As Senate Bill Dies, President Trump, Mitch McConnell Call for Clean Repeal of Obamacare Now, Replacement Later

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

The laws of the country where I live can be changed through the legislative process and the laws of the country where I live allow me to exercise my free speech to compel legislators to change unjust laws. I have adapted very well to the laws of the country where I live.

 

The country where you chose to live ruled on abortion about 40 years ago. You can have your opinion, and others can have theirs. It's a simple concept. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

 

Your argument is that the word "murder" describes an illegal act. My opinion is that abortion should be illegal therefore I can have the opinion that abortion is murder.

 

 

Use of the word "murder" can be debated in regards to abortion. There is no room for debate on the word "killing" though. If they are not killing a baby when performing an abortion what exactly is it they are doing to the baby?

 

kill¹

kil/

verb

 

1. 1.

   cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

   "her father was killed in a car crash"

   synonyms:

   murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute;

I'm sure he's quite aware of the other definitions of murder, he just thinks English is a dictatorial language when it clearly isn't, hence his frustrations.

 

- Signed,

 

Someone who learned English as a second language

[bcking 3,157]

19 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I'm sure he's quite aware of the other definitions of murder, he just thinks English is a dictatorial language when it clearly isn't, hence his frustrations.

 

- Signed,

 

Someone who learned English as a second language

Actually you see JG is forming a reasonable argument. He stated he DID intend to use the word murder correctly, because he believes it should be illegal.

 

Words can have multiple meanings, of course they can. The problem is when people try to use the same word to mean two things that would contradict or oppose each other.

 

Murder cannot have one meaning that is specifically "unlawful killing" and another meaning that is more broadly just "killing". It can't be both specific and broad on the same topic otherwise the two meanings undermine each other. It's primary definition is unlawful killing, therefore it is in the best interest of the English Language to not ascribe a second more general definition on the same topic to the same word.

 

You can clearly tell when someone uses the word murder to refer to eating something, Vs killing something illegally. You can't make the similar distinction if murder both means to kill (broadly) and also to kill unlawfully. The word can't hold those two very similar meanings.

 

It is those situations that undermine the English language. Many ESL speakers fund English frustrating for that very reason. We can't have words holding two meanings that oppose each other (either outright contradict each other, or in the case if murder when one definition is specific while another is more broadly). 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Many ESL speakers fund English frustrating for that very reason.

find*

[JimandChristy 1,689]

CBO scores bill, premiums will double and 32 million people will lose health care coverage. It's a winner!

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

find*

Thanks. On my cell phone now

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 

Your argument is that the word "murder" describes an illegal act. My opinion is that abortion should be illegal therefore I can have the opinion that abortion is murder.

 

 

Use of the word "murder" can be debated in regards to abortion. There is no room for debate on the word "killing" though. If they are not killing a baby when performing an abortion what exactly is it they are doing to the baby?

 

kill¹

kil/

verb

 

1. 1.

   cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

   "her father was killed in a car crash"

   synonyms:

   murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute;

A fetus prior to viability does not meet the requirements for life. Just having a heart beat doesn't mean something is alive. It's still a part of the woman. She can do with it what she wants because it is not yet an independent being and could never be an independent being at that stage.

 

Outside of religious convictions and belief, the scientific community pretty much agrees on that topic. Those who believe it begins at conception do so because of their religious faith.

 

If all fetuses were alive there would be a lot of involuntary manslaughter cases given the rates of spontaneous abortion. Would hate to tell women their body killed their child.

 

Edit:

 

Take an 18 week fetus out of the womb and it would fail the hyperoxia test. It would meet the criteria for "dead" that we would ascribe to someone who was first living. Except it would meet that from the very beginning (or so quickly no one would ever consider it having "lived" for any appreciable period of time).

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

A fetus prior to viability does not meet the requirements for life. Just having a heart beat doesn't mean something is alive. It's still a part of the woman. She can do with it what she wants because it is not yet an independent being and could never be an independent being at that stage.

 

Outside of religious convictions and belief, the scientific community pretty much agrees on that topic. Those who believe it begins at conception do so because of their religious faith.

