it's as least as correct to say that "baby" applies between birth and a later stage of growth."

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Have I not agreed to that point 3 or 4 times already?

Doug: "This is you missing the point about being descriptive, not prescriptive. The unborn can be referred to as "babies," but in no way do they have to be."

What on earth are you talking about now? WHO has said ANYTHING about "has to be"? ARE you being intentionally obtuse?

Doug: "It's not strictly correct as are medically and biologically defined terms such as embryo and fetus."

Have you no idea what makes a vernacular definition "correct"? A DICTIONARY, YES!! AND, since "baby" is NOT in any way a medical or biological term, there IS NO "medical or biological" definition. There is ONLY the vernacular definition!

"It can also be, for example, what the Ameican Heritage dictionary says:"

There you go with the obtuseness again. Must I repeat it a hundred times?

Just stop with the pretense, Doug. You rattle on about this and that which no one has said, and then you go right back to telling us that "baby" can not properly be used to refer to an unborn human being.

It won't wash, Doug. We ain't buying it.

TS, there really is not "will" there prior to consciousness.
Posted by: Doug at December 15, 2008 11:45 AM

I would say that human life always has a consciousness and that it evolves with the rest of the child. We can't know exactly the constitution of that consciousness at any stage of developement, but people should not assume a right to destroy another persons consciousness. Let love grow.

Language definitions are fluidic and culturally dependant. To debate dictionary definitions seems so subjective. An argument that will never become culturally obsolete is the one I made earlier that seemed to be overlooked. There is no biological basis for the claim that an unborn child is not a human being.

There is really no rational reason to "debate" language definitions, when there are online dictionaries that are updated daily. Only a need to revise and redefine well established words with your own opinion of "what they should mean" would lead one to debate them. All of us can look them up, there's really no honest doubt about the meaning of "baby", just use the resources available and admit that there are several different sense of that word, ALL OF WHICH are perfectly correct and acceptable.

And that is not subjective, that is academic fact.

And of course you are 100% correct that we are all human beings from fertilization, but be assured that there are plenty of proaborts who will not only argue against that, but make such specious claims as "It's not alive", or "It's not a human", or "It's not (fill in the blank)". There is no limit to the insanity of the proabort arguements.

Rather than argue with you, I invite your attention to this page on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary website:

"Order of Senses
The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first. This is not to be taken to mean, however, that each sense of a multisense word developed from the immediately preceding sense. It is altogether possible that sense 1 of a word has given rise to sense 2 and sense 2 to sense 3, but frequently sense 2 and sense 3 may have arisen independently of one another from sense 1."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm

Doyle, fair enough, and you're right about that dictionary. Yet not all are like that - the Oxford English Dictionary, for example comes in quite a few forms and you can choose historical listing, as above, or having the most common usage of a word be first.

Doug: "And I don't think I've ever said that the unborn cannot be called "baby."

You have constantly implied that.

That's not true, Doyle. Can you quote anything I've said to back that up? I do not think so. I really haven't said or implied it can only be one way or the other.
.....

Doug: "My point all along is that it's not a meaningful argument to state "is a baby" any more than it is to state "is not a baby.""

IF you don't think it's "meaningful", then why are you repeating it constantly?

I don't. You're making that up. You appear to be confusing "not necessarily a baby" with "cannot be called a baby." Personally, I have no problem with saying "unborn baby," and I've said that many times.

I don't go around saying, "it's not a baby." I note that "is a baby" and "is not a baby" is a wasted argument that goes nowhere.
.....

Doug: "Wrong, it's as least as correct to say that "baby" applies between birth and a later stage of growth."

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Have I not agreed to that point 3 or 4 times already?

You said, "that usage is not just a matter of opinion" but in this case it indeed is a matter of opinion. It's in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. For some people, "baby" applies before birth, and for some it does not.

I'm not being obtuse and I don't think you are either, but we appear to be "missing" each other, somehow.

I'm saying it can be either way, and that it's incorrect to say it has to only be one way.
.....

Doug: "This is you missing the point about being descriptive, not prescriptive. The unborn can be referred to as "babies," but in no way do they have to be."

