Bob Accuses Caller of Lying

[Jefferson]

There.
That wasen't so hard was it?

Now how about answering my question. Do you think Planned Parenthood would call the successful delivery of an ectopic pregnancy resulting in a future happy, healthy, pro-life adult an "abortion?"

 

[Toast]

No the baby would not survive regardless, the baby grows in the tube and it is not so called by any means.

Yea, then it does seem like common sense to me that if neither the baby nor the mother are going to live through this, at least save the mother by taking the baby out, and try to save the baby too, if possible, but you dont have to physically kill the baby. Yea, I agree with Bob on this one. I think Solomon in his wise days would have come to a similiar conclusion.

 

[fool]

Now how about answering my question. Do you think Planned Parenthood would call the successful delivery of an ectopic pregnancy resulting in a future happy, healthy, pro-life adult an "abortion?"

I don't think anybody would call that an abortion, that would be a delivery.

Who cares what that pack of butchers would call it anyway?

See the problem is that they try to justify abortion by pointing out that sometimes you need one to save the mother.
And then Bob tries to trump that by saying "that's not an abortion" and winds up double talking to cover the flaw.
Why not just stick to the truth?
The truth is that sometimes you need an abortion the save the mothers life, and that it is an abortion now but we would save the fetus if we could.
AND these types of abortions are surgical procedures that involve cutting the fetus out of the filopian tube and this is NOT the type of thing that goes on in the storefront abortion mills.
See?
Now they're the ones that are double talking, pointing to ectopics and saying "there", when they couldn't handle one in the first place.
Plus, abortion for medical reasons has never been outlawed and nobody is pushing for laws to make it so.
There, I trumped there argument with no double talk.
Try it.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

And then Bob tries to trump that by saying "that's not an abortion" and winds up double talking to cover the flaw.
Why not just stick to the truth?

There are connotative and denotative definitions of words. When people speak of "abortion"we are typically speaking of a baby being purposefully killed while in the womb. Taking the baby out and actively trying to save both the baby and the mother - even if we haven't been successfull to date at saving the baby - is not what most people would call an abortion.

I think you are the one doing the double talk and playing a semantical game. Even if we changed the words we know what Bob is talking about. However your entire arguments seems based on how one can define "abortion", not based on a clear contextual argument.

(Incidentally - that we haven't to date been able to save the baby could have a lot to do with the fact that it is extremely rare for one to even try. We have no way of knowing that these end results would not change were we to attempt it with more frequency.

My son was born with half a heart. Years ago they just let these babies die. As they began trying to save them, eventually a procedure was found to save them. I pushed this procedure for my son, knowing that even if they failed they might learn something to help the next child down the line. I thank God that the procedure has thus far worked in my son's case.)

 

[fool]

There are connotative and denotative definitions of words.

Two definitions?
Double definitions?
That would be handy when your trying to double talk.

When people speak of "abortion"we are typically speaking of a baby being purposefully killed while in the womb. Taking the baby out and actively trying to save both the baby and the mother - even if we haven't been successfull to date at saving the baby - is not what most people would call an abortion.

But it would be.
And Planned Parenthood would try to score points by making people think that these are the types of pregnancies they deal with.
They don't.
These are surgical procedures carried out at hospitals.

I think you are the one doing the double talk and playing a semantical game. Even if we changed the words we know what Bob is talking about. However your entire arguments seems based on how one can define "abortion", not based on a clear contextual argument.

I'm the only one shooting straight here.
They double talk by insiuating that all abortions are save the mother abortions, and you're double talking by trying to say there are no save the mother abortions.
Then you appeall to things you don't have to make it seem like it's not an abortion.

(Incidentally - that we haven't to date been able to save the baby could have a lot to do with the fact that it is extremely rare for one to even try. We have no way of knowing that these end results would not change were we to attempt it with more frequency.

My son was born with half a heart. Years ago they just let these babies die. As they began trying to save them, eventually a procedure was found to save them. I pushed this procedure for my son, knowing that even if they failed they might learn something to help the next child down the line. I thank God that the procedure has thus far worked in my son's case.)

There you go again!
Appealling to things you don't have!
I wonder what that is in Latin :think:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Two definitions?
Double definitions?
That would be handy when your trying to double talk.

Connotative and denotative usages are not some mystery. It's something you should have learned about in high school. I take it you suffer from the same horrific public education I do. Still you should know what the difference is and use them properly.

But it would be.

So what? If you fail to call it that, does it change anything of substance about it?

They would not be "abortions" as most people use the term. You are making a semantical argument. Would a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet? Of course you could call a "rose" a "towtruck" and it would smell the same.

Whatever you want to call it. One method is murder and one is not. By trying to muddy the waters and say it's still an abortion is to purposefully try obfuscate with semantics. You are arguing about what something is called ... .We are arguing principles. We can call it something else if you like, it doesn't matter.

Let's move beyond the hall monitor attitude and deal with actual substance.

Words change meanings all the time. Look at the word conception. It doesn't mean the same thing it used to. Often when people say conception anymore, they mean fertilization ... but then the hall monitor fool pops his geeky head in and says, "Oh no, no, no .... you can't use that term like that anymore or I'll accuse you of double speak".


(If one wanted to be a true hall monitor they could point out that you've confused double-speak with equivocation.)

There you go again!
Appealling to things you don't have!
I wonder what that is in Latin :think:

Appealing to things I don't have?? Are you saying I lied about something?

Whatever you are feebly implying, I was completely honest. Everything about my story was completely true.

And I made a point that is relevant to the discussion that you ran away from - namely that trying to save someone and failing is not the same as causing them to die. And moreso, that experience gain by the attempt often leads to better results in subsequent tries.

Fool-Q1 Do you admit that trying to save a life and failing is not the same as purposefully murdering someone?

Fool-Q2 If you answered "Yes" to the above --- then what is your argument besides semantics?

Fool-Q3 What is your motive in trying to find any excuse to argue for abortion? Is it your desire to try to argue for some gray in a clearly black and white issue? Or are you just making some irrelevant point?

Fool-Q4 If you answered you were looking for gray to Q3, is the gray you are looking for semantically gray, or gray in substance?