Political Crossfire Forums

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

"mother" is defined as:

"A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child."

Now this is the top definition off of dictionary.com. I'm wondering why they made the mistake that they did. They said "concieve...a child".. So mere conception makes you a mother?

Obviously they are wrong and the dictionary is lying to us. Because an embryo is not a "child". It only becomes a "child" after birth, right? Therefore, how can you possibly just have concieved a "child"? That's impossible! What they meant to say was "concieve an embryo".. Because until birth, that was the only thing that was concieved was an embryo. A "child" wasn't actually concieved at all, just an embryo. The ammount of deception in this dictionary is staggering. I recommend we not trust it, and instead fancy our own definitions.

Nevertheless, you pro choice people need to stop speaking out for the "rights of the mother" because you sound foolish when you do. She is not a mother until she creates a child. If all she created was an embryo then you need to say, "the rights of the pregnant woman" instead.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Actually on second thought you can't say, "rights of the pregnant woman" either. Because pregnant means by definition to be internally carrying developing offspring.

And since "offspring" is defined as...

"A child of particular parentage."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=offspring

...then it cannot be an embryo.

(looks like yet another lie that the dictionary told us).

So since she is not carrying a "child" at all, because the embryo is not offspring, then she cannot be called, "pregnant".. She can only be said to be internally carrying an embryo.

So why don't you guys just say, "the rights of the woman who had sex and as a result began to carry a worthless embryo inside of her". It may not be as easy or smooth to say, but dammit it's accurate!

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

The phrase "rights of the mother" is common vernacular and does not change the crux of an argument, and you know it. Playing word games by quoting a dictionary is not going to help your argument in the slightest. Words are symbolic representations of the meanings associated to them by society. Society dictates that the term "mother" can be used for a pregnant woman, regardless of whether or not she ends up giving birth.

If you want to argue against abortion, you may want to find an actual argument instead of playing these games.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? That isn't a catch 22. It is a assinine semantics game that doesn't change the crux of the debate.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? That isn't a catch 22. It is a assinine semantics game that doesn't change the crux of the debate. No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? That isn't a catch 22. It is a assinine semantics game that doesn't change the crux of the debate. No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism. It exposes nothing more than the fact that you have to rely on a semantics game as an argument.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject:

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? That isn't a catch 22. It is a assinine semantics game that doesn't change the crux of the debate. No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism.

Impressive as well the constant insistence of claiming the posit of the pro-choice arguments are arbitrary, when the anti-choicers always fail to admit the assignment of the term "a life" to conception is as arbitrary of a decision as assigning it to any other point in the continuum as well.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

The Grandmaster wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? That isn't a catch 22. It is a assinine semantics game that doesn't change the crux of the debate. No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism.

Impressive as well the constant insistence of claiming the posit of the pro-choice arguments are arbitrary, when the anti-choicers always fail to admit the assignment of the term "a life" to conception is as arbitrary of a decision as assigning it to any other point in the continuum as well. Assigning value at the beginning of the human organisms existence isnt arbitrary at all, its completely consistant.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

AllAmericanMan wrote: No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism.

Indeed.. Take for example the tired argument about the hydatidiform mole.

The insistence is on the premise that an embryo and a hydatidiform mole are both morally the same thing. Neither are human beings, or individuals or deserve human rights etc. Both are not human children.

Yet a woman who has concieved an embryo is still referred to as a "mother" in this case. That is confusing. Because according to the premise neither of them are carrying an actual human being at all. So a woman while carrying a bunch of worthless tissues known as an embryo can be called a mother without carrying a child, then also a woman who is carrying a bunch of unwanted tissues known as a hydatidiform mole could also be called a mother. Both are carrying the ethical equivelent of non human biological matter which is growing and developing.

I'm sure if a woman goes to the doctor and they run an MRI on her, then discover a lung tumor, I'm sure the first thing the doctor would say is, "congradulations! You are now a mother!"

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: "mother" is defined as:.... Ah, emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperboel. Once again, pro-lifers demonstrate that their arguments rest squarely on the word-trickery of sophistry and nothing else. How lame.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: obviously you dont see the catch 22 he has the pro abortion argument in. If the woman is pregnant that means she is carrying offspring. More sophistry. She carries an emrbyo or fetus.