What on earth are you talking about now? WHO has said ANYTHING about "has to be"? ARE you being intentionally obtuse?

Doyle, what I've disagreed with is saying, in effect, that the unborn "have to be babies." Some people do maintain that, and I've said that's wrong, just as it is to say that it cannot be called a baby before birth. It can be either way. It's up to the user of the word; subjective.
.....

Doug: "It's not strictly correct as are medically and biologically defined terms such as embryo and fetus."

Have you no idea what makes a vernacular definition "correct"? A DICTIONARY, YES!! AND, since "baby" is NOT in any way a medical or biological term, there IS NO "medical or biological" definition. There is ONLY the vernacular definition!

You're not disagreeing with me, there, and I'm not disagreeing with what you said there. Yes, in the vernacular it's both correct to say "unborn baby" or "a baby is from birth to toddler stage." Again, I'm saying both can be used. I'm not saying that only one is correct.
.....

Just stop with the pretense, Doug. You rattle on about this and that which no one has said, and then you go right back to telling us that "baby" can not properly be used to refer to an unborn human being. It won't wash, Doug. We ain't buying it.

Straw man argument, Doyle. That's not what I've said. The incorrect pretense here is on your part. People have indeed stated, "It's a baby" as if that's meaningful debate with respect to the abortion argument, and it's not. Heck, call it anything and the abortion debate remains.

Laura: Language definitions are fluidic and culturally dependant. To debate dictionary definitions seems so subjective.

Laura, in the case of "baby" and "child" that's certainly correct.
.....

An argument that will never become culturally obsolete is the one I made earlier that seemed to be overlooked. There is no biological basis for the claim that an unborn child is not a human being.

Is that really an argument, though? As far as the unborn being "human beings" meaning living organisms with human DNA, then I certainly agree with you. They exist, they are alive, they usually develop over time, etc. No debate there as far as I'm concerned, and the whole abortion argument remains.

Doug: "You said, "that usage is not just a matter of opinion" but in this case it indeed is a matter of opinion. It's in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. For some people, "baby" applies before birth, and for some it does not."

What you are describing is a matter of CHOICE, not a matter of OPINION. We can CHOOSE which sense we wish to use, but that usage is FACTUALLY CORRECT, not just opinion.

Doug: "I don't. You're making that up. You appear to be confusing "not necessarily a baby" with "cannot be called a baby."

Your words were ""Baby" itself is up for argument, though there's really no point in worrying over terminology.", and I quote. "Baby" is NOT "up for argument" as you yourself have agreed.

Doug: "I'm saying it can be either way, and that it's incorrect to say it has to only be one way."

And thankfully, NO ONE has said that.

Doug: "Doyle, what I've disagreed with is saying, in effect, that the unborn "have to be babies."

And thankfully, no one has said that. But of course, to be a baby, only one usage that fits that description is needed. Therefore, unborn humans are embryo, fetuses, babies, children, etc., etc. All it takes is ONE proper usage to make it "so".

Doug: "As far as the unborn being "human beings" meaning living organisms with human DNA, then I certainly agree with you."

Good. Then it might interest you to know that the most common definition of "person" is "the body of a human being".

And of course, it's impossible to be a human being without being either a child or an adult. So as unborn humans we ARE children, and a subset of "children" IS "baby".

Oh, one other thing, by your last post I take it that you do not disagree or disupute that every abortion kills an innocent human being, correct?

Doyle, why do you want to fight over the words? If Doug says, "yes, every abortion kills an innocent human being," then what? Does that imply to you that abortion should be illegal? Do you think you've won the argument? Do you think you can ever win the argument?

Hal, because words are important. Besides, there is no "winning the argument", in the sense of changing the mind of someone who places a low value on innocent human life, that is a matter of the heart and arguments are useless there.

What I want to do is to logically show Doug where he stands on "human rights" by his support of elective abortion. Is that such an unreasonable desire?

How do you answer that question, btw?

Well, i'm not sure "innocent" has much meaning in this context. Original sin and all that.

But seriously, yes, every abortion ends a life. Lives are ended all the time. I don't see the tragedy here. Others live because these have died. Circle of life.