 

If all fetuses were alive there would be a lot of involuntary manslaughter cases given the rates of spontaneous abortion. Would hate to tell women their body killed their child.

Actually, I'm very pro-choice yet it's clear to me after seeing my daughter numerous times as a fetus via ultrasounds she was quite alive.

 

I'm also all for people having their opinions, I guess those on the left try and justify abortion not being heinous by suggesting it's not alive merely because it's in a stage of non-viability.

 

I'm also all for a woman terminating her pregnancy after the stage of viability or any other period of her pregnancy, and if a doctor deliberately kills the fetus instead of trying to deliver it, I'm also for him/her and the mother going to prison.

 

I'm likewise for any mother aborting a fetus determined viable (not something that's static, fetuses become viable at earlier stages as medical knowledge evolves) to lose all rights to it after it's delivered and face some kind of fine and/or jail time for endangering the life of another person.

 

Any woman who doesn't see what's produced inside them as a living human being honestly doesn't deserve to procreate. They should do themselves and any possible future child a favor and sterilize themselves.

Edited July 19, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Actually, I'm very pro-choice yet it's clear to me after seeing my daughter numerous times as a fetus via ultrasounds she was quite alive.

 

I'm also all for people having their opinions, I guess those on the left try and justify abortion not being heinous by suggesting it's not alive merely because it's in a stage of non-viability.

 

I'm also all for a woman terminating her pregnancy after the stage of viability or any other period of her pregnancy, and if a doctor deliberately kills the fetus instead of trying to deliver it, I'm also for him/her and the mother going to prison.

It isn't a political stance to say the fetus isn't alive. "The left" surely took the medical opinion as their own because it fits their views, but it is purely a medical opinion.

 

Also - I intended to say apnea test not hyperoxia. Long day. Now I can't edit.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Washington is nothing more than a festering cesspool of theatrics and corruption on both sides of the aisle. The pubs have been voting to repeal Obama care for years, when they knew it had no chance of being signed.

 

Now that they have both houses and the white house and big corporate America is involved they can't the their shoes. Drain the swamp, ban the lobbyists and put term limits in place. Pick people like jury duty to go serve every two years 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Washington is nothing more than a festering cesspool of theatrics and corruption on both sides of the aisle. The pubs have been voting to repeal Obama care for years, when they knew it had no chance of being signed.

 

Now that they have both houses and the white house and big corporate America is involved they can't the their shoes. Drain the swamp, ban the lobbyists and put term limits in place. Pick people like jury duty to go serve every two years 

We are pretty much on the same page here, despite wanting a different outcome. I agree with changing the process though.

[IAMX 3,055]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

It isn't a political stance to say the fetus isn't alive. "The left" surely took the medical opinion as their own because it fits their views, but it is purely a medical opinion.

 

Also - I intended to say apnea test not hyperoxia. Long day. Now I can't edit.

Not really no, and organizations like ACOG saying this is closed to debate further demonstrates that science indeed takes a back seat to leftist politics just like with anthropogenic global warming.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Yes unfortunately the bucket is quite large, especially in America. Our obsession with "freedom" makes people feel like they can do whatever they want and make up random when it reality it just makes them look stupid.

 

Of course I can't "make" people use words correctly. However, people who willfully use words incorrectly don't do themselves any favours. Just makes them look less educated and intelligent. It's a pretty common joke in the UK about American's general inability to properly use the language. It's a well justified joke.

Most of the jokes I know from outta the country have more to do with Americans' lack of math skills, and some really funny stories about BSing cashiers. 

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

The country where you chose to live ruled on abortion about 40 years ago. You can have your opinion, and others can have theirs. It's a simple concept. 

Any rulings on the legality of abortion are irrelevant to what we are discussing as we are specifically discussing tax dollars for abortions. Last time I checked it is the legislator which decides what tax dollars are spent on and as an American I have the right to voice my opinion to my legislators on how tax dollars should and shouldn't be spent. I know you don't like the fact that people have the right to oppose your liberal agenda so perhaps you would feel more at home in a place like North Korea or China.

 

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

CBO scores bill, premiums will double and 32 million people will lose health care coverage. It's a winner!

 

I thought the made up number was 22 million. That wasn't scary enough so you decided to add to it I guess.