If you really want to look at the root-word, an "offspring" would have to have "sprung off" and thus would not really be an offspring until after birth.

But such is thae lame and pathetic de[pendence of pro-life arguments on sophistry and deception. LAME.

Quote: Many people here insist an embryo is not a human individual. So the question is, how can a pregnant women be pregnant if the embryo isnt a human individual? How can abortion be abortion if no life is being ended? And how can you have grape juice if there are no carrots in the garden? Any other irrelevant conjectures you would like to try for? How lame and inanely stupid of you.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism. Rather, it clearly demonstrates the desperate sophistry of emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperbole that is so essential to the pro-life argument that you are unable to make ANY point without it.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: No its not assinine at all because it exposes the arbitrary method in which pro abortionists assign value to the human organism.

Indeed.. Take for example the tired argument about the hydatidiform mole.

The insistence is on the premise that an embryo and a hydatidiform mole are both morally the same thing. Neither are human beings, or individuals or deserve human rights etc. Both are not human children. Rather, both are conceived through human conception and carries human DNA. It merely is an example of how erroneous the pro-life arguments in these areas are. pro-lifers are not providing distinctions in their argument that would differentiate the two. When pro-lifers make silly and stupid claims about DNA or conception, their arguments apply just as much to the hydatidiform mole as to the zygote/embryo/fetus. It is not my fault that pro-lifers are so incredibly ignorant that their arguments end up that lame.

Quote: Yet a woman who has concieved an embryo is still referred to as a "mother" in this case. That is confusing. Because according to the premise neither of them are carrying an actual human being at all. So a woman while carrying a bunch of worthless tissues known as an embryo can be called a mother without carrying a child, then also a woman who is carrying a bunch of unwanted tissues known as a hydatidiform mole could also be called a mother. Both are carrying the ethical equivelent of non human biological matter which is growing and developing. One reason why I don't see anybody as a "mother" until after birth. That you have chosen to define "mother" otherwise is your problem per the onconsistencies inherent in the issue of the hydatidiform mole. That is YOUR problem, not the problem for pro-choice.

Quote: I'm sure if a woman goes to the doctor and they run an MRI on her, then discover a lung tumor, I'm sure the first thing the doctor would say is, "congradulations! You are now a mother!" Really? You are sure? Are you really that dumb?

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

UrielsFyre wrote: The phrase "rights of the mother" is common vernacular and does not change the crux of an argument, and you know it.

What argument? That a fetus is not a "baby" or "child" or "human being" so it's ethical to kill it?

Or that since it is not "alive" then it cannot be killed?

When I make these sarcastic threads, my goal is not the formulation of a pro life argument. Nor am I actually trying to argue in favor of infanticide. All I'm doing is replicating and copying the same exact symantical arguments others use to expose them for how ridiculous they sound.

So you're saying my symantical games do not change the crux of the pro choice arguments. What I guess you didn't realize was that the very pro choice arguments which I'm referring to by doing this are THEMSELVES silly symantical games.

So you see my point that such word games don't change the crux of an argument when you saw me playing them. Thus you should clearly be able to see that pro choice arguments such as I listed in the start of this thread certainly don't change the crux of a pro life argument any better. We are doing the same thing. I was just trying to demonstrate that.

Quote: the phrase "rights of the mother" is common vernacular...

So is "unborn child"

Quote: Playing word games by quoting a dictionary is not going to help your argument in the slightest.

Not my argument. I'm just trying to expose and shoot down the silly arguments of others. Pro choice word games won't help their argument in the slightest either.

Quote: Words are symbolic representations of the meanings associated to them by society. Society dictates that the term "mother" can be used for a pregnant woman, regardless of whether or not she ends up giving birth.

Exactly!!! For example "child" used to refer to a fetus. This was also determined by society. That is why that specific definition referring to a fetus is in the dictionary. The only way a word winds up in the dictionary is with a common connotation and widespread usage.

Quote: If you want to argue against abortion, you may want to find an actual argument instead of playing these games.