Hal

"Well, i'm not sure "innocent" has much meaning in this context. Original sin and all that."

I know you were being facetious, but other people have actually used that argument seriously, and it shows their lack of understanding of original sin. (this is going to be the Catholic understanding BTW) Original sin does not mean being born into a state of guilt; rather it is a lack of what we call "sanctifying grace" which basically means being born without God's special favor. So while when born we are not "in a special relationship" with God, that does not imply an actual guilt.

It's kind of like how right now I have no special favors or privileges before President Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm guilty before him. Once I would be in a position to make an impression on him, then I can either be a jerk to him and merit his disdain for me or treat him well and merit his trust. It's a pretty weak analogy, but I think it illustrates the point.

Doug: "You said, "that usage is not just a matter of opinion" but in this case it indeed is a matter of opinion. It's in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. For some people, "baby" applies before birth, and for some it does not."

What you are describing is a matter of CHOICE, not a matter of OPINION. We can CHOOSE which sense we wish to use, but that usage is FACTUALLY CORRECT, not just opinion.

Doyle, you're a lovable old grouch, and I'm not trying to be obtuse.

There is no one "factually correct," there. It is correct to say that a baby is not prior to birth but between birth and a later stage of development, and it's also correct to say "unborn baby," so there is no one way about it.

It really is a matter of opinion - either way, since they are mutually exclusive. It's up to the user, it's in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. Are anchovies good or bad on pizza? Well, same deal, for some yes and for some no. I can say "you should have anchovies on your pizze because they are good." Maybe you agree, maybe not.
.....

Doug: "I don't. You're making that up. You appear to be confusing "not necessarily a baby" with "cannot be called a baby."

Your words were ""Baby" itself is up for argument, though there's really no point in worrying over terminology.", and I quote. "Baby" is NOT "up for argument" as you yourself have agreed.

Two different things, Doyle. I am not going to say you are wrong for using "unborn baby." It's up to you and you're supported in doing so by the dictionary. I'm not saying you can't call it a baby. Heck, you can call it anything.

But if you say abortion is wrong because it kills a baby then I'll disagree, since "baby" or not is itself a matter of opinion. Same as saying "abortion is okay because it's not a baby."

I've said many, many times that it's a wasted argument.
.....

Doug: "As far as the unborn being "human beings" meaning living organisms with human DNA, then I certainly agree with you."

Good. Then it might interest you to know that the most common definition of "person" is "the body of a human being".

That's not what's being argued here, though. The issue is the status we attribute or that we don't attribute. I fully hear you on "human being," and there too I agree, but that's not the abortion debate (at least not between you and me).
.....

And of course, it's impossible to be a human being without being either a child or an adult. So as unborn humans we ARE children, and a subset of "children" IS "baby".

No, that's wrong. "Child" may certainly mean after birth. It's a stage of development in that sense, one that is preceded by other stages and followed by still others.

I take it that you do not disagree or disupute that every abortion kills an innocent human being, correct?

Doyle, yes indeed, though there's no capacity for guilt in the first place. I don't believe in any original sin stuff, either, so I'm saying there totally is no guilt or anything to be "blamed" for, there, in the unborn.

If somebody personifies the unborn and says they're "trespassing" or that the unborn are guilty of something, well - I just think that's silly and I'd argue with them as strongly as anybody.

Unwanted is one thing, but that's not saying that blame is being laid on the unborn.

Original sin does not mean being born into a state of guilt; rather it is a lack of what we call "sanctifying grace" which basically means being born without God's special favor. So while when born we are not "in a special relationship" with God, that does not imply an actual guilt.

Bobby great explanation. It so would not make sense to me, no matter what religion one would be, to say there is "guilt" there.
.....

It's kind of like how right now I have no special favors or privileges before President Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm guilty before him.

Well, I'm not saying you have to put a Sleeper Hold on him, but wouldn't that be better than chucking a couple shoes at him?

P.S. I'm on a gaming message board with people from all around the world, and we were talking about sports, and eventually I said I knew a guy who had once wrestled and was now going for his PhD in Mathematics. Other people said it's friggin' awesome.

What I want to do is to logically show Doug where he stands on "human rights" by his support of elective abortion.

