You're the only one here twisting the meaning of the words. Really, do you honestly think you're fooling somebody with that act?
Not my problem if you choose to read into/project more than what's written. Now, if the OP wants to clarify, I'm all ears, but the principle of charity would require not just assuming a reductio ad Hitlerium.
Oh, I'm sure you *think* you did. Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being." You interjected the completely arbitrary notion of personhood all on your own.
Why do you think the scientific definition of human life matters? (What is it?)
Why wouldn't I? What kind of moderator on a purportedly "science forum" questions why someone would cite/rely on science?
human - a member of the species Homo sapiens
life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter
Probably you're not aware of the philosophical arguments about personhood. In fact, we'd probably find that your assumptions about that issue provide one of the reasons why you're against abortion, if we were to dig down through your bullshit.
Oh, I'm aware of them. They're just an arbitrary dodge. And of course, it's on that note that you immediately project your own "bullshit."
Says the guy who parroted off two random anecdotal articles about women grieving their miscarriages, just above. You're good for a laugh now and then!
Wow, you managed to miss that
both those articles were citing research. Try to read more next time.
Yep, ideological proclamation in lieu of anything resembling reason, argument, or support.
Where is a proposed anti-abortion law that doesn't have an exception for threat to the life of the mother?
Texas recently passed a well-publicised one with no exceptions for rape or incest. Did you miss that? (And do you approve of that law?)
Again, please learn how to read. I said "threat to the life of the mother," not "rape or incest." We all know that's a disingenuous argument anyway, because you'd never agree to ban all abortions aside from immediate threat to the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
Try replying to what you quote, instead of parroting talking points.
Why are you deflecting? Couldn't defend your claim in light of my refute?
You seem so flustered by this topic that you're not making a lot of sense. Try to gather your thoughts. Stop the knee jerk.
Why on earth would someone who skirts responsibility for their own actions and choices be trusted to give a good faith account of said irresponsibility?
Wow,
that went over your head? Jeez, that reading comprehension really isn't what it once was, huh?
I think your projecting your own flustering. That thing you're feeling is called cognitive dissonance.
I think you'll find that women's bodies are their own. #FollowTheScience
And not yours, I might add.
A human life with it's own unique DNA from that of the woman is not the woman's body.
All those who say "personally, I wouldn't have an abortion, but..."
Do you think those people are trying to absolve themselves of guilt? What a strange bubble you must inhabit.
No, why would that be someone trying to absolve themselves of guilt? The strange assumptions are all yours, mate.
That didn't work for you the first time, or the second time. Probably time to give up that particular pretence, I would suggest.
Again, no accounting for your lack of good faith charity in a discussion.
Sure. But why does it matter what they call it? Most people aren't medical experts, and when somebody uses the term "baby" to refer to a foetus they are carrying, people understand quickly what they are talking about.
So medical experts tell pregnant women intending to give birth that it's a fetus, not a baby?
fetus - an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception
How about the Mayo Clinic:
Or are those just not the "right kind" of medical experts?
Do you imagine that naming a thing determines what the thing is? Where did you get that idea from?
Never said anything about naming anything. People often use "my baby" or "my child" in lieu of having/using a specific name.
So where did you read me mention anything at all about "naming"? Just imagining shit, huh?
Nice try, but another fail. You don't get to sneak in "question" in place of "regret".
Strange, though. You apparently read up on "shout your abortion" and yet for some reason you didn't take anything away from that. What went wrong? Bad case of confirmation bias? You only see whatever it is that suits your purposes at that moment?
So you run around second guessing yourself when you're completely confident in and resigned to the choices you've made?
Making more vague, unsupported, and non sequitur proclamations would seem to indicate that you really feel the need for a red herring here. Sad attempt to obscure the projection.
Fun fact, but what is the relevance to the topic of discussion?
Oh, I see how you'd be confused with someone supporting their argument, as alien as the concept seems to you. Like Tiassa, you suffer from omitting the relevant parts of things you quote and then playing dumb. You are playing, right?
Are they? I suppose you have studies for that, too?
Why? You already dismissed my two articles citing research as "anecdotal." Seems you can't be bothered to even read anything cited for you. That's called ideological confirmation bias.
Or maybe they are correct.
Do you have a study that says that people only ever say that to quell their cognitive dissonance?
Could it be that some choices that people make really are for the best? What do you think? New idea for you?
Again, you've already proven your refusal to read, much less comprehend, anything I cite. That's how quasi-religious ideologues maintain their beliefs in the face of a contradicting reality.
Since you don't seem to get out enough to have a basic understanding of how people work, maybe you'll glance at this good leftist source:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
Perhaps you don't even understand how central self-justification is in cognitive dissonance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-justification
Hint, if you have to proclaim something was "for the best," it's only because some part of you doubts it, i.e. holding two contradictory ideas.
Why bother? The guy is obviously trolling. Can't you see that? Do you expect me to feed him?
Did you read the opening post?
Who are you kidding? You've already fed him. Whining about it now is...well, probably why you didn't understand anything I said about the irresponsible.