I'm not trying to form a pro life argument. Honestly I'm undecided on the whole topic anyway. It's just that when I read such silly things as, "an embryo is not a "child" and therefore it cannot die" I really just HAVE to say something about it.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

steen wrote: ...Any other irrelevant conjectures you would like to try for? How lame and inanely stupid of you.

Excellent! Sounds pretty silly playing word games to try to prove a point doesn't it? Now you know how you sound in virtually all of your posts.

Mission accomplished.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

steen wrote: straw man wrote: I'm sure if a woman goes to the doctor and they run an MRI on her, then discover a lung tumor, I'm sure the first thing the doctor would say is, "congradulations! You are now a mother!" Really? You are sure? Are you really that dumb?

Yes! I'm a dimwit for posting that. Anyway, you claimed that someone who is not carrying a human being, or a child of their own, or even "offspring" as you just admitted, and about the only thing that they are carrying is mindless tissue (the same as lung tumor) you claimed that they are a "mother". Sounds like I'm not the only one missing a few brain cells.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: The phrase "rights of the mother" is common vernacular and does not change the crux of an argument, and you know it. What argument? That a fetus is not a "baby" or "child" or "human being" so it's ethical to kill it?

Or that since it is not "alive" then it cannot be killed? Actually, the only ones who I have seen make arguments in that line of reasoning are pro-lifers misrepresenting others. So where are you trying to go with this?

Quote: When I make these sarcastic threads, my goal is not the formulation of a pro life argument. Nor am I actually trying to argue in favor of infanticide. All I'm doing is replicating and copying the same exact symantical arguments others use to expose them for how ridiculous they sound. But then, that ends up NOT being what you are doing. If you made the equivalent argument, then it might be good satire. But since you misconstrue and distort the original argument, then your "satire" ends up being off target and merely come across as stupid.

Quote: So you're saying my symantical games do not change the crux of the pro choice arguments. What I guess you didn't realize was that the very pro choice arguments which I'm referring to by doing this are THEMSELVES silly symantical games. Rather, this is your misrepresentation. Your accusation is false.

Quote: So you see my point that such word games don't change the crux of an argument when you saw me playing them. Well, that is all the time, except in your ill-construed "satire."

Quote: Thus you should clearly be able to see that pro choice arguments such as I listed in the start of this thread certainly don't change the crux of a pro life argument any better. Indeed, as the pro-life argument continues to be based on lies, revisionist linguistics, sophistry and deception. You are right that regardless of the evidence posted by pro-choice, that pro-life deceptive tactic doesn't change.

Quote: Quote: Playing word games by quoting a dictionary is not going to help your argument in the slightest. Not my argument. Another falsehood. ALL your arguments are based on sophist, semantic games and revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Quote: Pro choice word games won't help their argument in the slightest either. Ah, yes. trust a pro-lifer to claim factual, accurate and specific terminology to be "word-games" because the facts don't fit your revisionist linguistics. If ever we need an example of pro-life hypocrisy, here it is.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: steen wrote: straw man wrote: I'm sure if a woman goes to the doctor and they run an MRI on her, then discover a lung tumor, I'm sure the first thing the doctor would say is, "congradulations! You are now a mother!" Really? You are sure? Are you really that dumb? Yes! I'm a dimwit for posting that. OK.

Quote: Anyway, you claimed that someone who is not carrying a human being, or a child of their own, or even "offspring" as you just admitted, and about the only thing that they are carrying is mindless tissue (the same as lung tumor) you claimed that they are a "mother". Nope.

Quote: Sounds like I'm not the only one missing a few brain cells. Rather, you are lacking in reading skills. Not my fault.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

The Grandmaster wrote: Impressive as well the constant insistence of claiming the posit of the pro-choice arguments are arbitrary, when the anti-choicers always fail to admit the assignment of the term "a life" to conception is as arbitrary of a decision as assigning it to any other point in the continuum as well.

I'll admit no matter where you assign it it's arbitrary. That's kind of the whole point. I mean there are crusaders against the morning after pill and that's nuts. Heck there's religious nut jobs demanding we have all 40 000 or so frozen embryos thawed and implanted at once, and it seems to get a little out of hand at this point.