Doyle, where I stand is that it's better to allow women to freely continue or end their pregnancies up to viability, rather than attempt to bring legal force against them in the matter.

I see that as preferable to allowing others to try and force their desire on the women.

Doug,

"Well, I'm not saying you have to put a Sleeper Hold on him, but wouldn't that be better than chucking a couple shoes at him?"

I prefer the huracanrana :)

Doug: "There is no one "factually correct," there."

No, and no one claimed that. I said that ALL listed definition were factually correct. Why is that so difficult for you?

Doug: "But if you say abortion is wrong because it kills a baby then I'll disagree, since "baby" or not is itself a matter of opinion."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The person saying that OBVIOUSLY is using the sense of "baby" that includes unborn humans, so you have absolutely no ground to stand on there. That is NOT "opinion", that is simply the CHOICE of which sense of the word you are using!

Doug: "I've said many, many times that it's a wasted argument."

Then why do you refuse to recognize the validity of the sense of "baby" that includes the unborn?

Doug: "The issue is the status we attribute or that we don't attribute."

What in blazes does that mean? Translation, please?

Doug: "No, that's wrong. "Child" may certainly mean after birth. It's a stage of development in that sense, one that is preceded by other stages and followed by still others."

Say WHAT? How do you figure that one sense makes the other sense invalid? Are you back to that "only the first one is valid" theme?

Doug: "Doyle, yes indeed, though there's no capacity for guilt in the first place."

And that "capacity" is not a factor in the definition of "innocence".

Doug: "Doyle, where I stand is that it's better to allow women to freely continue or end their pregnancies up to viability, rather than attempt to bring legal force against them in the matter."

Yes, from where you stand, as a born human being, you have nothing to lose from the continuance of legal elective abortion, do you? So it's really no skin off your nose, is it?

How about women who kill their newborn kids? Do you object to the use of "legal force" to protect newborn kids?

Doug draws suuuuch a grey line here, but I won't get into that.

I made my point earlier that you can make no claim for the unborn not being human, and therefore, worthy of equal protection under the law. Murdering a human being is against the law you know....If you establish the personhood of the unborn, the abortion argument falls apart, because then it becomes the murder of a child.

I won't copy and paste what I said earlier, you can go back and re-read if you like, but you have no leg to stand on.

Unborn babies are people too. Pick a reason, any reason, and I can point to a human being somewhere with a birth certificate and equal protection under the law who shares the same characteristics.

You're running so very hard from the Truth, when maybe, if you just stopped and faced it, you'd discover a whole new side of life.

"Well, I'm not saying you have to put a Sleeper Hold on him, but wouldn't that be better than chucking a couple shoes at him?"

I prefer the huracanrana :)

Bobby, I've never seen you speak in tongues before.

Doug: "There is no one "factually correct," there."

No, and no one claimed that. I said that ALL listed definition were factually correct. Why is that so difficult for you?

Doyle, it's not difficult, and I'm not disagreeing that all the definitions apply. My point is that stating "it's a baby," while valid for one observer, may not be valid for another, and does not constitute meaningful debate in the abortion argument. The other person can say, with just as much validity, "No, it's not a baby until after birth." The argument isn't going anywhere, there.
.....

Doug: "But if you say abortion is wrong because it kills a baby then I'll disagree, since "baby" or not is itself a matter of opinion."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The person saying that OBVIOUSLY is using the sense of "baby" that includes unborn humans, so you have absolutely no ground to stand on there. That is NOT "opinion", that is simply the CHOICE of which sense of the word you are using!

You really are missing the point here. It's not that saying "baby" is incorrect, it's saying that since some people apply "baby" to the unborn, therefore abortion is wrong.
.....

Doug: "I've said many, many times that it's a wasted argument."

Then why do you refuse to recognize the validity of the sense of "baby" that includes the unborn?

I've never done that, Doyle. I don't personally even have a problem with saying "unborn baby." It's perfectly well understood. Some people do make a dogmatic stand against it, i.e., "No, not a baby until after birth," but that too really doesn't address the abortion debate.

