Are circumstances not facts?
And that should be the definition yāall are both using - I donāt think it is hence the last 3 days lol
My point really is the definition doesnāt HAVE to be what was defined by an outside party who is not partaking in this conversation but whatever you and DD, Pat, whoever can agree upon, since yāall are the ones discussing the topic.
I didnāt think you did, but youāre the one who referenced it.
according to DD, not in all casesā¦which is why itās a shit definition for the purposes of the topic yāall are discussing.
States canāt do anything. People can. People can represent what we think they can and do (this is a point I think youāve brought up before). There is not State that exists outside of our own minds (maybe the state of Nature, but even then I think that can be argued successfully or otherwise).
which is why Iām befuddled why yāall donāt just discuss and agree upon a definition yāall are comfortable with.
Homicide requires 2 human beings. you now say that doesnāt matter. It doesnāt matter if itās a human being?
I meant from a legal standpoint. People can believe whatever they want.
FTR Iāve agreed to us his definition, but he wonāt provide one.
Because they want to argue about the morality of abortion and I donāt want to get into that because it has been done to death (no pun intended). I have my opinion and I donāt try to convince people I am right and they are wrong. I would gladly state my opinion provided no one would then start arguing with me about it but that wonāt happen.
My real issue is that people donāt understand the limits of science in this matter and start making false claims about science.
I know - just something to think about (Iām sure you have)
I donāt understand the question.
Thatās the thing. I can recognize that my personal definition of human being is based on scientific fact, morality and ethics. When someone says it is a scientific fact they are wrong about two things:
One: it isnāt a scientific fact.
Two: that they havenāt used morals and ethics in their personal definition.
I have provided the legal and dictionary definitions via go Google it.
I will not give my personal definition.
We cannot base law on personal and controversial beliefs not backed by science and fact.
Actually, we can and do.
So why donāt you provide in no uncertain terms what YOU define a human being as (and, from the conversation, when that definition in the development applies to the fetus/zygote and why)?
If you have a definition, state it instead of focusing on why the other definition is wrong. It seems the focus is too much on what isnāt the definition rather than what is.
Edit: unless of course you enjoy arguing semantics in circles. in which case, enjoy 
This thread was about a posterās personal reasons for aborting a ādefectiveā fetus. I was interested in discussing the morality of abortion for that specific reason. I didnāt want to talk about abortion in general. If you are against abortion period then you really have nothing to add to the subject as the specific reasons donāt matter to you. All that will happen is you will end up playing the murder card and try making those who disagree look like immoral monstersā¦and Nazis.
When you also try saying something about scientific fact then you are adding something: falsehood. This makes you even more toxic to the discussion.
My personal definition is irrelevant in this case. I can be 100% against abortion but if faced with having a child with some mental or physical disabilities I might change my mind. People are funny like that. How many men are anti-abortion but if somehow they got pregnant would have a change of heart?
Then please directly answer my prior question.
Which of us is being logical, and why?
Although I rarely have a chance of being swayed by people like you, this is certainly an opportunity. Please answer the above question and blow my mind at the objectivity of rational/logic.
Nope. You seem really fond of pretending like you know how someone thinks.
If you codify something it becomes concrete and exact. Besides, you are the one asserting the authority and finality of the law in the argument.
Serious question, which person do you think less biased on the subject?
This is a refusal to acknowledge another perspective. In the abortion argument it is at least reasonable to morally see abortion as murder. That reasonable view necessitates abortion practitioners as murderers and allows the reasonable eugenics parallel between aborting all babies with bad genes and Nazi eugenics.
The other side of the argument is access to a medical procedure. Hence, there are far different levels of comparisons between opposing views. That doesnāt come from Pat being meaner, it comes from the nature of his reasonable view.
You arenāt interested in reasonable conversations on these topics as evidenced by the above threads. Weāve had separate times where the whole forum has shown you this. Canāt believe youād really attack pf in this manner given your known posting history on this topic.
PF do what you want but you might glance at these before deciding to go down a road with him everyones already treaded before and see if you are really interested in wasting that amount of time.
No, I am asserting what the law is and why it is the law. If it were final then no one would bother trying to change the law.