 

1 hour ago, bcking said:

A fetus prior to viability does not meet the requirements for life. Just having a heart beat doesn't mean something is alive. It's still a part of the woman. She can do with it what she wants because it is not yet an independent being and could never be an independent being at that stage.

 

Outside of religious convictions and belief, the scientific community pretty much agrees on that topic. Those who believe it begins at conception do so because of their religious faith.

 

If all fetuses were alive there would be a lot of involuntary manslaughter cases given the rates of spontaneous abortion. Would hate to tell women their body killed their child.

 

Edit:

 

Take an 18 week fetus out of the womb and it would fail the hyperoxia test. It would meet the criteria for "dead" that we would ascribe to someone who was first living. Except it would meet that from the very beginning (or so quickly no one would ever consider it having "lived" for any appreciable period of time).

You state your opinions as if they are absolute fact. You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine. I actually took my wife for an ultrasound today (what a coincidence this topic came up today). When I saw my son today he looked very much alive to me. Perhaps he wouldn't survive today without the support systems in my wife keeping him alive but that doesn't mean he isn't a living human being. This is like saying someone with an artificial heart isn't alive because they need an external system to keep them alive. It is an absurd argument. Of course the person is alive.

 

I'm not even arguing life begins at conception but the "mass of cells" argument doesn't apply in my son's case. At this stage the external features of his body have formed and most of his internal organs including the heart and brain have formed. Still there are some who have an abortion at this stage. Arguing that he is just a part of the woman's body and not an independent life is kind of difficult at this stage.

 

As I have said before I can support abortion when it is medically necessary to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. I cannot support it when a woman is irresponsible and doesn't bother to use any form of birth control and uses an abortion as a form of birth control. To me the disregard for another human's life because you don't want to take on the responsibility your actions created is totally disgusting.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Any rulings on the legality of abortion are irrelevant to what we are discussing as we are specifically discussing tax dollars for abortions. Last time I checked it is the legislator which decides what tax dollars are spent on and as an American I have the right to voice my opinion to my legislators on how tax dollars should and shouldn't be spent. I know you don't like the fact that people have the right to oppose your liberal agenda so perhaps you would feel more at home in a place like North Korea or China.

 

 

I thought the made up number was 22 million. That wasn't scary enough so you decided to add to it I guess.

 

You state your opinions as if they are absolute fact. You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine. I actually took my wife for an ultrasound today (what a coincidence this topic came up today). When I saw my son today he looked very much alive to me. Perhaps he wouldn't survive today without the support systems in my wife keeping him alive but that doesn't mean he isn't a living human being. This is like saying someone with an artificial heart isn't alive because they need an external system to keep them alive. It is an absurd argument. Of course the person is alive.

 

I'm not even arguing life begins at conception but the "mass of cells" argument doesn't apply in my son's case. At this stage the external features of his body have formed and most of his internal organs including the heart and brain have formed. Still there are some who have an abortion at this stage. Arguing that he is just a part of the woman's body and not an independent life is kind of difficult at this stage.

 

As I have said before I can support abortion when it is medically necessary to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. I cannot support it when a woman is irresponsible and doesn't bother to use any form of birth control and uses an abortion as a form of birth control. To me the disregard for another human's life because you don't want to take on the responsibility your actions created is totally disgusting.

First off - I'm going to assume your personal example is <22 weeks (not viable).

 

I mean no disrespect but your opinion is clearly biased and based purely in your anecdotal experience. I don't blame you, and many people in the same situation would feel the same way.

 

That doesn't change facts though. The facts are that by every measure that we use to judge whether someone is "alive", a fetus removed from the womb at 20 weeks would fail. They would potentially have a heart beat at first, but they would not breath spontaneously on their own and thus would fail the apnea test. They would be pronounced dead essentially at birth, so would never have lived.

 

We don't look at someone on a ventilator and say "hey look they are alive", they have to show proof of brain activity to sufficiently control their breathing when tested (apnea test). They fail that, they are dead. Doesn't matter what people "feel" about the subject. They are dead.

 

That is what I base my "opinion" on. Established medical consensus regarding life. A non-viable fetus does not meet the criteria.