Let's make it a Double Hurricanearama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaclZ6lA-RE

Doug: "The issue is the status we attribute or that we don't attribute."

Doyle: What in blazes does that mean? Translation, please?

:: laughing ::

It means do we attribute rights to the unborn or not. It means do we grant them the status you'd like for them to have, or not. It means do we treat them as you wish, or not.
.....

Doug: "No, that's wrong. "Child" may certainly mean after birth. It's a stage of development in that sense, one that is preceded by other stages and followed by still others."

Say WHAT? How do you figure that one sense makes the other sense invalid? Are you back to that "only the first one is valid" theme?

Oh for Pete's sake, Doyle.

If person A only sees "child" as being from birth to a later stage of development, and person B sees it as applying from conception, then for the period of time prior to birth the usages are mutually exclusive. What is true in person A's eyes and in person B's eyes, there, are not the same thing.

It's a subjective thing, and both can be correct - this is why arguing over it is pointless. If I was saying, "It cannot be a "baby" before birth," then I'd be wrong.

Doug: "Doyle, yes indeed, though there's no capacity for guilt in the first place."

And that "capacity" is not a factor in the definition of "innocence".

Yeah, it just makes it a moot point.
.....

Doug: "Doyle, where I stand is that it's better to allow women to freely continue or end their pregnancies up to viability, rather than attempt to bring legal force against them in the matter."

Yes, from where you stand, as a born human being, you have nothing to lose from the continuance of legal elective abortion, do you? So it's really no skin off your nose, is it?

That's part of it - the pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling being, and I say her desire trumps yours, since she is the one pregnant. No, there are abortions and miscarriages that will occur today, and I don't think I am really hurt by it. I also don't think you are. I know you don't like the idea of abortion, but you are not directly aware of almost any abortions. If a woman across town, or around the world, has an abortion or a miscarriage, is the world really any different for you? I don't think it makes enough of a difference that I think you should be able to tell the pregnant woman what to do, any more than you should be able to tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion.
.....

How about women who kill their newborn kids? Do you object to the use of "legal force" to protect newborn kids?

No. And I'm also okay with restrictions on abortion after viability.

Laura: I made my point earlier that you can make no claim for the unborn not being human, and therefore, worthy of equal protection under the law. Murdering a human being is against the law you know....If you establish the personhood of the unborn, the abortion argument falls apart, because then it becomes the murder of a child.

Laura, just being human doesn't mean the life has to be protected.
.....

I won't copy and paste what I said earlier, you can go back and re-read if you like, but you have no leg to stand on.

Sure I do. I agree that if personhood is granted to the unborn, then it'd make a big difference. Most if not all abortions would then have to be illegal.

I did read what you wrote, and you missated some of the debate, but one thing that's interesting is:

If we put a 9 month old back in the womb, would he return to being a "fetus"?

I guess it would, though of course that sounds strange. Still, if being in the womb and being a later stage of development is a "fetus" then there it is.

It's also come up before - the currently-farfetched hypothetical of having a baby outside the womb (possibly for a surgical procedure, say). Would this mean that society would say that right-to-life is there while outside the womb, and then not there once back in? Aside from a viable baby, as that would bring the restrictions on abortion we have into play, I'd say yes.
.....

Unborn babies are people too. Pick a reason, any reason, and I can point to a human being somewhere with a birth certificate and equal protection under the law who shares the same characteristics.

No, it's the fact that we don't attribute personhood that has you dissatisfied with the situation.

As societies we attribute rights and personhood at birth. This has been an almost-universal fact for thousands and thousands of years. Born human beings are not inside the body of a person, and that's what makes the difference, for one thing - the main thing. I know you don't think that's enough reason to have things the way we do, however.
.....

You're running so very hard from the Truth, when maybe, if you just stopped and faced it, you'd discover a whole new side of life.

No, I can see the larger truth here, that includes beliefs such as yours. I'm not just looking at what I think and feel, nor what you think and feel, but what is true for all of us.

Doug: "My point is that stating "it's a baby," while valid for one observer, may not be valid for another, and does not constitute meaningful debate in the abortion argument."

Absolutely WRONG. All senses of the term baby are VALID for all speakers at all times. We as individuals do not have the authority to "invalidate" those senses which we happen not to be using at the time.

Doug: "The other person can say, with just as much validity, "No, it's not a baby until after birth."

No, Doug, they cannot. And the reason is that when you use the term baby without qualifications, you are implyilng that in NO SENSE of the term baby are unborn humans included. Just using the term by itself is an ALL-INCLUSIVE statement.

Doug: "It's not that saying "baby" is incorrect, it's saying that since some people apply "baby" to the unborn, therefore abortion is wrong."

Did you type that in too big a hurry? It makes little sense to me, since the definition of any word has nothing to do with right and wrong. Our usages can be right and wrong, but that is not a moral judgement.

Doug: "If person A only sees "child" as being from birth to a later stage of development, and person B sees it as applying from conception, then for the period of time prior to birth the usages are mutually exclusive."

No, they are not "mutually exclusive". They are simply different senses of the same word. They are both correct, and they are NOT a "matter of opinion". They are simply different sense of the same word, CHOSEN by each speaker. Making a choice between two VALID choices is not a "matter of opinion", nor is it "subjective".

To be either a matter of opinion OR subjective, the senses would have to be slang, or colloquial terms.

Doug: "It's a subjective thing, and both can be correct - this is why arguing over it is pointless. If I was saying, "It cannot be a "baby" before birth," then I'd be wrong."

Both cannot be subjective and correct at the same time. And in fact, when you suggest that this is all a "matter of opinion", you are indeed suggesting that it may not be a baby before birth.

Mmmm, double top-rope Frankensteiner.

Actually, I never thought that a top rope one was that cool. It was really easy to do, and you can make them look way cooler (I think) standing on teh ground. But now if you can do a STANDING one on the TOP rope, THAT is awesome!

Yeah, it just makes it a moot point.

Hardly. The fact that an unborn human IS innocent is important to many people, including myself. The elective killing of innocent human beings is in a category all by itself.

That's part of it - the pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling being, and I say her desire trumps yours, since she is the one pregnant.

"My desire"? Who cares about that? What you are saying is that "her desire" trumps the INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE within her! That her "desires" are of more MORAL IMPORTANCE than that tiny little baby's very LIFE! Forget about "my desires", let's talk about something really important.. the elective killing of innocent human beings!

If a woman across town, or around the world, has an abortion or a miscarriage, is the world really any different for you?

Of course it is. I quote a noted philosopher: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne Meditation XVII " The death of any innocent human affects us all, it makes the world a more unjust place for everyone.

Me: "How about women who kill their newborn kids? Do you object to the use of "legal force" to protect newborn kids?"

Doug: No. And I'm also okay with restrictions on abortion after viability.

Then why on earth do you object to "legal force" being used to protect the SAME BABY being from being killed a moment after birth, but not to that baby at some time before birth? Is it not the same baby? Is it not equally innocent? Is it's killing not morally the same act, whether before or after birth?

Doug: "My point is that stating "it's a baby," while valid for one observer, may not be valid for another, and does not constitute meaningful debate in the abortion argument."

Absolutely WRONG. All senses of the term baby are VALID for all speakers at all times. We as individuals do not have the authority to "invalidate" those senses which we happen not to be using at the time.

That's not what we're arguing about, Doyle.

It is not that one can "invalidate" it for another, it's that two people can use the word in differing senses and both be correct.
.....

Doug: "It's not that saying "baby" is incorrect, it's saying that since some people apply "baby" to the unborn, therefore abortion is wrong."

Did you type that in too big a hurry? It makes little sense to me, since the definition of any word has nothing to do with right and wrong. Our usages can be right and wrong, but that is not a moral judgement.

Heh - I do type pretty fast, but no - that's what I meant.

It is not that I am saying that "baby" cannot be applied to the unborn, nor that anybody can say that.

It is that it's also just as correct if not more to say that "baby" means between birth and a later stage of growth.

Why is there even argument over "baby" and "child" in the first place?

Well, it's because some people do think it has to do with the right/wrong/good/bad of abortion, all the "shoulds" and "should nots"....

Doug: "If person A only sees "child" as being from birth to a later stage of development, and person B sees it as applying from conception, then for the period of time prior to birth the usages are mutually exclusive."

No, they are not "mutually exclusive". They are simply different senses of the same word. They are both correct, and they are NOT a "matter of opinion". They are simply different sense of the same word, CHOSEN by each speaker. Making a choice between two VALID choices is not a "matter of opinion", nor is it "subjective".

Yes, they are mutually exclusive, because it cannot only be after birth and before birth as well. Indeed it is a matter of opinion - it's up to the speaker. It's up to the one using the word, subjective all the way.
....

To be either a matter of opinion OR subjective, the senses would have to be slang, or colloquial terms.

It's the subjective choice of the user, which ever sense they favor.
.....

Doug: "It's a subjective thing, and both can be correct - this is why arguing over it is pointless. If I was saying, "It cannot be a "baby" before birth," then I'd be wrong."

Both cannot be subjective and correct at the same time. And in fact, when you suggest that this is all a "matter of opinion", you are indeed suggesting that it may not be a baby before birth.

Well, for some people it's not - it's only a baby once birth has taken place. Same as being a baby ends when toddler stage (or whatever) is reached. For the individual user, no, they cannot both be correct at the same time, and nobody is saying they are, there.

Yes, it's a matter of opinion. Either sense is correct, and we all go with one or the other, or another if they exist.

"Yeah, it just makes it a moot point."

Doyle: Hardly. The fact that an unborn human IS innocent is important to many people, including myself. The elective killing of innocent human beings is in a category all by itself.

I disagree. Can a rock be "guilty"? Well, neither can the unborn - there's no capacity for guilt. Again, if you see somebody saying the unborn are "to blame" then I'd argue as strongly as you with them - that's not the abortion debate in any meaningful way.
.....

"That's part of it - the pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling being, and I say her desire trumps yours, since she is the one pregnant."

"My desire"? Who cares about that? What you are saying is that "her desire" trumps the INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE within her! That her "desires" are of more MORAL IMPORTANCE than that tiny little baby's very LIFE! Forget about "my desires", let's talk about something really important.. the elective killing of innocent human beings!

You care about that, Doyle. Yes, her desire perhaps trumps the innocent human life within her. All we are discussing here is opinion - and yours - that there is some necessary and inherent postive value there that has to override what the woman wants - is what I and vast numbers of people disagree with.

You more want the unborn life to continue, necessarily, than you want the woman to have the freedom she now does. Other people disagree with you.
.....

"If a woman across town, or around the world, has an abortion or a miscarriage, is the world really any different for you?"

Of course it is. I quote a noted philosopher: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne Meditation XVII " The death of any innocent human affects us all, it makes the world a more unjust place for everyone.

Okay, I hear you, but that's your opinion, and again, it doesn't really have to do with the almost any actual abortion (I read your experience, and it's understandable - that was one actual abortion you were involved with), or the number of abortions, but rather with your feeling about abortion, per se.
.....

Me: "How about women who kill their newborn kids? Do you object to the use of "legal force" to protect newborn kids?"

Doug: "No. And I'm also okay with restrictions on abortion after viability."

Then why on earth do you object to "legal force" being used to protect the SAME BABY being from being killed a moment after birth, but not to that baby at some time before birth? Is it not the same baby? Is it not equally innocent? Is it's killing not morally the same act, whether before or after birth?

Because that "some time" you mention incudes quite a bit of difference from beginning to end. After viability, delivery can be induced, so the pregnancy can be ended without the death of the baby - one big difference right there. There is also the matter of sentience, awareness, emotion, etc., - certainly there in most fetuses or unborn babies after a point in gestation, while we see no evidence that it is there prior to a point in gestation. The pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling, person, and thus I'd go with her feelings versus yours, when we are talking about the unborn prior to viability and prior to what IMO is any awareness, caring, emotion, personality, etc., on the part of the unborn.

So, no, I don't see it as the same, morally, not at all.

丽江旅游网为您提供丽江旅游，丽江旅游线路，丽江旅游景点等信息；国内外的游客了解昆明旅游、昆明旅游景点、昆明旅游线路的平台！